• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

June 30, 2006

Protest the New York Times

If you will be in New York on July 10 and are tired of the New York Times plastering national security secrets above the fold on page one for all the world to see, check this out:

Protest the New York Times Revealing of U.S. Secrets, Monday, July 10, 5 p.m. We have a sound permit, and we will be across the street from the New York Times. They are at 229 West 43rd Street.

The groups on board so far are Free Republic, Caucus for America, the Congress for Racial Equality, and Protest Warrior, NYC Chapter. We have reached out to several other groups as well, and are waiting to hear back from them.

Some high-visibility media people are interested in speaking at the protest. More information will be coming on this as we gather groups and speakers.

So hold the date! If you have been as sick about the Times's unconscionable blabbing of our classified information as the rest of those who care about the nation, now is your chance to do something to make your outrage heard.

I'm not sure if I can make it, but I certainly will try.

Michelle Malkin has some great poster ideas for demonstrators to bring along.

It's interesting that this demonstration, obviously organized by conservatives, starts at 5 p.m., unlike noon for so many leftie demonstrations. Guess what? Most of us have jobs.

Be there if you can!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

Why Is It Always Bush's Fault?

I am waiting for the moonbats to start saying that the terrible flooding going on in upstate New York and parts of Pennsylvania and Maryland is the fault of President Bush. After all, Katrina was his fault...why not the torrential rains that have caused states of emergency this past week?

This rant was triggered by a conversation I just had with a co-worker. He said he was recently on an Amtrak train that was delayed for 10 hours due to a track problem (I looked online for a story about it but was unable to find it). When I commented that perhaps if Amtrak were to be privatized and taken out of the hands of the government it might become a better-run system, he said, "I heard Bush owns Amtrak."

Uh huh.

I am tired of people hating a president so much that they will blame him for anything, including weather-related tragedy and government entities that existed well before his presidency. Dislike his policies, dislike the man. But don't blame him for things that are not under his direct control. This kind of lunacy is counterproductive.

Amtrak ought to be privatized. So should state-run train lines like Metro North, New Jersey Transit and the Long Island Railroad. Commuters like me pay big bucks and are often treated to dirty cars with no lights, no air conditioning or heat (depending on the season), and disgusting lavatories. Private industry depends on consumers being happy with the product and aim to please. State-run industry knows it will get its money no matter what, and so doesn't have to go that extra mile. (Example: when was the last time someone at the DMV or post office made your visit a pleasant experience?)

Thanks...end rant.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

June 28, 2006

Cindy's Last Supper

Like the religious reference? It comes right from her letter on Michael Moore's website:

Dear Friends,
GSFP and Code Pink are sponsoring a hunger strike for peace which begins July 04, called Troops Home Fast Some of us like Dick Gregory and Diane Wilson will be fasting until the troops come home from Iraq, and some, like me, will be fasting for a specified time. My fast will begin on 7/04 and end on the last day of Camp Casey: 09/02.

We are announcing the fast from Washington, DC on 07/04 and having our last supper on 07/03 in Lafayette Park.

If you can join us in DC on the 3rd and 4th, or fast in solidarity with us on that day, or any other time, please let me know.

Also, Jodie Evans is throwing me a birthday party at Bus Boys and poets on the 3rd of July from 9pm to 11pm....our last food will be before midnight that day....please come to my party, if you can!!!

Love and peace soon,

You do notice at the top of the letter that Cindy will only be fasting for a "specified time." She must keep her strength! After all, how long would the "peace movement" last without Mother Sheehan at the helm?

Still, it'll be worth it if she can get that muffin top under control. Then, the next time she's manhandled by the cops, the rest of us won't have to suffer as much when we see the photos.

A couple of her minions will supposedly be fasting until the troops come home. What a great reason to stay in Iraq for a while longer!

Hat tip: Malkin

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

If The NYT Had Been Around in 1776...

...this country as we know it may not exist! Check out Sean Delonas' take on this in the NY Post today:


Can we question their patriotism NOW?

Reverse_vampyr has posted letters he sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush over this shameful affair. What are you waiting for? Start writing already!

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
President George W. Bush: comments@whitehouse.gov
The New York Times: letters@nytimes.com

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 27, 2006

Muslim Views of 9/11 Attacks

This graph shows gives us a better idea of what Muslims think of the 9/11 attacks and who was responsible for them:


Source: Pew Research Center's Pew Global Attitudes Project

No big surprises there...

Interestingly enough, however, the poll has a majority of Muslims polled saying Westerners are respectful of women. Click on the link above for these and other findings.

Hat tip: GD

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | 9/11

It Shouldn't Have to Be Said...

Wonder why the news coming out of Iraq is usually bad? Chalk it up to MSM spin. There's plenty of good news to balance the bad, but you won't hear it from the usual sources.

Jeff Emanuel of Town Hall lists many of the good things our soldiers have done since we first toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003. You can see them here.

No, it shouldn't have to be said that our soldiers do more good than bad. Unfortunately, the ideologically blind MSM hasn't figured that out yet, and won't for the forseeable future.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

Welcome to the War Zone

Many of you may have heard of this already, but I first heard of it yesterday when reading Page Six of the New York Post. (Rhetorical question: why is it called Page Six when it's not actually on page six?)

Anyway, Pat Dollard, a former Hollywood flack, has created a documentary about Iraq called Young Americans that he is trying to sell to HBO. In my opinion, since it seems to put American soldiers in a positive light, HBO will not be too excited about acquiring it.

You can get a preview on Dollard's website, PatDollard.com.

I loved Dollard's comments about George Clooney (although he never actually mentions Clooney's name):

While Dollard was careful not to name names, he told Page Six that he went into "a black rage" while in Iraq after reading a certain movie star's pompous pronouncements online.

"I read something on the Internet in which someone was patting himself on the back for having the courage to oppose the war," Dollard recalled. In an obvious reference to Clooney, who owns a villa in Italy, he said, "They actually equate bravery with speaking out against the president because [losing fans] might cost them one less servant at their Italian villa . . . It put me into a black rage and made me sick to my stomach."

This was good too:

Dollard says his enthusiasm for the war has left some of his former showbiz colleagues cold. "Being a Republican in Hollywood today is not much different than being a communist in Hollywood in the 1950s," he said. "I'm not trying to overstate the case, but the reality is there is a blacklist in Hollywood. It's very McCarthy-like. It just shows the hypocrisy of the left."

So much for the "chill wind" that Tim Robbins famously referenced in front of the National Press Club. Think Dollard will get invited to speak at their annual luncheon like Robbins was?

Don't bet your milk money.

Check out the trailer of Young Americans. And, if it doesn't get bought up by a major media concern and goes straight to DVD, consider buying it. Our soldiers deserve for their stories to be told by someone who doesn't despise them and their mission.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

June 26, 2006

Monday Moonbattery

Is there a full moon coming up soon? The news from the left seems to be getting loonier all the time:

Valley of the Wolves, the anti-American film that Turkish filmgoers ate up earlier this year, makes its stateside debut at a Muslim film festival in that moonbat haven, San Francisco. How fitting that it should first be seen in America in a city that, if it could, would probably secede.

Jack Murtha is taking advantage of his newfound popularity, and now says that the U.S. is the biggest threat to world peace. He continues to prattle on about the (as yet unproven) coverup in Haditha, the event that got him national recognition, and was quoted as saying, "[The United States] became the target when Abu Ghraib came along." Of course, the fact that the unpatriotic MSM and unpatriotic Dems (yes, I said it!) pushed that envelope as far as it could had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib becoming a firestorm...

Finally, Michelle Malkin has more info on why the NYT decided to out the (up until now) successful bank transaction tracking program that has helped our government agencies find terrorists. In a nutshell? The NYT has appointed itself as a public watchdog in "knowing what the government is up to." Hey, if the government is doing something right as far as keeping terrorist attacks from our shores, I really don't want to know how they're doing it.

But the people at the NYT are like the sycophantic humans on the old V miniseries from the '80s: when aliens come to Earth "in peace." Despite proof that these aliens are really on Earth to steal its water supply, these suck-ups would rather continue to fawn at the aliens' feet in order to save their own skins. Hmmm...

My question is: if the NYT is watching the government, who is watching the NYT?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:54 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

June 23, 2006

NY Times Blows Whistle On Yet Another Terrorist Fighting Program

Honestly...what the hell is wrong with the New York Times (or as radio host Mark Levin calls it, the New York Slimes)?

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to
government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

A vital tool, eh? It's no longer a vital tool; the government might as well trash it, thanks to the Times.

According to Michelle Malkin, the LA Times has now jumped on the bandwagon.

The contempt the NYT and its cronies have for our sitting president in a time of war is simply staggering. A legal program, devised to track the activities of Islamofascist terrorists who are doing their very best to blow us to kingdom come, has been outed by reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. Why? It sure isn't in the interest of national security.

I am sure these two fine men have been given a light reporting schedule after this so they will have the time to write their Pulitzer acceptance speeches.

Freedom of speech my fanny! Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. The NYT has once again shown its true colors, and they sure aren't red, white and blue. Why this paper has not yet been investigated for treason is beyond me.

Another good question to ask: who is giving out this information in the first place? Lichtblau and Risen didn't pull it out of their arses. They have sources, and those sources need to be investigated...then, if laws have been broken, tried for their crimes.

The "leaking" of Valerie Plame's name pales in comparison with the leaking of secret government programs designed to root out terrorists and keep the US from being attacked again.

Don't expect the NYT to apologize. Those of us who are outraged do not register on the Times' radar anyway. They write these articles for those who feel the same way about President Bush and his administration as they do.

And unless they are stopped via legal means, expect to read more of these types of stories in the days to come.

If you can spare the time, drop the Times a line:

E-mail: letters@nytimes.com
Fax: (212)556-3622.

Snail mail:

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

UPDATE (1:35): Here's my letter:

To the Editor,

I am curious as to why your paper deems it necessary to publish an article that outlines what was supposed to be a secret program, designed to track terrorists through bank transactions.

Why do you consider it to be in the public interest to know about it? Isn't it more in the public interest to keep such a program secret so that it can continue to be used effectively? Isn't the safety of the American public (which, by the way, includes you whether you like it or not) something you are concerned about? The government may as well start toss this program in the proverbial trash bin and start anew, thanks to your investigative journalism. I hope your quest for another Pulitzer to add to your collection is worth the cost.

While you and other prominent media outlets continue to deny that you harbor any kind of editorial bias in your reporting, articles like this tell the true story. In a time when Islamic terrorists are doing their best to find our weaknesses and use them against us, you are giving them exactly what they need. Your disdain for President George Bush and his administration can be read clearly between the lines in this latest in a long line of articles designed to trip them up at every turn.

Freedom of the press is a sacred tenet in this country, but it comes with a price tag: the ability to know when to use it wisely. If this article was a test of that responsibility, your paper has met with abject failure.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

Hillary: Division is a Strength

Via Breitbart:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded Friday the Democrats are "openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues," but said that was better than the GOP's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil."

The senator and potential presidential candidate said the Democrats' debate a day earlier on the Senate floor about war policy in Iraq was actually a sign of party strength, not weakness.

"Although unity is important it is not the most important value. It is, I think, a tribute to the Democratic Party at this moment in time that we are honestly and openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues facing our country," Clinton, D-N.Y., told the New Democrat Network.

On the issue of Iraq, Clinton has been buffeted by competing forces within her party. Many elements of the party's liberal base want an immediate or timed withdrawal of troops from Iraq, while others feel such a position may weaken the party's electoral chances this year and in 2008.

Clinton is up for re-election this year, and repeatedly insists she is not thinking ahead to 2008 presidential politics.

Many in the audience of a more liberal group booed Clinton last week when she said she opposed setting a fixed date for troop withdrawal.

On Thursday, four of the six Democrats flirting with a possible White House bid in 2008, including Clinton, chose a middle-of-the-road approach, voting for a nonbinding resolution that would have urged the administration to start withdrawing troops by year's end.

But they opposed a rival proposal that would have carried the force of law and set a firm date by which all combat forces must be out of Iraq.

In her speech Friday, Clinton accused the Republican-controlled Congress of being "supine" to the goals of the Bush administration, foregoing their oversight role.

After the speech, she told reporters that the Democrats' public disagreements were a better alternative than the GOP's unified front.

"I think we come out more united," said Clinton. "We're not blindly united like the other side is, where they are like the three monkeys, See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak no Evil. They're not going to say anything negative about the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense or anybody else."

Wow, any more whitewash and Tom Sawyer will have to step down as king of the shysters!

As one who is a proponent of multiculturalism, it is not surprising that Clinton thinks of divisiveness as a unifer. During wartime, inner squabbling is not the way to get the job done. Nor is pandering to the extremists of one's party. Nor is smearing a sitting president for political gain.

Republicans know this. Democrats do not. This is why the Democrats cannot regain the power they so desperately crave.

Move over, Tom!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Democrats

Friday Joke

I'm super busy today, so until I have time for something more substantial, here's a joke to brighten your Friday:

A West Texas cowboy was herding his cows in a remote pasture when
suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The
driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy," If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf ? " The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, why not ?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects
it to his AT&T cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored.

He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel
spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the cowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the back of his car.

Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf ?" The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not ?"

"You're a Congressman for the U.S. government," says the cowboy.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even
though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don't know a thing about cows. Now give me back my dog!"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Humor

June 22, 2006

Yawn...Another "Bush Sucks" Protest

I posted on Cindy Sheehan's presence in Austria yesterday, but wanted to say a bit more about it. Not so much about the so-called "peace mom," but about the silly student protesters who showed up at the Cindy Sheehan road show.

About 350 students gathered at the Westbahnhof train station and set off on foot to a church square not far from the former imperial Hofburg Palace, where Bush was meeting with top European Union officials. No violence was reported.

Led by U.S. "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan who lost her son in Iraq and energized the anti-war movement last summer with her monthlong protest outside Bush's Texas ranch students waved black flags, blew whistles, banged on drums and shouted, "Hey, ho, Bush has got to go!"

Others carried banners that read, "World's No. 1 Terrorist," and signs that included slogans such as "Mass murderer," "Islam is not the enemy" and "Against war and capitalism."

"Bush should at least see that this is real, that people will protest," said demonstrator Darko Martinovikc, 20. "But in the end I don't think it will help much."

Yes, Bush the mass murderer. It's funny that there weren't signs with Saddam Hussein's face on them that said "mass murderer." Or how about al Zarqawi, who must be toasting comfortably right now? Didn't he murder innocent people in the name of Islam? I'd say that makes Islam the enemy.

But I really chuckle over the comment by Darko Martinovikc. Did he think President Bush had not seen real protests before? Did he think that perhaps this time, Bush would see him and his pals and say, "You know? They're right! I'm going to resign right now." Perhaps this sort of tactic would have worked with John Kerry if he had been elected and did something unpopular with Europeans (although I doubt that would have happened in the first place...we know how much he values European opinion).

As it happens, George Bush is the president of the United States, not Austria or any other wussy European nation. A bunch of wet-behind-the-ears Austrian students aren't going to make him change his mind about what is right for the course of America or what he thinks is true aid to a country that needed it.

They should stick to important things in Austria, like taking Arnold Schwarzenegger's name off of stadiums because he also went against popular Austrian opinion.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:57 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

June 21, 2006

Send ABC Your Global Warming Horror Story!

Ready for fame and fortune? ABC News is looking for your global warming horror story!

We want to hear and see your stories. Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or hometown? The differences can be large or small — altered blooming schedules, unusual animals that have arrived in your community, higher water levels encroaching on your property.

Here's my horror story: witnessing the rise in visibility of Al Gore. Seeing him on a daily basis gives me nightmares!

Think ABC will interview me?

Fostering paranoia

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

WMDs Do Exist

Big news:

We hear that 500 chemical munition shells were found in Iraq back in 2003. I first heard about this in the car tonight, listening to Mark Levin on WABC.

Michelle Malkin has more details.

I'm not a conspiracy theory nut, but I do wonder why this news has been held back for so long. Someone sat on it. Who and why?

Glenn Reynolds says:

Stay tuned. WMD wasn't the big issue for me, but it certainly has been turned into a keystone of the war debate, which may turn out to have been a mistake for war opponents.

My thoughts exactly. Now that the cat is out of the bag, how many war opponents will be prepared to eat crow?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

No Outrage to Spare for Soldiers

We all remember the outrage surrounding detainees at Abu Ghraib being photographed in kinky positions.

We all remember the outrage surrounding the charge (now disproven) of Korans being flushed down the loo at Gitmo.

We all remember the outrage surrounding the kidnapping, brutal torture and death of two American soldiers just last week.

Scratch that last one please.

Kos called the signs of torture before death "quaint." (hat tip: reverse_vampyr)

To my knowledge, neither the ACLU, Amnesty International nor the UN have called for any investigation. (We all know how quickly they react to any allegations of torture of al Qaeda detainees.)

What about Hollywood? Surely Susan Sarandon or Martin Sheen must have something to say. Or even that pseudo-celeb Cindy Sheehan. What if her son had been brutally tortured before his death?

Michelle Malkin calls the silence from the left "deafening." It's more than deafening, it's threatening to shatter my eardrums.

Groups who prattle on about the well-being of al Qaeda and other terrorist detainees in US custody couldn't give a hoot about the torture of American soldiers. Cries about the Geneva Convention when it comes to captured terrorists are noticably missing when American soldiers are kidnapped, tortured and killed. Why?

It has nothing to do with consideration for the well-being of anyone, and everything to do with working against the US, and George W. Bush in particular.

Jeff Emanuel of Town Hall:

There is no question that these two murdered soldiers, and all others lost in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, are to be mourned. Both Kristian Menchaca and Tom Tucker left behind families, friends, and other loved ones. Given that fact, and the fact that, due to an overriding love of America and belief in its ideals, they volunteered to serve their country even though they fully understood that they might one day have to make this ultimate sacrifice, it is supremely important—even necessary—that, along with a loving family, they leave behind a grateful nation. America should recognize these men as examples of the myriad heroes which make up our all-volunteer military, and should realize that, without supporting the mission the troops are doing—and the cause for which they are volunteering to give their lives, should it come to that—it is not possible to support the troops themselves. The tide has turned in the battle to win the peace in postwar Iraq, and those who have stood on the sidelines for the past three years—or, worse, who have actively worked against the cause of freedom and democracy in that nation—are dangerously close to being remembered (if they are remembered at all) not for their support of human rights, but for their self-righteous fight against them—all in the name of their hatred of America, and of George W. Bush.

Menchaca and Tucker committed the sin of being volunteer soldiers in Iraq under the command of President Bush. Therefore, no sympathy is forthcoming. Their cases are not considered human rights cases, but well-deserved deaths. Because the left will do anything they can to demoralize our troops and the American public, these men will not be the subject of outrage from either our leftwing politicians or their mouthpieces.

There is no outrage to spare because it is being wasted on those whose cases do not deserve it.


Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

Angelina Jolie, Meet Cindy Sheehan

Is it not bad enough that we have to see Angelina Jolie's mug plastered all over the media as we goggle over her relationship with Brad Pitt and their new baby (named after a Civil War battle)? Do we now have to listen to her air her views on American foreign policy?

"When you're in Washington to get money for AIDS orphans, the answer is often, we're at war right now," said the goodwill ambassador for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) who has visited refugee camps around the world.

"Our priorities are quite strange," she said referring to the money Washington spends on war and not "dealing with situations that could end up in conflict if left unassisted, and then cost more."

"We're missing a lot of opportunities (to do) a lot of good that America used to do and has a history of doing ... You have to start to notice that there's something wrong with that," she added.

Using this logic, helping Iraqis shed a murderous dictator and create the first stable democracy in the Middle East outside of Israel, as well as hunt out al Qaeda operatives before they do more damage is not an opportunity to do good. Jolie is obviously pining for the days of Bill Clinton, where we didn't do a thing without the blessings of the UN and countries like France and Germany.

Stick to looking pretty in front of the cameras, Angelina, as well as trying to keep Brad on a short leash.

In other news, Cindy Sheehan has followed President Bush to Vienna, where she is whipping anti-George Bush protesters into a frenzy. I guess when you've worn out your welcome at home, the only choice is to go abroad for the attention you crave.

I suggest these two women get together. There have been so many similar successful duos: Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello, Captain and Tennille, Fred and Barney... Perhaps they can do together what they can't seem to accomplish alone, which is to dictate our foreign policy. Cindy could use Angelina to hook the suckers in. They'll never know what hit them.

Gary at Ex-Donkey Blog sounds off on Angelina as well.

The new dynamic duo, ready to mete out US foreign policy

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 20, 2006

Why Socialized Medicine Is a Bad Idea

For those of you who wish Hillary had been successful in implementing a national healthcare plan, read this story:

A 36 year-old Scots mother elected to have her breasts removed and a hysterectomy after being told she would have to wait at least two years for the results of genetic tests to discover if she had an increased risk of cancer.

Oonagh Wilson, who has been waiting now for almost four years to find out if her family faces a greater risk of breast cancer, yesterday spoke of her anger and frustration at the delays.

A backlog of women waiting for results has been blamed on lack of funding and trained staff, changes to the way services are delivered and delays in getting licences to carry out the tests, which have to be obtained from genetics watchdogs.

Politicians yesterday described the situation as "inhuman" and "shocking". Mrs Wilson said she has been left in limbo, not knowing whether her two children and other family members were carrying a cancer "timebomb."

But it was free, right? (shudder)

Hat tip: Marathon Pundit

Sorry, your tests won't be back for several years.
Have a cup of coffee while you wait!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Health/Science

Bye Bye, Dan!

All good things must come to an end:

NEW YORK -- CBS is expected to announce Tuesday that former "CBS Evening News" anchor Dan Rather will leave the company after 44 years at the network.

Rather's contract runs through November but he is expected to leave the network immediately to pursue other opportunities.

How about retirement? Isn't he 74?

Wore out his welcome...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

Nearly 50%: No Hillary

Ouch, that's gotta hurt:

(CNN) -- With the presidential election more than two years away, a CNN poll released Monday suggests that nearly half of Americans would "definitely not vote for" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Other potential Democratic candidates got big no's as well: 47% said no to John "Frenchie" Kerry and 48% gave a thumbs down to Al "Snore" Gore.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain fared much better than Jeb Bush.

While I doubt polls like this will stop Hillary, it makes for great speculation in the time leading up to the 2008 race.

Speaking of Al Gore, we had a visit from some of our customer service reps from one of our vendors today. They live in Missouri and flew in to New York yesterday. Last night, the highlight of their trip was getting in to see a taping of the David Letterman show. When I asked who the guests were, I was told with little enthusiasm, "Al Gore." He was the only guest and (I think) the show will air this Friday. This became the big joke around the table during lunch! What a disappointment to get tix to see David Letterman, and get stuck with Al Gore as guest.

Oh well, better Al Gore than Michael Moore...

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Democrats

June 19, 2006

Dixie Chicks: Can't Stop Whining

Yes, it's another post about the Dixie Chicks...but these women just get under my skin.

With their careers here in the US in the proverbial toilet, the Chicks' popularity seems to be on the rise overseas. Why? Their famous "dissing" of President Bush three years ago. Anything anti-American, especially from entertainers who have the media as a mouthpiece, is a guarantee for some overseas fawning and admiring. This article from the Telegraph UK is a perfect example.

Sisters Emily Robison and Martie Maguire project a polished Fifth Avenue elegance, and vocalist Natalie Maines is a vision of sculpted cheekbones and smoky eye-shadow.

This paragraph is to assure the reader that, despite being the performers of hokey country and bluegrass music, these women are chic and sophisticated and not to be feared by other sophisticated European types. They're part of the accepted crowd!

A bit later comes the discussion of the "ashamed of George Bush" comment.

"The reaction was as if Natalie had said 'Death to the President' or something," says violinist and vocalist Maguire.

"It was the bullying and the scare factor," shudders banjo and guitar player Robison. "It was like the McCarthy days, and it was almost like the country was unrecognisable."

That's right, ladies, bring in the references to Joe McCarthy and "blacklisting," while you "shudder" for good measure. Ho hum. What they seem to forget is that, despite his hamfisted tactics, McCarthy was right about there being an active Communist party trying to worm its way into our government. No one called the Chicks Communists, but their comments during a time of war were derogatory and therefore highly unpopular -- not only with their usual audience, but with other Americans as well.

The level of debate can be gauged from the way Maines was compared to "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, who was photographed manning a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun at the height of the Vietnam war.

This is secret leftist code meaning "childish and without merit." After all, Jane Fonda is a leftwing icon. Who wouldn't be proud of her propaganda tactics for the North Vietnamese, those Communist slaughterers of innocents? She was speaking truth to power, baby, and the Chicks are her heirs apparent.

The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison.

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

The horror! How dare other country artists display patriotism? They should hate their country too. After all, what is being a celebrity if it doesn't mean looking down one's nose at the hoi polloi?

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

Ah, the magic words! And through gritted teeth! No wonder the Dixie Chicks are poised to achieve their first number one album in the UK. Despite the fact that Maines will never read these words (and if she did she would scoff at them), let me say a little something about the importance of patriotism:

You live in a country that opens its arms to millions. We are the only country who truly embraces those who want to come here to live a better life (illegals aside). Anyone can become an American who has the desire.

Our soldiers volunteer their services...in fact, their very lives, so that ingrates like Maines and her friends can thumb their noses at America without recrimination. Our laws also assure their freedom to do so. Our free market system allows anyone with talent and ambition to make money beyond their wildest dreams. Not everyone will become a millionaire, but if you have what it takes, no one is going to say, "You can't have all of that money!" (Unfortunately, there are people who are trying to change that.)

The Dixie Chicks achieved fame and fortune in a country that says it's okay to do so. They made their money by other people plunking down their hard-earned cash to buy their music and see them live in concert. What the Chicks don't seem to realize is that there are a lot of us out here who truly believe that America is a country to love and be proud of. It's more than just a place to live and make money. Even if we don't always agree with what our government says and does, we don't think that making inflammatory comments about our president overseas during a time of war is acceptable.

So the Dixie Chicks made their pile and felt that they were under no obligation to honor their roots (or at least keep their opinions private). Fine; that's their right.

That's another thing about a free market economy. If the public doesn't want a product or service, for any reason, they don't have to buy it. Period. The Chicks angered their highly patriotic audience, and now they're reaping the consequences. Free speech is an option for every American, but it can come with a price. For example: as I search for a new job, it's possible that a prospective employer might come upon this site and, not liking what I have to say, pass me over for someone else. That is the chance I take. Is it fair? No. I have free speech rights too, and I keep politics out of the workplace. But it's the way things work. The Dixie Chicks haven't figured that part out yet.

So as they go running to the anti-American press overseas to spin their tale of woe, I have this to say: grow up. Oh, and another great thing about America is that no one forces you to stay. Unlike citizens of Communist countries, Americans are free to come and go as they please. And for celebrities with lots of money, this is even easier! So I invite the Dixie Chicks to join celebs like Johnny Depp, Gwyneth Paltrow and Madonna to leave America for countries who are more sensitive to their needs.

Please don't let door hit your a**es on the way out.

Dear Dixie Chicks: Quitcher bitchin'

Update: Michelle Malkin was all over this during the weekend. Guess I'm a day late and a dollar short!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 06:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Celebrity

June 16, 2006

House Rejects Iraq Pullout Timetable

Via Breitbart, tip from Drudge:

The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.

In a 256-153 vote, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) conceded in her usual gracious manner, calling the war a "grotesque mistake." Jack Murtha (D-PA) said, "It's not a matter of stay the course. It's a matter of change direction." That direction being back, not forward.

Democrats complained "the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade." Why? The Dems are the ones calling for a pullout, then whine about charades when they are called on their bluff and lose. This is not the first time the Dems have cried foul regarding such a vote; last November a vote regarding an immediate pullout received only three yeas. This was also called "a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue" by the Dems.

You may remember that back in November the Senate also rejected a call for a specific pullout date.

In other words, Dems talk the pullout talk, but can't walk the pullout walk. It's, er, surprising that they can't seem to stick to their principles...

Pulling out before we are sure that the Iraqi government and its military can successfully ward off al-Qaeda and other terrorist attacks is tatamount to abandoning the sheep to the wolves. Then what would all of our involvement have amounted to? Nothing. And if, as a result, Iraq fell to the terrorists, guess who would be portioning out the blame and who would be receiving it?

If you're interested in how your representative voted, the roll call tally is here.

More discussion:
Ex-Donkey Blog
Iowa Voice
Blue Crab Boulevard

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

Friday Funnies

Ugh...it's a lovely Friday and I am stuck indoors. Work is deathly slow and I am bored out of my skull! In desperation, I begged someone for amusement and he sent me the following jokes. I liked them and thought I'd pass them on to you. Enjoy!

Darn funny stuff!


Two boys in Boston were playing basketball when one of them was attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy ripped a board off a nearby fence, wedged it into the dog's collar and twisted it, breaking the dog's neck. A newspaper reporter from the Boston Herald witnessed the incident and rushed over to interview the boy. The reporter began entering data into his laptop, beginning with the headline: "Brave Young Celtics Fan Saves Friend From Jaws Of Vicious Animal." "But I'm not a Celtics fan," the little hero interjected. "Sorry," replied the reporter. "But since we're in Boston I just assumed you were." Hitting the delete key, the reporter began again: "John Kerry Fan rescues Friend From Horrific Dog Attack." "But I'm not a Kerry fan either," the boy responds. The reporter says, "I assumed everybody in this state was either for the Celtics or Kerry or Kennedy. What team or person do you like?" "I'm a Houston Rockets fan and I really like George W. Bush," the boy says. Hitting the delete key, the reporter writes: "Arrogant Little Neo-Con Redneck Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet."


Some campaign slogans for Hillary Clinton when she runs for president:

* Read My Lips - No New Interns! * Vote For Me Or My Husband Will Nail Your Wife. * Oh Lord, Please Don't Make Me Move Back To Arkansas! * Isn't It Time You Were Disappointed By A Different Clinton? * Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You; Ask How You Can Illegally Contribute To My Campaign.


Q: What's the difference between a liberal and a puppy?

A: The puppy stops whining when it grows up.

Read More "Friday Funnies"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Humor

June 15, 2006

This I Gotta See!

From the Washington Times:

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

No comment yet from Murtha, of course. Do you think we could call the statements from Murtha a leak if he was announcing information that wasn't supposed to be publicized?

I'm sure the press will treat Murtha in the same way others in government who are accused of leaking information...after all, the MSM is a neutral, unbiased source of news and information. (Unlike this blog, of course. At least you always know where I'm coming from on an issue.)

Favorite song: "Six Months in a Leaky Boat" by Split Enz

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

Ad Campaign Says Thank You to Troops

Move America Forward will begin an ad campaign next week totting up some of the major accomplishments of our troops in Iraq.

Click here to see the ad.

My only complaint is that this is still being called a "war on terror," when it should be called a "war on Islamofascism." Still, we take the kudos for our troops where we can get them. Nice job!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

June 14, 2006

All Aboard the Illegal ID Gravy Train

We all know there are people out there who are willing to provide fake documentation to illegal immigrants. That in and of itself is appalling. What's more appalling, however, is when state employees decide to get in on the action:

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) -- A fifth employee of the state Department of Motor Vehicles has been arrested on charges of selling driver's licenses to illegal aliens and criminals.

Cynthia White, 42, of Bridgeport was charged Tuesday with two counts of violating the state Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Act, three counts of bribe taking, two counts of conspiracy to commit second-degree forgery and one count of second-degree forgery.

Superior Court Judge Patrick Carroll ordered her held in lieu of $150,000 bond and continued the case to June 30.

Conrod Davy, 21, of Hartford was charged Tuesday with acting as a middleman in the transactions.

Police said White sold 110 driver's licenses and 36 IDs for $2,000 each. A number of the sales were made through Davy at area strip bars, police said.

The arrests came as part of a wide-ranging investigation by state police into the illegal selling of Connecticut driver's licenses. The probe has led police all over the country, where illegal aliens and felons have been picked up with Connecticut licenses in their pockets.

In addition to White, state police arrested four other Bridgeport DMV employees, Venita Bines, Tracy Lucas-Stevenson, Karin Birch and Jannette Rodriguez. Authorities say they sold more than 1,500 licenses and nearly 1,000 Connecticut identification cards from June 2000 to December 2004.

Police said on some days illegal aliens were lined up 10 deep at the women's windows to buy driver's licenses for between $1,000 and $2,000. All five were fired before their arrests.

Bines and Lucas-Stevenson have since pleaded guilty and are facing up to 10 years in prison. The other cases are pending.

A number of the sales were made at strip bars? Well, at least we know the illegals are enjoying their time in between day jobs.

It feels so good knowing that employees on the public's dime have taxpayers' best interests at heart. As a Connecticut resident, I feel truly blessed.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

Other recent CAII action:

Amnesty Bill Under the Microscope

Weary of the politics of immigration reform?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Illegal Immigration

Kyoto: It's Not About the Environment...

Wise words from Joe at geosciblog regarding global warming, Kyoto and the UN:

Kyoto is about "ham-stringing" the American economy by restricting fuel use, by way of rationing and/or taxes. Rather than find ways of honestly competing with the American economy, foreign nations would rather engage in dragging the United States down.

Why aren't China, India, Mexico, Brazil, et al, included in the proposed Kyoto regulations? And who would be enforcing those regulations? Who elected the UN as the world-governing body? Unelected means unaccountable. Our fuel prices and other aspects of life would be regulated by unelected/unaccountable bureaucrats, many of which are from socialist nations that are jealous of our standard of living and our freedom. Considered to be the model for what the UN wants to be, the EU parliament does not have the power to propose legislation based on the wishes of citizens, rather they have to act on orders passed down from bureaucrats in Brussels.

Kyoto is a power grab.

Read the whole thing...click here.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Environment

It's Flag Day!

Wave it proudly.

In Dear Abby's column today, there is a poem that was written by a girl when she was in 8th grade. The poem won her one of the flags that flew over the Capitol building. Abby thought it was a great tribute to Flag Day, and so do I. Here it is...enjoy!


(By Stacy Frank, Grade 8)

This flag of red and white and blue
May not mean very much to you.
But as for me this banner flies
And with its mighty voice it cries
Out to peoples far and near
To proclaim our freedom here.

A small beginning, I agree,
But like the acorn to the tree.
Thirteen states we had at first,
But as our country grew, our thirst
For land and freedom did not stop.

That land did well; produced a crop
For countries of the world to share
And then they knew our flag was fair.

And underneath this starry wing
Foreign peoples help to sing
The greatest story ever told,
The story of our country bold.
Of its birth into the world
And of its wondrous flag unfurled.

And over the world there ne'er will stand
The flag of any other land
That will mean as much to me
As this flag of liberty.

Old Glory!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Patriotism

June 13, 2006

Rove Won't Be Indicted; Whiners Unite

Yep. Karl Rove won't be indicted in Plamegate, and the left is having a fit.

Gary over at Ex-Donkey Blog has posted some choice moonbat reaction from the Democratic Underground. Check it out!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Leftwing Lunacy

Some Thoughts on Haditha

Sorry I've been MIA the last few days...Internet service is down at home, and I didn't come into work yesterday due to a nasty case of poison ivy (something that is becoming a yearly event).

Have any of you wondered why the press is out to make Haditha the latest example of everything that is wrong in our miltary and Iraq? There have been no charges brought forth yet in the Haditha investigation. You wouldn't know that, however, with headlines like Haditha: Memories of a Massacre and The Shame of Kilo Company. Is the press milking this unfortunate incident in order to prove Iraq is a quagmire? Why do they seem more concerned about these civilian deaths than the ones that occurred under Saddam Hussein's watch?

My husband pointed out an interesting little nugget to me the other day, and it's worth thinking about.

The military continues to be the most admired institution in America, according to the latest Harris Poll.

A total of 47 percent of Americans said they have a "great deal" of confidence in the military. Some 38 percent of Americans said they had "only some" confidence and 14 percent said they had "hardly any" confidence in the military.

The military was followed in the poll by small business - a new category in 2005 - with 45 percent of Americans saying they had a great deal of confidence; colleges and universities, 38 percent; the Supreme Court, 33 percent; and Medicine, 31 percent.

At the bottom of the survey, released March 2, were law firms at 10 percent, Congress at 10 percent, organized labor at 12 percent, major companies at 13 percent and the press at 14 percent.

Remember when Walter Cronkite used to be the "most trusted man in America?" (Click here to see how much he deserved the moniker.)

Call me crazy, but somehow I don't see the press being exalted over coming in dead last in an opinion poll where the military ranks as number one. Think about it: who makes up a majority of the press? People who vote Democrat and hold views further to the left than mainstream Americans. And, we know what leftists usually think of the military...

Wild speculation on my part? Maybe. What do you think?

Michelle Malkin points out a disgraceful cartoon.

Technorati: , , , ,

More trusted than the press

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 10:39 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

June 09, 2006

The Ann Coulter "Godless" Flap

Ann Coulter has the hounds nipping at her heels. And, after some of you read this, you may be nipping at mine.

In her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter takes on the Jersey Girls in her usual, take-no-prisoners style:

A group of New Jersey 9/11 widows - Kleinberg, Kristin Breitweiser, Patty Casazza and Lorie Van Auken - created headlines by pushing for a wide examination of intelligence and security failures that eventually led to the creation of the 9/11 commission.

In 2004, they endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, fiercely denounced President Bush and participated in political ads using images from the attacks - actions that prompted Coulter's attack.

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony," Coulter said.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

Coulter accused the four widows of "trying to convert their personal tragedy into a weapon to dictate national policy."

And then she got personal.

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy," Coulter said.

Coulter usually riles a few people with her writings, but this really raised the roof. Not only are those on the left decrying her comments, but there are plenty of those on the right who disagree with her as well. Coulter is receiving equal opportunity condemnation.

Naturally, she is unapologetic. She always stands behind what she says and writes. But is she truly wrong? Writing for World Net Daily, Kevin McCullough thinks not.

Read More "The Ann Coulter "Godless" Flap"

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 11:18 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (1) | Commentary

A Great Big Thank-You

While the chattering classes are busy wondering if the death of al-Zarqawi will make a difference in Iraq and here at home on the border (!), others see the significance of his death and are responding appropriately.

My friend Aaron over at Lifelike Pundits (where I also blog...but not lately...I've been a bad girl!) has a great tribute to those who were responsible for this important victory in Iraq. Click here to see it.

Nice job, Aaron!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 08:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

June 08, 2006

al-Zarqawi: Dead as a Doornail

Best news I've heard in a while:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq who waged a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and beheadings of hostages, has been killed in a precision airstrike, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday. It was a long-sought victory in the war in Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi and seven aides were killed Wednesday evening in a remote area 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.

I also heard on the radio that he didn't die right away, but died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack. If that's true, then the news is even better.

Of course, al-Qaeda is already calling his death a martyrdom and that it only strengthens their resolve to continue the fight. No surprise there.

I'm only waiting, though, for the naysayers on the left to cheapen this victory with continued discussion of Haditha and questioning why, if we could get al-Zarqawi, can't we get Osama bin Laden?

More coverage:

Lucky Dawg News
Michelle Malkin
Captain's Quarters
GOP and the City
Mein Blogovault

Has reserved seating in hell

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 07:56 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

June 07, 2006

This Is a Letter from Iraq

With a great big hat tip to Right Wing Prof over at Right Wing News, here's a letter recently published in the Ridgefield Press. For those of you who do not live in Connecticut, Ridgefield is located in northwestern Fairfield County, right on the New York state border. It is a small (population between 25,000-30,000) but wealthy town full of blue voters, and so the dismay expressed in the following letter (written by a soldier stationed in Fallujah) is not surprising.

Jun 2, 2006
COMMENT: Letter from Iraq: They're not supporting the troops
By Anthony Ippoliti

I am fortunate enough to receive The Ridgefield Press every few weeks and enjoy keeping abreast of the local issues currently pressing in our small town. I am a U.S. Marine Infantryman currently serving in Fallujah, Iraq, and my mother usually includes The Press in the many care packages she sends me.

Since we have very limited access to telephones, The Ridgefield Press is the primary means by which I receive local news.

Almost every week, I open The Press and find an article or letter to the editors denouncing the coalition effort in Iraq. Invariably, the individuals behind these anti-war letters and rallies mask their political agendas by asserting that they "support the troops but not the war." People like Vince Giordano, Paul Sutherland and Anne Stubbs are pictured in the April 13 edition of The Press carrying a yellow-ribboned coffin and signs that say "Bring Them Home Now." They read off the names of the dead and claim to "show support for our troops" while urging lawmakers to "bring them home." They believe that the U.S.-led coalition should never have entered Iraq and that the current effort is a never-ending quagmire that has made no progress. They believe that things are progressively getting worse and think that our forces should just pick up and leave.

They do all this under the pretense that they are supporting the troops. However, what they are really doing is using our lives and the issue of our safety and well-being as a means to achieve a political end.

• • •

My primary concern is the assertion that these individuals support the troops in Iraq but not our mission. It boggles my mind that this logic is actually utilized on a large scale.

Supporting the troops but not the war is like saying that you support filmmakers but not making films. One cannot claim to support an individual in a given profession but not support what the said profession entails. This is essentially a slap in the face to those in the service.

How protesting the job we are doing in Iraq while demanding our withdrawal constitutes supporting us is beyond me.

Furthermore, I am particularly interested in how these people support us, specifically. I have never once received a letter from an individual who claims to "support the troops, not the war." Not a single Marine I know has received anything that could be considered remotely supportive from any of these people or the groups they represent. We have received phone cards, hygiene supplies, food, etc. from members of state and local government, radio stations, schools, private individuals and organizations, but never once from any group claiming to "support the troops, but not the war."

I ask again: How can these groups claim to support our troops while telling us that what we are participating in is wrong?

How can they support us if they are essentially saying that our blood and sacrifices have all been given in vain?

How can they support us if they say that our comrades and brothers who have been wounded or killed in action have done so for a hopeless and morally questionable cause?

• • •

I reply to the questions I pose with a simple answer: They can't. As a matter of fact, I assert with a considerable degree of confidence that their efforts make our already difficult job even more difficult. I'll go so far as to say that their rallies and protests cost more and more servicemen their lives and limbs every day.

I support my assertion with evidence gathered first hand. I see the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I speak with the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I don't sit behind a desk and do paperwork or resupply efforts in the military. I am an Infantry Marine and I walk the sewage-filled streets of this city every single day.

In Fallujah, the people watch Al Jazeerah. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear that the United States will soon cut and run. The people of Iraq see when our country is divided. When they see rallies to "Bring The Troops Home," they see that as a sign that we will end our efforts prematurely.

Furthermore, they know that the insurgents will not end their efforts early. That leads them to the conclusion that when we leave, the insurgents will still be there. Therefore, if they help us, their lives and the lives of their loved ones will be in great jeopardy the minute we leave — if we don't finish the job.

Much that they see on American television leads them to believe that we intend to abandon our efforts before the new Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and its citizens.

• • •

The actions of these aforementioned organizations and the heavy media coverage their rallies often generate serves as fuel for the insurgency. Insurgents believe they can drive us out through the idea of "death by a thousand cuts." The longer they persist in their efforts, the more the American public becomes disenchanted with the coalition effort.

The insurgency sees this as a result. These criminals will continue to kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army and coalition forces so long as they see that their efforts are alienating the American public from its military.

And for those of you that aren't up to speed with the situation in Iraq, the insurgents attack and kill established public services (such as Iraqi police and Iraqi army) more often than they attack coalition forces. As a matter of fact, an explosive-laden insurgent blew himself up last week outside the Iraqi police station that is attached to our compound.

The insurgents aren't fighting simply to drive America out of Iraq. They are fighting to destroy any semblance of the Iraqi government so that they can impose their will on its people.

Publicly protesting our efforts in Iraq fuels the insurgency. Doing it under the pretext of "supporting our troops" is disgraceful.

• • •

Let me now emphasize that I respect an American citizen's right to voice his or her opinion in a public forum. Such a right is granted in the U.S. Constitution.

However, voicing one's opinion in such an irresponsible way is something I do not support. Additionally, using deployed service members as a mask to serve your purely political purpose is downright shameful. If your desire is to protest the war, then protest the war, but don't use me or any reference to our troops as a tool to bolster your purpose.

I'll summarize by saying this: Organizations such as The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War do not support our troops. No matter what they say or what is printed on the signs they carry, they effectively do the opposite of support us. They downright hurt us.

Such organizations damage the morale of the men and women in the armed forces and progressively cause them to believe less and less in the mission at hand. The conditions here are difficult as it is. Opening a month-old edition of The Ridgefield Press and reading an article about an anti-war demonstration that uses our troops in an effort to mask its true cause doesn't help.

Please do not feign support while effectively telling us that we are fighting for an unworthy cause. I think I speak for an overwhelming majority of our troops when I ask organizations like The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War to discontinue using Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors as a means to serve a political end.

You are neither supporting us nor honoring us. You are doing the exact opposite.

Well said...however, it's a shame that he had to spend his free time writing it.

Technorati: , , ,

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Iraq

Dear U.N.: Cry Me a River

Get out the Kleenex! Michelle Malkin points out this story:

Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy assailed the United States on Tuesday for withholding support from the United Nations, encouraging its harshest detractors and undermining an institution that he said Washington needed more than it would admit.

"The prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable," said the deputy, Mark Malloch Brown. "You will lose the U.N. one way or another."

In a highly unusual instance of a United Nations official singling out an individual country for criticism, Mr. Malloch Brown said that although the United States was constructively engaged with the United Nations in many areas, the American public was shielded from knowledge of that by Washington's tolerance of what he called "too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping."

"Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," he said.

Richard A. Grenell, the spokesman for John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador, said Mr. Bolton had not had time to read the speech to react to it fully on Tuesday evening. "Mr. Malloch Brown did not extend to us the courtesy of a copy of the speech," Mr. Grenell said. "We need to read it and will certainly have to respond."

Mr. Malloch Brown is a Briton who became deputy secretary general in March and will leave office when Mr. Annan's term ends on Dec. 31. He made his remarks in a lunch speech at a Midtown hotel to a conference on global leadership co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation.

The speech reflected frustration in Mr. Annan's office with a looming crisis over the United Nations budget, which, under a six-month gap agreed to under pressure from Washington in December, will pay the bills only until the end of June.

The deal was struck to link budget approval with achievement of significant management reforms, and Mr. Bolton made frequent mention of Congressional impatience with the United Nations and legislation that would authorize Washington to start withholding its dues. The United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations, paying 22 percent of its budget.

"In recent years the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage," Mr. Malloch Brown said.

He noted that the United Nations was fielding 18 peacekeeping operations abroad at lower cost and higher effectiveness than "comparable U.S. operations." Yet, he said, that fact has been ignored or underplayed by policy makers and opinion shapers in Washington.

"To acknowledge an America reliant on international institutions is not perceived to be good politics at home," he said.

Mr. Malloch Brown did not mention Mr. Bolton by name, but he criticized the working strategy that many diplomats have associated with Mr. Bolton since his arrival last August. "Exacerbating matters is the widely held perception, even among many U.S. allies, that the U.S. tends to hold on to maximalist positions when it could be finding middle ground," Mr. Malloch Brown said.

Funny, I thought America's opinions didn't matter in today's world. Still, as we are usually labeled the bad guy no matter what the situation, I am not surprised. (Hey, can I complain about the U.N.'s U.S. bashing?)

If the U.N. were to achieve its greatest dream -- a unified socialist world with the U.N. as sole government, then "too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping" would certainly be outlawed. Such as it is, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are still the order of the day here in America, and if we don't approve of what the U.N. is doing, we have every right to say so as often as we wish. Especially since we pay most of its dues.

One might almost think that the bashing and stereotyping is undeserved...until one remembers the Oil-for- Food and "peacekeeper" sex scandals involving children that the U.N. is embroiled in (as well as Kofi Annan's embarrassment over his son's involvement in Oil-for-Food).

Blind adulation from all but one member country obviously isn't good enough for some people.

We want our money back!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 01:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | United Nations

Al Gore: A Knight in Shining Armor...

Chicken Little would be proud.

Al Gore...former senator, former vice president, president who-would-have-been, has been transformed into our savior...riding his white horse and brandishing his sword in hope of wiping out what has become his cause celebre: global warming.

While at the Cannes Film Festival for his, er, documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," he was treated like a real movie star, red carpet and all. Arianna Huffington has become Gore's unofficial publicist with glowing commentary like this.

He is also being hailed by the media and other like-minded folks about how brave he is for coming out against the evil corporate forces that be to spread his message of gloom, doom, and disappearing shorelines. Out of all the movie reviews I scanned, I only saw two negative ones, including this one by Kyle Smith at the New York Post. Roger Ebert practically wets his pants in urging us to see this important film, saying "there is no other view that can be defended." Al Gore is, in fact, the left's next poster boy for Truth.

But how hard is it to be brave when you know those who will be reporting on your cause are all on your side?

Meet William M. Gray. One of the country's most prominent hurricane researchers, he is one of many to come out and say that hurricane activity as a side effect of global warming (according to the film), is a load of bunk.

Like many hurricane forecasters, Gray rejects the theory that the recent uptick in storms is due to climate change. He points out that the U.S. had an unusually low number of storms from the 1970s to the end of the century and says the law of averages is simply catching up. But he goes further and dismisses the view — accepted as fact by most scientists — that recent warmer temperatures are caused by man-made greenhouse gases.

"It's one of the greatest hoaxes ever," Gray says of global warming, theorizing that it's an alarmist hypothesis made to snare research dollars. Gray believes that climbing temperatures are caused by cyclical warming in the oceans, and that the globe will cool down again in the next 10 to 15 years.

Right. We know the later dinosaurs lived during a very humid and tropical time on Earth. Were they to blame for it? Is that why they went extinct?

Robert Tracinski, writing for Real Clear Politics, wants to know how this affects Gore's status as soothsayer:

So if the splashy movie-poster claim of An Inconvenient Truth turns out to be dubious and hotly contested--very far from an established "truth"--where does that leave Al Gore's status as the brave truth-teller? A fawning New York Times profile on Gore admits that he avoids "making direct causal links that most scientists say are impossible to substantiate" but instead "uses imagery and implication" to make his case. That's about the most tasteful description of the methods of a flim-flam artist I have ever read.

Roger Pielke, another climatologist, is concerned about the lack of debate on the subject. From David Harsanyi's column in the Denver Post:

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore was in Bill Clinton's shadow in the 1990s. He failed to clinch the presidency in 2000. Global warming has become his ticket to fame, fortune and popularity (not to mention his fortune in Google stock).

Why would he let a little intellectual debate and honesty get in his way?

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:25 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Environment

June 06, 2006

When a Lawsuit is a Good Idea

Via Breitbart:

The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters from a fundamentalist Kansas church filed an invasion-of- privacy suit against the demonstrators Monday.

It is believed to be the first lawsuit brought by a soldier's family against Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., whose members routinely demonstrate at military funerals around the country.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, is seeking unspecified damages. The younger Snyder, 20, died March 3 after an accident in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was buried in Westminster, Md.

"We think it's a case we can win because anyone's funeral is private," Snyder lawyer Sean Summers said. "You don't have a right to interrupt someone's private funeral."

Members of Westboro say the military deaths in Iraq are God's punishment for America's tolerance of gays. They typically carry signs with slogans such as "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for IEDs," a reference to the roadside bombs used by insurgents.

The church has inspired dozens of state laws banning funeral protests, including a Maryland law that did not go into effect until after Snyder's memorial.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the small congregation, said it is the first time Westboro has been sued by a soldier's family.

"We were exercising our First Amendment rights," she said.

You know, I'm tired of the First Amendement being invoked as an excuse for bad taste. These families lose their loved ones, only to have their funerals picketed by a bunch of loonies who believe their deaths are connected with homosexual tolerance.

A day of mourning and remembrance is turned into a circus. It isn't right.

You want to protest the war (for whatever reason)? Fine. Go right ahead and make an a** of yourself. But don't exercise your precious First Amendment rights at the expense of grieving families.

I hope Mr. Snyder wins his case.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Judges & Law

June 02, 2006

Next Time You Worry About What the World "Thinks" of Us...

...remember these words of wisdom from the Good Lieutenant over at Mein Blogovault:

Do we just sit here paralyzed becasue somebody is upset or "has an opinion of us?" Were they upset on September 10, 2001? 9-11 was hatched starting in 1998, and Clinton (the man that made us "beloved" to the "world") couldn't stop it from happening with his schmoozing with international leaders and pariahs. Somebody was already pissed (al-Qaeda), they still are and we need to exterminate them - not lie down and cry like a bunch of pansies just because everyone else in the world appears to be pansies as well.

Read the whole post here. And be sure to visit the Good Lieutenant regularly!

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 02:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Commentary

Katie Couric Gets Serious

So, Katie Couric wants to end what she calls pretentiousness in the evening news?

LAS VEGAS (Hollywood Reporter) - Katie Couric hopes to bring a ``humanistic, more accessible'' approach to her job when she takes over as anchor and managing editor at ``CBS Evening News'' in September, she said Thursday.

Addressing the annual convention of CBS affiliates, Couric predicted that the ``pretentious era'' of the evening-news anchor is going to be a thing of the past.

``The audience is more sophisticated than we give them credit for -- they don't want a mechanical Ted Baxter,'' said Couric, whose last day as co-anchor of NBC's ``Today'' was Wednesday. ``I'm a serious, caring, compassionate person. I hope that comes out. ... People want a multidimensional (news anchor) and not someone they can put in a box.''

The problem many viewers have come to have with not just the evening news, but any news that comes from the major new outlets, is that newsies like Couric like to put their "serious, caring, compassionate" selves smack dab in the middle of a story. We want someone who will deliver the news and let us decide what we think of the story based on its own merits...not the merits of the "multidimensional" anchor behind the desk.

And how accessible can Couric be as she sits behind the anchor desk in a television studio with her smart glasses on? Come on. Give us some of that credit you mentioned!

The evening news on the traditional networks will continue to take a pounding from cable news and the Internet. I doubt very much that Katie Couric behind the anchor desk at CBS will change that trend.

Frankly, I'd take Ted Baxter over Katie any day. At least he was honest about his pomposity.

Taking the news seriously

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 09:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | MSM

June 01, 2006

Apologies Always Suffice...

...when a DemoPrat makes a remark like this:

"The man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it. The toughest senator, the best representative. A great, great member of the Congress of the United States."

The "triggerman" being discussed is Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY). The man making the comment is NY State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who is also a Democrat.

Where was the comment made? At the Queens College commencement. Nice sentiment for a graduation, don't you think?

Now I really don't think Hevesi meant that Schumer would actually pull out a gun and shoot President Bush. He was speaking metaphorically. And he did apologize.

However, can you imagine the furor if a Republican said the same of a Republican lawmaker and a Democratic president?


Michelle Malkin says he is Bush Derangement Syndrom exhibit #999.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 05:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Democrats

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial