As for his bawling and sobbing claim that faced with crisis in Iraq, "the administration's message was: Don't blame us. George Tenet and the CIA got us into this mess," I can say, as one who has attended about a thousand postmortems on Iraq in Washington, that I have never, ever, not once heard a single partisan of the administration say anything of the kind. The White House may have thought that it could count on the CIA to present some sort of solidity in a crisis but, as Sept. 11 had already proved, more fool the White House.
I know I wouldn't want to be on the other end of Hitchens' poisonous pen.
Just finished reading the USA Today opinion piece on Tenet's book, and true to form they not only defended the content - they even helped him rewrite the inaccuracies!
-"When Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, shortly after 9/11, talked of making Iraq pay, Tenet only thought - but didn't say out loud - that the accusation was wildly off-base."-
I wish I had someone covering my back as well as USA Today does for enemies of the adminisrtation.
Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.
Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on "excess profits," including those made by oil companies.
Edwards said it was more important to level with voters than to worry about the political consequences of advocating higher taxes.
"It's just the truth," Edwards said during a news conference following his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. "It's the only way to fund the things that need to be done."
Excess profits? Since when is the likes of Edwards, who made his fortune off of suing the pants off of doctors, the arbiter of what constitutes excess profits? If that's the case, I'd like to suggest that trial lawyers who make more than $200K per year be subject to an "excess profit" tax. Please make checks payable to me, as it would level my playing field quite nicely.
This is typical leftwing schtick. People who work hard and profit handsomely from their labor have an unfair advantage over everyone else, so they must be punished by higher taxes, which means that they have less money to invest in capital ventures that could end up benefiting many other people by creating more employment, etc. Edwards and other Democrats enjoy their roles as modern-day Robin Hoods -- except that the people they are stealing from didn't get their money by extorting the poor, but from hard work and smart investments. The ones who are being disproportionately taxed these days are the rich.
This is class warfare, pure and simple. I find it highly amusing, however, that instead of actual poor people leading the charge, we have obscenely wealthy politicians like Edwards, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and others who feel they are entitled somehow to tell the rest of us, rich, poor, or otherwise, how much is too much.
And the idea of universal healthcare should definitely scare everyone off. If you'd like to know more about how successful "free" government-run healthcare is, click here to see what's happening up in Canada. It seems "free" healthcare is great, as long as you don't come down with anything more serious than the flu.
And it's not just Canada. You should check out the British healthcare system - it's so broken at this point that there isn't a fix possible. I personally know someone who had to wait nearly 2 years for a hip replacement - because despite the fact he was wheelchair-bound nearly a year before the surgery, it was considered "optional".
White House Spokesman Tony Snow is back on the job.
"I've recovered from the surgery, more or less," Snow said in a CNN interview. "I'll start doing chemo on Friday. We'll do it every other week for four months."
Here's to his continued recovery, and to his keeping the rabid White House press on a short leash.
Yes folks, Mrs. Bill Clinton is multilingual because she sometimes puts on a lousy Southern accent -- not because she can speak more than one actual language. Boy, that woman can put a spin on everything. And you know whut Ah'm talkin' about!
Funny, though, how that accent tends to come out only in front of black audiences, even if those audiences are up North.
Just think of all the money schools could save if they stopped teaching languages and just coached kids in different "multilingual" accents. Then all that money could go toward more important things, like civics, which seem to be disappearing in our schools. Then maybe kids could grow up to recognize a political panderer when they see one.
To sleep, perchance to dream...
Mrs. Bill Clinton displays her "multilingual" skills in Selma
In order to be authentic, language must be supplemented with gesture. The African-American language requires an emphatic head wag in which the skull moves horizontally toward the left and right shoulders in rhythmic repetition.
posted by Wally Neighbor at April 29, 2007 08:44 AM
They've always hated him. But their hatred takes on new life, as reflected in Vanity Fair's current piece on El Rushbo.
Brian Mahoney over at Radio Equalizer takes a look at the article by James Wolcott, which is riddled with personal insults and claims that Rush is wrong about everything, with proof being Al Franken's ramblings. Oh, and the obligatory Nazi reference in the form of Goebbels makes an appearance as well. (Rush's home address is also published...remember when that happened to Michelle Malkin?)
You know, the next time your local liberal runs Rush down, ask him if he's actually listened to Rush. And not just the sound bites provided by the MSM when they're criticizing him for something, but a whole show. I'll bet good money he likely hasn't.
Taking Rush down and getting him off of the radio has been tried, with no lasting ill effects. Those millions who listen to him recognize the lies of the progressive retards who resort to ad hominem attacks when they realize their smoke-and-mirrors trick isn't working. Limbaugh will be around until he doesn't want to be, Wolcott and his merry band of liars be damned.
Jon Voight joined Bill O'Reilly last night, and he had a lot of interesting things to say, including:
We have a real enemy. We're facing people who want to destroy America, who want to destroy all democracy. And in this country, I'm really quite frightened, Bill, at what has happened to our great nation.
Watch the video on Hot Air to find out what Voight's concerns are. To update what I've said before, it's nice to know that not everyone in Tinseltown wears a tin-foil hat.
UPDATE: Head on over to Captain's Quarters for updates to this story. As Ed says, "It's a good thing we're committed to staying in Iraq, isn't it? Because if we left, then we couldn't catch AQ commanders before they had a chance to get situated in Iraq and start killing people by the dozens."
One of al-Qaeda's "highest ranking and senior operatives" was captured last week and is now at Club G'itmo. Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi was intercepted while on his way to Iraq to take over "operations" there.
Now that Saddam Hussein has been dispatched, perhaps Ramsay Clark will be available to take over al-Iraqi's case?
The other day, Harry Reid said he didn't want to get into a "name calling" match with Dick Cheney, whom he claimed had only a 9% approval rating.
Well, I'm not sure where Reid is getting his numbers from, but according to the latest Harris poll, Cheney's approval rating is 25%, while Reid's is only 22%. Heh.
Some of the other ratings are headscratchers...for example, how in the world does Nancy Pelosi rate a 30% approval? And while Congress overall received only 27% approval, the Democrats are at 35%. What the...? Perhaps after today's vote to cede Iraq to the terrorists, Democrats will get their comeuppance. But who knows? Considering how ill-informed many of the general public are, I'm not too optimistic.
Coming out on top of everyone is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who garnered 45% approval. While that's down from her performance earlier this year, it just goes to show she is still a class act. (I like how she told the Democrats she wouldn't testify in person on prewar claims about WMDs.)
but if the public is ill-informed, as you say they are, and they give condolezza rice a 45% approval rating doesn't that render the rating completely meaningless?
This is a must-read article at National Review by Joseph Morrison Skelly. I'm acquainted with him personally, and so am always happy to promote anything he does. Here's one interesting bit:
Innumerable Iraqi men and women have placed their trust in American national honor. One Iraqi official, when asked recently if the United States military should leave his country, had this to say: “About your question, me and approximately all Iraqi people want that the U.S. Army stay in Iraq now, because if your Army left my country, our future will be destroyed and the freedom that we get, it will be lost. I hope that the American government will still help us until we reach the required safety and freedom.”
Read it all. (Think Harry Reid will? Naaah, I didn't think so either.)
Lynne Stewart may have gotten a slap on the wrist for her acts that benefitted an Islamofascist terrorist sheik, but the New York Supreme Court has now disbarred her, after denying her request to "voluntarily resign" from practicing law because she made the request after her felony conviction. (I thought lawyers were supposed to be hip to all those pesky details in the lawbooks.)
Apparently the moment she was convicted of a felony, she was subject to the possibility of losing her license in New York.
Looks like the donation button at the top of her website will be coming in handy!
Test this theory: people who wear so-called "stylish" eyewear, like the glasses the seahag in the photo is wearing, are always liberal. I've tested this at least a hundred times, and haven't been wrong once. There is a style of eyewear that, for whatever reason, appeals solely to leftards. Maybe I can get a gummint grant to study this phenomenon. Hmmm...
As regular readers know, I have contributed several well-received articles to American Thinker, one of the most respected conservative sites on the web. Imagine my surprise when it "disappeared" yesterday, replaced by one of those annoying "squatter" sites. Fortunately for us, it's back, and editor Thomas Lifson tells us what happened. (Can you spell "scammed" boys and girls?)
I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you. I thought Al Gore and Hollywood would never steer me wrong. I trusted them! And to find that I've been bamboozled...well, it simply boggles the mind.
UPDATE: Newsbusters has more on this story...apparently the MSM is trying to do a hit job on Giuliani by attributing words to him he didn't say. Click here for details.
Democrat candidates for president are taking Rudy Giuliani to task for, er, suggesting that they aren't strong on defense and don't take the terrorist threat seriously. Giuliani isn't backing down.
"They do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said on "The Sean Hannity Show," according to a transcript distributed by his campaign. "They want to take us back to not being as alert which to me will just extend this war much, much longer."
He was defending his remark Tuesday in New Hampshire, where he echoed sentiments expressed by other Republicans in election time. The former mayor said if a Democrat is elected, "it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there."
But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."
But isn't it true? Harry Reid tells us we've lost in Iraq. Nancy Pelosi jet sets to Syria to talk to their president, something that's not in her job description, and something that was calculated to embarrass President Bush. A Democratically-controlled Congress has okayed an Iraq spending bill that has a definite "expiration date" for Iraq.
It seems the Dem candidates would rather forget about the dangers we face. Barack Obama says Giuliani is taking "politics of fear to a new low." John Edwards whines that Giuliani shouldn't suggest there is a "superior Republican way to fight terror." Oh? Well at least Republicans know what to call it. They're not the ones who decided that the term "global war on terror (GWT)" is now verboten.
Mrs. Bill Clinton is, of course, had the most vague rebuttal, seeing as she never knows when she'll have to shift position. "It should be a solemn responsibility that all of us pledge to fulfill regardless of what party we're in." (Does anyone know if she used a bad Southern accent to make this remark?)
Democrats are the party of cut and run. They can run from that description, but they can't hide. We have their number. They can huff and puff all they want, but Rudy Giuliani is right. And to talk about it now isn't just politics, it's good sense. It's the defining issue of our time, and to ignore it in the name of poll numbers at home is just the latest in Democrat game-playing. Only the Oval Office is not the only thing at stake here -- it's the safety and security of American citizens.
If Rosie O'Donnell can step down as co-host of The View, why can't Harry Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader? I talk about good ol' Harry and all of his pals over at Family Security Matters today.
I'm fast reaching the point where I will only be satisfied if I see Harry Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Feingold, et al. frog-marched out of the U.S. CONGRESS in handcuffs after being arrested for treason. They are despicable cowards and the people who voted them into office are idiots.
"In the liberal world, inefficiency in government is a good thing. It means more government employees, probably unionized. It means more money going through their hands. It means more and more people under their control. What’s not to like?" ~ David Strom
George W. Bush really is "too nice" for politics, which is why it's a good thing he has Dick Cheney to back him up. Cheney gave Harry Reid what-for yesterday in response to Reid's proclamation that the war is "lost."
What is most troubling about Mr. Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism. Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost, and the timetable legislation he is pursuing would guarantee defeat.
Reid said he refused to get into a "name-calling match," but promptly contradicted himself by calling Cheney Bush's "attack dog." I'm surprised he didn't follow up the "nine percent approval rating" comment with a "so there!"
Just like his crony Nancy Pelosi, Reid can't handle direct criticism from someone who has as much, if not more, power than him, and acts like a spoiled child on the playground who has had his pail and shovel taken away from him when confronted about what he says publicly.
When will Reid declare that his patriotism is being questioned? If he needs a boost, here it is: I question Reid's patriotism.
And if Reid is going to make such statements about Iraq, perhaps he might want to consult with General Petraeus a little more often before doing so.
I will preface this comment with this comment: I got a mancrush on Cheney and always have, so there.
Anyone who can't remember the utter trouncing that Cheney put on Lieberman in the VP debates probably can't understand that Dick is simply toying with a lightweight here. And if the conservatives can't come to the conclusion that we are losing the public debate, we (the whole country) are doomed.......
While I don't watch the show because I work (and I wouldn't watch it even if I didn't), I'm happy to hear that Rosie will be leavingThe View when her contract expires at the end of the season. (At least, that's what TMZ.com is saying, and they've been pretty accurate on their scoops.) Her vile invective, crude attitude and moonbat outbursts (she outdoes anything Joyce Behar can do) have really brought The View down to the level of a septic tank.
Rumor has it she might get her own show, but I'm hoping that's wrong. And if she does, perhaps it will only be on a cable station, where she can do less damage.
Rosie is one of those angry lesbians who feels that she has to shove her sexuality in the world's collective face in as obnoxious a manner as possible. If she had taken a page out of Ellen DeGeneres' book, perhaps she'd receive a lot more respect. But then, Rosie is just not a decent person, while Ellen is. That's what it really comes down to, isn't it? It's not your color, sexuality, or religion that counts so much as your level of human decency. Some people get it...others don't.
So who will Barbara Walters replace Rosie with? Well, unless she picks someone like Sandra Bernhard, she can't go much lower. Just about anyone will be an improvement. But don't look for another conservative. One weak one is quite enough, thank you.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has some good links for background info on Rosie's latest antics.
Bill O'Reilly is on the case of radical left-wing billionaire George Soros, who funds leftwing groups who end up funding political candidates if they toe the line drawn in the sand by Soros. Hot Air has the video.
Included in the Soros umbrella are the Tides Foundation (connected to Ter-ayza Heinz Kerry), MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress and others.
The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have never even heard of George Soros. This off the chart dangerous, but completely legal, under the McCain-Feingold Act.
Exactly. This is how agenda-driven individuals and groups get around one of the most ridiculous laws ever written.
Our pals in Palestine are at it again, and their pals at the AP are right on top of it with an "it's all Israel's fault" slant to the story:
Hamas militants fired a barrage of rockets and mortar shells toward Israel on its independence day Tuesday, and said they considered it the end of a five-month truce with Israel.
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, whose Hamas-led government negotiated the cease-fire with its militant wing, blamed Israel: "We made great efforts at keeping the truce and there was a positive Palestinian position, but unfortunately this position was met by expanding the aggression and escalating it against the Palestinian people," he said. "It's not a Palestinian problem, it is an Israeli problem."
Here's a journalism tip for the AP: replace "militants" with "terrorists" in the first sentence and give Israel equal time in the "he said/she said" portion of the article, and maybe, just maybe, it'll be considered to be less of a Palestinian press release and more of an actual news story.
Dem Candidates Vie to Snag Crow for Toilet Paper Czar
The top Democrat candidates for president were in a frenzy offering singer/global warming expert Sheryl Crow a place in their hypothetical administrations as toilet paper czar.
Following Crow's stunning suggestion that a "one sheet per visit" limit be set on citizens in the bathroom in order to save trees and help stop global warming, Barack Obama, Mrs. Bill Clinton and John Edwards were quick to lay claim to this incredible asset to their campaigns.
Barack Obama, the most clean and articulate candidate in the campaign thus far, stated his case the most eloquently:
Now, I could stand up here and give you all plenty of reasons why it's a good idea for this country to use less toilet paper. I could cite studies from scientists and experts and even our own State Department detailing the dangers of global warming - how it can destroy our coastal areas and generate more deadly storms. And I could talk forever about the economic consequences of toilet paper dependence - how it's decimating our septic tanks and costing us big bucks per flush.
But all we really need to know about the danger of our toilet paper addiction comes directly from the mouth of one woman: Sheryl Crow.
Mrs. Bill Clinton hoped her references to her own parenting experiences would strike a chord with Crow:
You know, I started caring about the environment, including the bathroom environment, before my daughter was born, but after the immaculate conception, I began to take it very personally and in our own ways, Bill and I tried to implement some wiping strategies, some roll rules, some potty regulations but it wasn't quite as difficult 25 years ago as it is today. And although I confess, I still wonder how my daughter's wiping as an adult, you know, those days of being involved in a direct and personal way are certainly over in my parenting experience. But I know with Sheryl on board, it will be more than a conversation. It will be a directive.
John "Two Americas" Edwards had this to say:
Our generation must be the one that says, "we must halt global warming." If we don’t act now, it will be too late. Our generation must be the one that says "yes" to responsible wiping habits. Our generation must be the one that accepts responsibility for conserving natural resources and demands that everyone "use a hand" (or perhaps two). And our generation must be the one that supports "one square" per flush. It won’t be easy, but it is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something that depends upon a sacrifice from everyone. Sheryl Crow could be just the person to bring us all together.
Edwards declined to admit how many squares he used per bathroom visit, citing his right to privacy. After his speech, he was overheard asking who Ms. Crow's hairstylist was.
Crow, fresh off her Global Warming Awareness tour with fellow environmental expert Laurie David, was honored by all of the attention.
While the whole toilet paper thing was a joke, my commitment to the environment certainly isn't. In fact, maybe a toilet paper czar isn't such a bad idea. Seeing that at the age of 45, my career as a sexy singer is in a precarious position, I'd be foolish not to remain open to any and all options. Please contact my agent if you have any serious offers for me to consider.
As her private jet was waiting, Crow was unable to answer any questions.
Dear Mr. Van Helsing, your pejudice is showing. Using one's left hand is not exclusively a muslim custom. It has been used by humans throughout history, especially before Cottonelle was invented. Jesus used his left hand.
Syndicated talk show host Mike Gallagher has once more stepped into the breach to keep a sick, hateful religious group from trespassing upon grief-stricken families in order to get their disgusting message across.
As he did when the Amish schoolchildren were murdered last year, Gallagher is giving one hour of airtime on his show (tomorrow) to the Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps. In return, the group will not descend upon the funerals of the VTech victims with signs like "God Hates Fags" and "Your Son is Rotting in Hell." They believe random acts of violence and murder, including the deaths of soldiers in Iraq, stem from God's intolerance of our tolerance of homosexuality.
Nice group, eh?
Last time Gallagher did this, he says he was criticized by many. However, I think he's doing a valuable service to the friends and families of those being buried. The rest of us have the option of not listening to tomorrow's show, while the mourners would have difficulty in ignoring these cretinous slugs.
I understand why he does it and I applaud him his courage for having those WBC slimeballs in the same physical space. He may be giving them a public platform, but saving those poor families from having to deal with them is worth it. It's one hour - and yes, we can choose to ignore the show for that one hour. The families would probably find it very hard to ignore their presence at the funerals of their loved ones.
Mike Gallagher is giving someone what they seek in order to keep them from harassing or threatening others.
Doesn't that sound like a definition of "terrorism"? Can we now label the WBC as a terrorist group and deal with them accordingly?
If I were an atheist, I'd have to ask why God doesn't just send a well-aimed tornado at WBC, but I know that it doesn't work that way... regardless of what folks said about Katrina and New Orleans.
That being said, I do agree that if something can be done to keep Fred Phelps' inbred whackjob cult from disturbing the mourners, then it's a good thing. The last thing the victims need is that sort of attention.
Does it never occur to these nutbars like Phelps and the Westboro idiots that God made homosexuals too? We are ALL His children, whether we approve of some of our brethran or not. I also recall that the BIBLE, on which Phelps pins his dopey philosophy, has something in it about "Judge not, lest ye be judged." But apparently Phelps and his followers only follow the parts that are convenient for them.
Not content with telling us what cars to buy and which lightbulbs to use, celebrities like Sheryl Crow have come up with an even better idea to "save" the earth: use one square of toilet paper per restroom visit. Fresh off of her Global Warming awareness tour with rich b*tch Laurie David, Crow really expects us peasants to take her seriously.
"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming," Crow wrote.
Obviously this shows the kind of brain power we're dealing with here.
She not only thinks there should be an official "limit" as to how much TP can be used per flush, but she also thinks detachable "dining sleeves" on clothing would be a better alternative to paper napkins. Does she not realize that cloth napkins are already widely available to those who choose to use them? Besides, it wouldn't do for Crow, since I have yet to see her wear anything with sleeves.
Back before napkins even existed, people would either wipe their hands with their sleeves or use the tablecloth. So "dining sleeves" would be yet another stupid idea that would simply serve to line Crow's pocket with more dough (she has already designed clothing that incorporates these sleeves).
Here are a couple of questions for Her Highness:
*How do you expect to regulate how much TP a person is using both at home and in public restrooms?
*Do you not realize that trees are FARMED for toilet paper, paper towels, tissues, and other paper products? Much as food crops are replanted so that there will be food for us tomorrow, trees are replanted by paper companies so that there will be an adequate supply. Why would paper companies put themselves out of business by not replacing what they use?
I recently read that Sheryl Crow was an elementary teacher before she made it big in the music business. I guess we should be grateful that she is simply trying to brainwash the general public through her celebrity, and not brainwashing impressionable children locked in the same room with her day after day.
In the beginning, they used soft leaves. A few centuries ago, cloth served the purpose. But, washing all of those nappies into the roads and streets brought outbreaks of cholera. However, as Miss Crow insists, we must wipe out global warming, one sheet at a time.
posted by Tetchy Smurf at April 23, 2007 12:06 PM
Why is it Republicans are so facinated by what Hollywood personalities have to say?
France had an election yesterday, and I thought whomever came out on top would win the whole enchilada, but apparently there will now be a runoff between the two top contenders, since it was a multi-party race. From WaPo:
PARIS (Reuters) - French presidential candidates Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal went back to the campaign trail on Monday as they battled for votes from the undecided centre ground that will be key to their May 6 runoff.
Sunday's first round ballot set up a classic race between left and right in France after Sarkozy, the conservative former interior minister, scored a resounding win with 31.2 percent against 25.9 percent for the Socialist candidate Royal.
Opinion polls give Sarkozy a firm edge heading into the decisive second round, with between 52-54 percent support against 46-48 percent for Royal.
But the result had both candidates eyeing supporters of centrist Francois Bayrou, who captured 18.6 percent of the vote after a dynamic campaign based on a pledge to sweep aside the ruling elite and overcome traditional political divides.
From everything I've seen, Segolene Royal seems a lot like Mrs. Bill Clinton: looking to be her country's first woman president, big on socialism, big ego...pretty much a nightmare.
Sarkozy will, in my opinion, be the kick in the pants France needs. He "was unapologetic when one of Royal's fellow socialists called him an ''American neo-conservative with a French passport.''' He is also proposing tough immigration law, both by cracking down on illegal immigrants and by setting higher standards for those admitted legally. (Are you listening Mr. Bush?)
Unlike most of the French ruling class, Mr Sarkozy did not go to the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, but trained as a lawyer.
See, most of the people who end up in positions of power in France go to the school mentioned above for the sole purpose of entering government, and so don't have any clue as to what the real world and real people are like. It makes me wonder why the French bothered overthrowing their royalty -- it seems as though today's governing group is royalty, but without the fancy titles and crowns to go with it.
But France will get the president it deserves, which means it probably won't be the president I think it should have. I'll be very interested to see who is the final winner on May 6.
My, my, it doesn't take the moneygrubbing vultures long...they've set up one of their famous yellow tents about 100 yards from where students are signing memorial boards for those slain.
Scientology, founded by second-rate science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, eschews any kind of medication (especially psychological), dictates totally silent childbirth, and claims that the ills we suffer are caused by the souls of mass murdered aliens.
Just the sort of helpful folks you want milling around vulnerable people in the aftermath of a tragedy.
Xenu expels the aliens before dispatching them in volcanoes
Most of the Christians that have descended upon Blacksburg were there to offer solace and fellowship to those that wished.
Then there are the charlatans, Fred Phelps' clan from the Wedgewood Baptist "Church" who are planning on protesting at some or all of the funerals. I think I would prefer Scientologists to the Phelps inbreeds.
As for the mass-murdered aliens, who is responsible for that?
paul - no Christians do NOT do what the Scientologists are doing. I will be posting later today on my FIRST HAND experiences with these p.o.s. cultists when I lived in Los Angeles. They are just plain terrifying - particularly since they now have so many hi-profile loons supporting their cause.
Gayle -- would you mind a link for this? I'm curious, especially because while I've certainly had the "hard sell" from many well-meaning Christians, I've never encountered it from the Scientologists.
I'll be on Fox News this afternoon on Neil Cavuto's show, 4PM Eastern, participating in a round table discussion about school security and how it should be funded. I'm pretty excited, and hope you can tune in!
UPDATE: Well, if you tuned in and didn't see me, don't call me a liar...my co-guest and I got bumped because of the Johnson Space Center hostage situation. I did get to sit in the studio and watch, though, and it was really interesting to see how news shows are produced. Well, so much for my national television debut...maybe next time! (I did get a knockout makeup job, though...)
I sat there every moment and Neil actually did a very BORING job coving this non story of a NASA man, all alone, threatening to kill himself. WHATEVER!
Then Gerald Rivers comes on, mustache still tingling with anticipation, to talk about more sadness.
I thought about posting about Harry Reid's latest treasonous tripe about our having "lost" in Iraq, but Charles does it better over at Lifelike Pundits. Go there, read, now!
Looks like Reid is in serious trouble. I'm listening to Hannity on streaming internet radio, and apparently the pressure is mounting from even MSM sources. Who would have thought?
Apparently the freaks are crawling out of the woodwork after Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech, with numerous threats being made across the country.
Nationwide, many of the threats — which spread in the time it takes to make a phone call or post a message on the Internet — referred to Monday's massacre in Blacksburg, Va., in which gunman Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people and himself, or the 1999 Columbine High School killings, authorities said. Friday is the eighth anniversary of the Columbine attacks.
One of the more idiotic cases involved a California web designer who posted a phony threat on his site against some San Diego University students, then contacted a TV station for publicity.
And a University of Nevada, Reno student who claimed "the Korean is my hero" in a text message to one relative, and told another relative he'd be on a "mission" for a few days, was arrested in Carson City on a probation violation.
Publicity...hmmm...wonder if any of these guys had stars in their eyes after NBC broadcast portions of the Virginia Tech murderer's video, which he sent to them in a package with some other "propaganda" items in the two hours between the first and second set of murders.
NBC sure is living up to its "Peacock Network" nickname...all puffed up with self-pride. Way to go guys!
Jon Voight on President Bush, Iraq, and Agenda-Driven Journalism
Well, it seems that not everyone in Hollywood is brain dead. This is a fascinating interview with Jon Voight on RadarOnline who, unlike other Tinseltown folks who might agree with him, is not afraid to speak his mind. Here's a preview:
Yes, I'm a supporter of the Patriot Act. I support protecting us and investigating anyone who indicates they're going to be dangerous to our country. It's one of those things; it depends on which side you're on politically. If we had these things in place we could have anticipated 9/11. We're not interested in investigating someone who's doing something appropriate. We don't have time for that. That's nonsense.
Fascinating stuff. Read it all. But don't expect him to be invited on Larry King or Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss his views anytime soon.
I once met Jon Voight back in my MUCH younger days at a picnic that was held the day after both Mr. Voight and Jane Fonda had won the Academy Award for "Coming Home". He was very pleasant, at that time a very good friend of Fonda, and quite SHORT. Who knew he'd get so smart later in life?
By the way - I have a framed picture of myself with the 2 of them. I put it out on a few occasions just to irritate my very conservative family! Make me chuckle.
I signed up for Chris Dodd's presidential campagin e-mail alerts, just so I can see what my good senator is doing on my dime instead of representing my state. Today, I received one that says Dodd was giving a speech today at noon (oops, missed it) to unveil his environmental strategy for "when he's president." Among his plans are a corporate carbon tax: "If you pollute, you pay. As the price for corporate pollution rises, that money goes into a "Corporate Carbon Trust Fund" paying for R&D, deployment, and making clean energy technology affordable for the the consumer." You think businesses are leaving for foreign shores now? You ain't seen nothin' yet!
You can watch the speech here if you wish; I can't view it until I get home later tonight. However, a line from the e-mail made me laugh right out loud:
When everyone from Al Gore to President Bush acknowledges global warming is real and of great consequence to our planet, you know that debate has been put to rest.
There you have it, folks. No more debate! No more questioning by heretics who would dare suggest the sun is playing a role in the warming of our planet. (In fact, we'd burn them at the stake if the fires wouldn't contribute to that dastardly C02 buildup!)
Chris Dodd says the debate is over. I'd say his campaign is over too, but then some people would think I'm being mean...
Considering John Edwards' penchant for visiting pricey spas and spending $400 a pop to get his silky locks lopped, Jeff Dobbs at American Thinker has rewritten Edwards' speech for the DNC Winter Meeting.
According to Ric Oberlink of the group Californians for Population Stabilization, "Human population growth is the paramount environmental issue."
His group believes that a reduction in the population (specifically the American population) should be at the top of the "to do" list for stopping global warming.
It figures that a group like this would be based in California.
I have a few questions about this solution. How do we decide how to reduce our population? Will there be a one-child law as in China? (We see how well that works...couples want boys, and girls are tossed into orphanages and many often end up getting adopted by families overseas.) How will the one-child law be enforced? Enforced contraception? Enforced sterilization after the birth of your first child? What if you have twins or triplets? Will they be euthanized before or after birth? (This could be good news for the "pro-choice" crowd.) How will the overflow of illegal immigrants be added to the "overpopulation" equation? And who will oversee these policies -- a population Gestapo? Will friends and neighbors start turning each other in if they violate population law?
I also wonder if Ric Oberlink has kids. Somehow, I doubt it...he seems a bit too selfish to be a parent.
As Van Helsing says, "No ideology ever devised could be more profoundly antihuman — and therefore, more evil — than modern environmentalism."
Too bad you didn't have time to Photoshop the name Oberlink onto the grave stone.
If these folks, and those in other such organizations, e.g., Negative Population Growth, or the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, think it is such a great idea, then they should show us how it is done.
Though I haven't been able to find an internet verification, supposedly Ted Turner said in a 1992 Audubon Magazine interview that he envisioned an ideal world human population of 375 million to 400 million.
Pam, I know that the question is not in earnest from the tone and immediate jump to an enforced one-child law, but I'd like to offer a couple answers anyway, to the question: how do we decide how to reduce our population?
There are so very many ways to at least curb population growth. To start: encouraging (through education) responsible sexual and reproductive choices by both males and females to reduce unwanted pregnancies; allowing safe and widespread access to birth control; changing the notion that there is something wrong or unfeminine about a woman who chooses not to have children; etc.
Even if these groups encourage having only one or no children, none of them are encouraging that such an idea become law. (I would like to make it clear that I'm not necessarily in favor of negative population growth, but I do know the ideas behind it.)
Tammy Bruce was on Fox Monday night with Bill O'Reilly, and she discusses how the far left uses its cozy relationship with the MSM to not only further its agenda, but to do what it can to destroy those they see as their enemies (i.e. anyone who is even a little bit to the right of groups like Media Matters and MoveOn.org). She discusses what happened to Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Ann Coulter, and even Imus.
Hot Air has the video. If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend you take a few minutes now to do so. Tammy knows of which she speaks -- she used to be the president of the Los Angeles branch of NOW, and she was able to feed stories to the media, starting off with the New York Times-- and they would accept them from her without question.
"It's just a matter of time before we live in the time of the martyrs -- not the old martyrs who were true victims, but the misappropriation of that existential category for the purposes of instinctual expression -- i.e., sex, violence, or general envious acquisitiveness under cover of a "progressive agenda" -- for no one is more greedy and acquisitive than the leftist who believes he is intrinsically entitled to the fruits of another's labor. But his victimhood is a convenient way to conceal his soul-destroying envy from himself -- and even to convert what is a soul-illness to a political virtue." ~ Gagdad Bob
CHICAGO (AFP) - There is widespread global concern that the United States cannot be trusted to act responsibly in the world, according to a multinational poll released here Wednesday.
But while there is broad international frustration with how the United States conducts its foreign policy, few people around the world want the United States to completely back off its role as a global policeman, the poll found.
That probably means they still want us to send money and military when they ask us to. Kind of like how teenagers don't want their parents around, but still expect allowance to be paid on time, and for mom and dad to bail them out when they get into some kind of trouble.
You can read the results for yourself.
At this point, I would be more than happy to withdraw from every single thing that didn't affect us directly. Pull our troops out of Europe and either let them come home or put them somewhere where they're truly needed. Let Europe and the rest of the world take care of themselves. If Iran decides to threaten a European country with nukes? Let them. If Russia decides to try to take back its role as dominant power in that part of the world? Fine with me. Islamofascists want to create a new Arab state in France? Fine, let the French reap what they sow.
Oh, and if they don't trust us, then I don't think they should expect our money anymore either. I say let's cut off international aid. We could better spend that money here at home.
I'm pretty much sick of the rest of the world right now.
I will agree with you 110%, think of all the money that could be saved for our country if we did not have do give these ungrateful and spiteful countries foreign aid. The USA is only good in an emergency and hated the rest of time.
A most excellent "rant" - I hesitate calling it that because it is the truth. Let the U.S. pull back all its international aid and focus on ourselves for once - and see what happens next. Love us or hate us - the world needs us and expects us to be there, which we usually are.
I have always been very proud of the fact that being American isn't just being a resident of a certain place - it's a state of mind, a concept, a way of life. And part of that has always been that we were willing to reach out to others less fortunate - and that always made me proud as well. But now...I'd like to see the U.S. thumb it's nose at all of them and just call it a day.
Just as the anti-gun lobby has jumped all over the Virginia Tech shootings, so has the rabid left found a way to blame George W. Bush for them. Right Wing News has the scoop.
The equally zealous and rediculous opposite argument came out just as quickly -- it's incredible that both sides are turning this tragedy into a second-ammendment rights issue.
eBay junkies rejoice: there's a "red white and blue" mystery box auction going on now through April 20th, with proceeds to benefit AnySoldier.com. Click here for auction details.
NY Times Editorial on Virginia Tech Shootings: More Stringent Gun Control
Like you had to guess what the Times' stance would be:
Yesterday’s mass shooting at Virginia Tech — the worst in American history — is another horrifying reminder that some of the gravest dangers Americans face come from killers at home armed with guns that are frighteningly easy to obtain...
...Our hearts and the hearts of all Americans go out to the victims and their families. Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.
Interesting that we haven't seen much MSM coverage of the Virginia General Assembly bill that was killed in January that would have allowed licensed gun owners to have their guns on campus. And don't expect to.
Criminals don't follow laws. That's why they're criminals. More stringent gun laws would affect law-abiding citizens, not those who ignore the law. Duh. According to this WaPo article, the guns the shooter was carrying had their serial numbers filed off. Obviously they were not obtained from a licensed gun dealer in a legal manner.
Michelle Malkin warns us to expect more of this. Get ready to have to defend the Second Amendment from the usual offenders.
UPDATE: AJ Strata has his doubts about the "lovers quarrel" aspect of the shooting: (h/t Kitty)
What really worries me is if this was a test for other attacks. If the man was testing College responses then the key would be to make this look like anything BUT a terrorist attack. I am not making the claim here this was terrorist related, but the man did not seem to be looking for his girlfriend’s lover, he seemed to be out trying to kill anyone he ran across. A perfect diversion for a test run would be a lover’s quarrel. And ending it in a ’suicide’ negates the ability to get to the bottom of his motives. Of course violent jealousy is not uncommon, and more so in male dominated societies like those in Asia and the ME. In those places killing women is like throwing away property. But something is not right here. For someone who was in the emotional throws of jealousy, the attack shows signs of careful planning and cold execution. The two characteristics do not mix. Careful planning and cool execution implies a lot of self control and discipline, things which are in complete opposition to an out of control act of rage.
Remember, there were two bomb threats the previous week...
The guns were, actually, sold from a licensed gun dealer in a legal manner. And while I don't think that more stringent gun control would have stopped this event, I am equally skeptical that (as I have heard suggested many times since yesterday) if it hadn't been a gun-free zone then someone would have been able to shoot him before the police got there. Guns at school is just not a good idea...
If you thing you've seen the last of John Kerry on a national scale, think again:
DENVER - Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) reopened the door to a possible 2008 presidential campaign during a book signing in Denver and then again, in an interview with 9NEWS.
The 2004 Democratic nominee told a crowd of more than 250 at the Tattered Cover bookstore in lower downtown Denver that he had no desire to endorse any candidate for the office right now, choosing to wait to see how they addressed the issue of global warming.
Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, are finishing up a nationwide tour to promote their book, "This Moment on Earth," which highlights successful efforts at the local level to better the environment.
Jet-setting John Kerry and his rich wife Ter-ayza are the new advocates for global warming? Which one of their five luxury homes will they be giving up? Sorry, but replacing all of your lightbulbs with "enviro-friendly" ones and buying carbon credits so you can still fly around in your private jet really doesn't cut it.
And even though he said earlier this year that he wouldn't run, that could change.
When asked whether he expected that decision to change in time for the 2008 race, Kerry said, "If suddenly the field changed or the dynamics of the nation shifted, who knows? You might look at it differently, but I don't see that. I don't foresee that. That's not where I am today and that's not what I'm doing."
Reminds me of Mrs. Bill Clinton and how she kept saying things like, "I haven't made any decision about it" back in September.
Politicians rarely say exactly what they mean. They are masters at word games, so that they can always have a way to wriggle out of a particular situation. Just look at how Kerry said he wouldn't run:
"But I've concluded that this isn't the time for me to mount a presidential campaign. It is the time to put my energy to work as part of the majority in the Senate, to do all I can to end this war and strengthen our security."
Who knows? Maybe Kerry's time will come later this year. Chris Dodd would certainly benefit, as it would mean that he would no longer have the honor of being in last place among serious candidates.
The deep-seated yearning for power - for its own sake, since he has no real positive agenda - afflicts Senior Le Fraude de Massachusetts as deeply as I have ever seen it afflict anyone besides Hillary Rodham Clinton, and before her that degenerate to whom she is married.
Senator Obama thinks the sun is shining on him while he lies and lies and lies about his father's reasons for coming to this country and about his reasons for entering politics.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (both legends in their own minds) have convinced themselves that THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT of the United States, although they are ill-equipped and ill-qualified for the office.
I'm beginning to really, really, really dislike the modern Democratic Party - at least the George Soros version of it!
When will he just go away? When will he realize that even his own party doesn't really want him - after the embarrassment of the 2004 campaign, and the endless oppportunities for jokes that have been his various public appearances since then - he'd torpedo the entire election for the Dems.
That said - I encourage him to run! In a field that includes the Hilamonster and Obadon't...he could bring the Dem party to its knees...reason enuff to support him!
There's a funny bit in the Peter Sellers movie "The Party" (I think) in which he plays a struggling actor in a movie whose only scene is a death scene. The actor is supposed to just gasp and die, but Sellers' character can't let go of his one & only chance, so he keeps popping back up and gasping some more.
So why do you suppose I flash on that scene when I hear that L'Fraude is thinking of running in '08 (and '12 and '16 and ...)? He's gasping at straws.
Robert Farrow discusses the liberal slant in the media and the GOP's seeming unwillingness to do anything about it. He also has some ideas on what to do about it.
Simply, there is no fairness in the media. True, talk radio might be dominated by conservatives, (which is why liberal jerks are trying to control it and thus silence Conservatives.) But it is the print media, the most biased, is not public domain, thus the Fairness Doctrine will never apply to them. Unlike the liberals, I do not want to expand the law to control anybody. On the contrary, I want to use the power and principles of choice and capitalism to force the MSM to do something they do not want to do, namely, be fair.
What is Mrs. Bill Clinton if not a champion of exploiting a situation for her political gain? She's off to Rutgers next Monday, where she will meet with the women's basketball team to commiserate with them over Imus' tacky remarks -- for which he has not only been fired from MSNBC, but from CBS as well. (The visit follows her show of support on her website, where she invited people to send a message of support to the team, with a picture of them plastered at the top of the site.)
The official reason for the visit, of course, is the 50th anniversary of the Eagleton Institute of Politics and the 35th anniversary of Eagleton’s Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). But don't expect that to get in the way of good old-fashioned political pandering.
The implication seems to be that, if elected president, she will magically erase all bigotry, racism, and hurtful remarks of any kind. Except her own, of course.
Reporting for the BBC, Justin Webb takes on anti-Americanism in a three-part series. His first installment focuses on the home of anti-Americanism: France, specifically Paris. Read it here.
The BBC allowing such things to be said...who would have thought?
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama eked out a victory Thursday as the top choice of anti-war activists, as he won the MoveOn Town Hall vote with 27.87 percent of the total.
MoveOn, an activist group closely aligned with the Democratic party, hosted more than 1,000 events all over the nation, including several in Connecticut, Tuesday night. Candidates prerecorded short speeches detailing their positions on the Iraq war, and people were then invited to vote on the question, "Which candidate do you believe would be best able to lead the country out of Iraq?" Anyone who was a MoveOn member as of 7 p.m. Tuesday could vote.
An activist group closely aligned with the Democratic party? What an understatement, considering what MoveOn said about the Democrat Party after the 2004 election:
"We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."
Obama came out on top of the poll with 27.87% of the votes. According to the MoveOn site, it has 3.3 million members. How many of those members voted? Even if they all did, it's less than 2% of all registered voters (using 2004 numbers).
During the 1980s, social conservatives who tried to control pornography, including that subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts, were told such things were the price we must all pay for a "healthy First Amendment." Artists must be free to express themselves. If certain people object to what is on TV, they can change channels, or turn it off.
Why aren't these keepers of the First Amendment flame coming to the defense of Don Imus? It's because they have a double standard. Evangelical Christians, practicing Roman Catholics, politically conservative Republicans, home-schoolers and others who are not in favor among the liberal elite are frequent targets for the left. Anything may be said about them, and it frequently is. But let someone insult the left's "protected classes," be they African Americans, homosexuals or to a lesser extent, adherents to the religion of "global warming," and they must be silenced and punished.
The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy.
They play basketball -- quite well, apparently -- and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose.
People claim to object to the words alone, but that's because everyone is trying to fit this incident into a PC worldview. It's like girls who say, "It's not that you cheated on me; it's that you lied about it." No -- it's that you cheated.
Check out this OpEd piece in a KansasCity online newspaper, written by Jason Whitlock, an award winning sports columnist and, a black man: To whit:
"At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.
Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves."
Go, read it all - he says some thought provoking things that are right on the money.
(Whitlock has also posted his own piece in today's Opinion page of the NorwichBulletin; see the comments)
Guns and who uses them and why...it's an important distinction to make.
A gun is a tool. And depending upon whose hands a gun is in, it can be a force for good or a force for evil. To imply that anyone who wields a gun is automatically on the side of evil is the kind of moral equivalence we have come to expect from many on the left today. For example, most of us would feel more reassured to see a gun in the hands of a professional law enforcement officer than your common, garden variety street thug. Yet there are those who feel threatened, even endangered, by such a sight.
Read more of what I have to say about this in my FamilySecurityMatters.org article today.
UPDATE: In the piece, I include a quote that was in the Denver Post from a Calvin Freehling, who the article says is a Vietnam veteran. This morning, I received an e-mail from VeriSEAL, a group dedicated to providing "independent, no-cost verification of Special Operations Forces personnel backgrounds to SEC associates, clients and law enforcement." The e-mail said, in part:
Please be aware that in response to the Denver Post article by Joe Bunch, a preliminary military records search found no record of a Calvin Freehling having served in any branch of the armed forces. This search was done in response to Mr. Freehling's comments which you have reflected in your excellent piece. Upon finding no record of military service for Mr. Freehling, a formal records request has been made to the the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.
Mr. Bunch ignored our observations, though he was all too eager to accept the preposterous comments of a likely military imposter.
I've informed FSM, and hope they'll include a footnote. The quote seemed odd to me, and I hesitated before including it...I should have known better.
UPDATE II: FSM has removed the reference to Freehling!
MAMARONECK, N.Y. (AP) - Democrat John Edwards got a taste of low-wage life Wednesday, rising before dawn to help to dress, shave and deliver breakfast to elderly residents of a nursing home outside New York City.
His visit was part of the "Work a Day in My Shoes" program sponsored by the influential Service Employees International Union, where presidential candidates spend time with health care workers to understand the challenges of their jobs. Edwards was paired with certified nursing assistant Elaine Ellis, an 18-year employee of the Sarah Neuman Nursing Home who escorted him on her early morning rounds.
Ellis, a divorced mother who raised four children on her nursing assistant's salary, called Edwards "a very personable person" and praised his willingness to spend time on the job with her.
I'd be a bit more convinced of his sincerity if he had done a couple of things:
*Given a resident a spongebath or cleaned a bedpan
*Agreed to try to live on a nursing assistant's salary for at least a month
If its such a stunt, then why don't we see any Republican candidates doing anything similar?
Speaking of working people's lives, how is that Giulani thinks a gallon of milk costs $1.59 and a loaf of bread $1.29. Because he hasn't been grocery shopping in years. The maid does that.
Yes, this is a STUNT. Last night on the news it showed Edwards at the nursing home. He was helping to put on a pair of socks on a patient -- he was wearing rubber gloves -- like he was going to catch something! What a jerk. Thank goodness he doesn't have a prayer to be president.
TALLAHASSEE - The University of Florida's faculty may have denied former Gov. Jeb Bush an honorary degree, but his political allies in the state House of Representatives have found another way to honor the former governor on the school's Gainesville campus.
The House Schools and Learning Council voted Tuesday to name UF's College of Education the "Jeb Bush College of Education.''
"I’m sorry – nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is there a right to “not be offended” or not have your little feelings hurt. There’s too damn much political correctness and pussyfooting in America today and we’d all be better off if there was more plain speech and less “nuance” being employed." ~ Gayle Miller
iPod Touch Video Converter is specially designed for conversion about iPod touch from other video and audio foramts. For its professional design, it can help you great with fast running speed and video and audio and pic quality keeping. Only several dollars can confer you the right to perform most of the iPod touch conversion with the supporting formats like MPG, MPEG, MPEG2, SWF, FLV, VOB, MOD, MP4, H.264, M4V, AVI, WMV, 3GP, 3GPP, MOV, DivX, XviD, QuickTime Video, DV, MJPG, MJPEG, MPV, etc. M2TS Converter has two powerful functions. One is to convert M2TS to AVI, DVD, MPEG, VOB, H264, MP4, etc. and convert M2TS to PS3, iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, PSP, etc. Another is powerful M2TS editing function which can make you freely customize M2TS files.
If you live in or near St. Paul, Minnesota, and have nothing better to do this Saturday, head on over to the Capitol Mall for a Global Warming Day of Action! (One of the sponsors is Air America Minnesota...can they afford it?) There'll be exciting booths to show you how YOU can help shrink your carbon footprint, along with musical acts and impressive speakers including:
*Arctic explorer Ann Bancroft, whose recent expedition to highlight the consequences of global warming had to be cancelled due to extreme cold and threat of frostbite.
*AFL-CIO President Ray Waldron. What his qualifications on global warming are remain to be seen...
*Rep. Keith Ellison, fresh off of his foreign diplomacy tour with Nancy Pelosi, and whose stance on global warming includes believing it is the biggest environmental issue facing the world today. And that's about it.
You know it's an important event when it's included on the John Edwards blog. As of this writing, though, he won't be there to answer questions about his spacious new home in North Carolina. And I don't believe Al Gore will be able to make it either, but you know these two environmental giants will be there in spirit!
Be sure to print up one of the flyers they provide online to put up at your favorite coffee shop or library. (It's okay to waste paper for a good cause.) And don't forget to bring your coat...the high on Saturday is only expected to be around 44.
It may not accomplish anything,
but you'll feel good about yourself!
iPod Touch Converter is specially designed for conversion about iPod touch from other video and audio foramts. For its professional design, it can help you great with fast running speed and video and audio and pic quality keeping. Only several dollars can confer you the right to perform most of the iPod touch conversion with the supporting formats like MPG, MPEG, MPEG2, SWF, FLV, VOB, MOD, MP4, H.264, M4V, AVI, WMV, 3GP, 3GPP, MOV, DivX, XviD, QuickTime Video, DV, MJPG, MJPEG, MPV, etc. M2TS Converter has two powerful functions. One is to convert M2TS to AVI, DVD, MPEG, VOB, H264, MP4, etc. and convert M2TS to PS3, iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, PSP, etc. Another is powerful M2TS editing function which can make you freely customize M2TS files.
Charges Against Duke Lacrosse Players To Be Dropped
UPDATE: FOX News has released the name and a photo of the accuser (h/t Larwyn). Apparently, her name has been said in public several times, including by lawyers during press conferences about the case.
UPDATE II: Hot Air has the video of the announcement. Check it out. "Failure to verify serious allegations." Right on.
The office of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper will announce that he is dismissing all charges against three Duke Lacrosse players, ABC News has learned from sources close to the case.
The three players, Reade Seligmann, David Evans and Collin Finnerty, were facing charges of first degree kidnapping and first degree forcible sexual offense. The charges stem from an off-campus party on the night of March 13, 2006.
...
The reasons that will be cited for the dismissal are not yet known, though the case has been riddled with criticism and colored by controversy since its early months. Defense attorneys released documents showing the accuser changed key details of her story in the weeks and months after the alleged assault.
According to Ron Kuby on WABC this morning, there is little legal recourse for the defendants as far as suing the prosecution, although they may be able to sue Duke University for the defamatory statements made by the school. However, Kuby suggested that perhaps the young men should continue to comport themselves in the courageous and dignified manner in which they've behaved within the past year. I agree. They've been through a lot, and their families have spent so much money on legal fees already...why would they want to go through a lawsuit which they may not win? It must be a huge relief to have this behind them. Still, in our litigous society, a lawsuit of some kind would not surprise me.
Meanwhile the accuser, whose name will likely not be released by major news associations, is still in the Durham area. Call me cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if she gets some kind of book or television movie offer...
The family themselves have made the accuser's name public and it has been public for quite some time: Crystal Gail Magnum.
The family told FOX News that they're poor and black, whereas the players and their families are "rich and white," and that the attorney general's office has looked upon the players as "golden boys. So apparently, ONLY poor people are entitled to justice?
The families of these three INNOCENT young men spent roughly $2.8 million in the past year in order to protect their 3 sons from these FALSE charges. And because Nifong took the investigation away from the police, the City of Durham, the Police Department, the Prosecutor's office and Nifong personally are ALL legally vulnerable - big time. Malicious prosecution is NOT protected by sovereign immunity.
As far as Crystal, she should be prosecuted for perjury and making false statements and she should be jailed, thus making it illegal for her to profit from the fact that SHE raped the reputations of three young men and their teammates. Duke University should be held liable for their unconstitutional behavior as well and both President Brodhead and the Gang of 88 should lose their jobs for proclaiming those 3 young men guilty without evidence or cause.
iPod Touch Converter is specially designed for conversion about iPod touch from other video and audio foramts. For its professional design, it can help you great with fast running speed and video and audio and pic quality keeping. Only several dollars can confer you the right to perform most of the iPod touch conversion with the supporting formats like MPG, MPEG, MPEG2, SWF, FLV, VOB, MOD, MP4, H.264, M4V, AVI, WMV, 3GP, 3GPP, MOV, DivX, XviD, QuickTime Video, DV, MJPG, MJPEG, MPV, etc. M2TS Converter has two powerful functions. One is to convert M2TS to AVI, DVD, MPEG, VOB, H264, MP4, etc. and convert M2TS to PS3, iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, PSP, etc. Another is powerful M2TS editing function which can make you freely customize M2TS files.
So Imus has finally said something that got him into very hot water. But calling the girls on the Rutgers basketball team "nappy headed ho's" is certainly not the first time Imus has insulted someone. Take a gander at these clips...just a few examples of many of his more boneheaded comments:
Here, Imus calls Bill O'Reilly a "sonofabitch."
Here, Imus recalls the "Jewish management" of CBS as being "money grubbing bastards."
Funny...Imus calls David Gregory a "queer." Just imagine a conservative host getting away with that!
And click here to see Imus fantasizing about what it would be like to see members of the Bush administration being led to the gallows.
Frankly, Imus has been on the shelf way past his sell-by date. It's probably time for him to think about being put out to pasture.
A woman with explosives hidden beneath her black abaya detonated them Tuesday in a crowd of about 200 police recruits northeast of Baghdad, killing at least 16 people, police and hospital officials said.
The woman walked into the crowd at the main gate of the Muqdadiyah police station and blew herself up, according to a police officer at the scene who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
At least 16 people were killed and 33 wounded in the mostly Sunni Muslim city about 60 miles northeast of Baghdad, said Dr. Abdul Salam al-Jibour at Muqdadiyah General Hospital.
Suicide bombing...it's not just for men anymore! You've come a long way, baby...
Meanwhile, the big guy in Iraq is not looking for a timetable for our withdrawal:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a four-day trip to Japan, said there was no need to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from his country.
"We see no need for a withdrawal timetable. We are working as fast as we can," al-Maliki said. "To demand the departure of the troops is a democratic right and a right we respect. What governs the departure at the end of the day is how confident we are in the handover process."
What counts, he added, are "achievements on the ground."
I'm confused about what you're trying to say by associating the female bomber with "women's lib". Would you clarify? Thanks.
posted by Ro at April 10, 2007 05:51 PM
I was being a bit snippy there. I guess I find it amazing that feminists have been so quiet about what's goes on not only in Iraq when it comes to women, but in the Middle East in general. Before we entered Afghanistan, there was a lot of discussion about the plight of women under the yoke of the Taliban. But it seems our involvement in Iraq, etc., has silenced much of the criticism of women's status in Islam. Is it because a Republican-led war is more repugnant to them then women who have no rights under Islamic law? Perhaps it's not the most thought-out post I've done, but it was written out of frustration. I was also upset that not more uproar was made about the two children who were used in a car bombing, especially when we hear so much about civilian deaths being caused by our presence.
Of course, the part about al-Maliki's comments being at the bottom of the story...and the fact that most people read headlines and the first paragraph or two...needs no explanation.
I suppose I was a bit taken aback by such a comment in reaction to the deaths of 17 people, and the implication that women's rights activists here might in some way find joy in such an occurance. I appreciate that you seem to understand that concern in your reply.
I would also refute that feminists have been quiet about the way women are treated in the Middle East. A quick search reveal many recent articles, although most are more closely related to how the violence in the Middle East affects women and children in particular, which is not so well covered in MSM. After all, the issues that affect women in Iraq and Afghanistan (beyond the war, that is), are issues that are being raised by human rights activists world wide -- reproductive rights, equal employment rights, harassment, sexual and domestic violence, etc.
What a difference an election makes. Back in 2004, casual observers might have figured that having a military background, especially combat experience, was high on the list of must-haves for presidential candidates. This time around, military experience is optional.
Of the current Democratic front-runners, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), 45, was too young to have been drafted during the Vietnam War. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 53, had a draft number that was never called. And, Sen. Hillary Clinton, 59, like most women her age, would not have been expected to serve. Women weren't subject to the draft.
Among the other candidates in the Democratic race, Sen. Chris Dodd, 62, of Connecticut, served in the Army Reserve from 1969 to 1975. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico received student and medical classifications that probably spared him from service in Vietnam, including one for a deviated septum. Richardson had a draft lottery number of 131 in 1970, a year when men with numbers as high as 195 were called.
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, 64, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 60, also had medical conditions that kept them from serving in Vietnam.
Among the leading Republican candidates, only McCain, 70, has a military record. The Arizona senator spent more than 20 years in the Navy, almost a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
Draft deferments kept Giuliani, 62, of out Vietnam while he attended law school. In 1968, as the Vietnam War was escalating, he was classified 1-A, or draft eligible. After going to work for a federal judge, he received an occupational deferment. He was classified 1-A again in 1970, but had a high lottery number.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, 60, received a draft deferment while serving as a Mormon missionary in France during the war. He was eligible for the draft later, but was not selected. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), 50, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 51, came of age after the draft ended in 1973. Neither has military experience.
Another Republican, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, received student deferments. He was available for service in 1969, but was reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety.
On the other hand, longshot GOP hopeful Rep. Duncan Hunter, 58, who describes himself as "the national security candidate," was an Army paratrooper and Ranger in the Vietnam War and has a personal connection to the Iraq war. His son, a Marine, has completed two tours of duty there.
The fact that President Bush "only" served in the National Guard was such a big deal in 2004 that Dan Rather ended up losing his job trying to make the molehill bigger. But these days, it's not a big deal that so many candidates are without military experience.
It should never have been a big deal to begin with. But in 2004, Democrats were so eager to show how tough they are on national security that they nominated John Kerry, whose experiences in Vietnam became the cornerstone of his campaign. Then those experiences came crashing down about his ears with the help of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But all that water is under the bridge now.
Democrats have left the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy far behind. Those Democrats knew how important a strong military and its role in national security are. Now the former '60s college protestors are running the Democrat Party, and they couldn't make their disdain of our military any clearer. The demand of a pullout date in Iraq is the prime example. Just as the premature pullout in Vietnam created a power vacuum, so will a premature pullout in Iraq. And who will pay for it? Not the Democrats, but the Iraqi people, who will be subject to the same kind of slaughter the Vietnamese were. The terrorists have only to stay alive long enough for America to give up. Then they can exercise their prescription of violence and oppression without any worries.
Military experience is not necessary to be a good president, even in a time of war and its reconstruction. But a healthy respect for our military and the capability of seeing the big picture are. And this is where the current crop of Democrat candidates fall short.
ANTI-AMERICA/ANTI-ISRAEL/ANTI-SEMITIC HATE GROUP IN DETROIT CALLED "ANTI-RACIST ACTION (ARA)": LGF ARTICLE ABOUT ARA'S ANTI-PEACE RALLY TWO WEEKS AGO:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25002_A_Hatefest_at_Wayne_State&only
VIDEO OF ARA’S ANTI-SEMITIC HATEFEST:
Part I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqbfZqX7LWU
Part II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxeweTTLqII
Part III:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1BlPhbW5tw
Using the recently resolved British sailor incident as a backdrop, Charles Krauthammer nails it (no pun intended):
Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free trade zone. But as a political entity, it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. Yet nothing was done. "The Dutch," reports The Times of London, ``said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.'' So much for European solidarity.
Like other vaunted transnational institutions, the EU is useless as a player in the international arena. Not because its members are venal but because they are sovereign. Their interests are simply not identical.
Yes and the EU is such a "smashing success story" that we will be doing the same thing here as we continue building the infrastructure and business and legal framework for the similar farce called the North American Union..
Why isn't Congress actively working against the demise of their own relevance? The NAU is being constructed outside the normal and required legislative channels, merely as a business initiative and co-operative efforts of MexiCanadAmerica.
As citizens of this country we must revolt against this .. the Canadians are also very much against this effort.
On Sam Fox, Recess Appointments, and Democrat Whining
John Kerry must be fuming. Angry that Sam Fox, President Bush's nominee for ambassador to Belgium donated $50,000 to the group that helped orchestrate his defeat in the 2004 election (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), Kerry did his level best to scuttle the nomination in committee. Bush ended up withdrawing the nomination, only to install Fox in a recess appointment.
Now the Dems cry foul, saying Bush's appointment was made illegally because he withdrew the nomination. This might help clarify that charge:
The President is not required to nominate the recess appointee to the appointed position. The President will sometimes use a recess appointment to fill a position while a different nominee to the same position is going through the confirmation process in the Senate. Under certain conditions, however, a provision of law may prevent a recess appointee from being paid from the Treasury if he or she has not been nominated to the position.
Fox is taking the appointment on an unpaid basis.
A bit of history on recess appointments: Up until the 1930s, Congress did not meet during the hot Washington DC summers. Recess appointments were a way to keep the cogs of government running smoothly, so that positions were not left empty while Congress was not in session. However, presidents have used the recess appointment authority to get their choices in when it looked like they might not get approved. One recent, high-profile example was GWB's appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador at the end of 2005. He served only one year, as the Senate refused to confirm him when the recess appointment expired.
As for Bush wanting a pal in an ambassadorial position, well, that's what happens in politics. It's common practice for the president to give these cushy positions to friends and supporters, and Bush is by no means the first. And, he's certainly not the first president to give an ambassadorship to someone who is disliked by political oponents.
Here's a relatively recent example: In 1999, Bill Clinton used his recess appointment power to install Jim Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel was a big supporter of Clinton in 1992, and gave a total of $125,000 to Clinton's re-election campaign and the Democrats in general in 1996. Clinton wanted to reward him. But objections by some Senate Republicans about Hormel's homosexuality and activist agenda meant that the nomination might not go smoothly, so Clinton slipped him in during a Congressional recess.
I'm sure there are countless other examples throughout our history.
John Kerry wanted to punish Fox for supporting SBVT. Now he's been thwarted, and he and his compatriots are crying over spilled milk. But aren't there bigger fish to fry these days? These energies might be better extended over the issues surrounding troop funding, not an ambassadorial appointment to a country about the size of Maryland.
And we're very happy that they are. But it ain't over, not by a long shot:
This bodes badly for the West's relations with Teheran over a number of acutely difficult problems during the coming months: its defiance of UN sanctions imposed because of a refusal to halt uranium enrichment; its heightened meddling in Iraq; and its continued support for terrorist movements - Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and elements of Fatah - vowed to Israel's destruction. During the recent crisis, Iran has yielded not a jot on any of these matters. Rather, the approval it has enjoyed on the Islamic "street" for humiliating an old enemy is likely to make it even more intransigent.
Next time...and there will be a next time...things might not go so swimmingly.
Former President Jimmy Carter expressed his support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, rejecting White House criticism of the visit.
"I was glad that she went," Carter said Wednesday. "When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem."
And whenever someone is actively siding with Middle Eastern terrorists and despots, Jimmy Carter is one of the first ones on the congratulatory bandwagon. Never mind that Pelosi's trip weakens our foreign policy stance and makes the terrorists clap their hands in glee -- Jimmy Carter is happy, and that's all that counts in his mind.
Like Carter, this guy is all smiles about Pelosi's trip:
One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East.
[...]
"Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice," said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. "If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections."
Thanks Nancy. Here's what I think of your extracurricular activities:
Praise from former President Carter is the death knell for her speakership! Or it should be.
And now, God help us, she had the effrontery to ask Saudi leaders why they don't have any FEMALE political leaders? She truly is the dimmest bulb on the planet!
If you haven't heard about this wonderful program that helps women in Afghanistan directly, then now is your opportunity. My friend Andrea Shea-King has details.
Thanks so much for giving this wonderful project exposure on your site. Betsy, and now Brenda, have been placed in circumstances to lift up many Afghanis who have suffered so terribly and had no hope. Their children were starving and dying. They knew nothing but sadness and despair.
These women never smiled. Ever. Until they saw the first sprout pop up. By the time the sprout has grown into a seedling, their smiles became broader still. A full grown plant brought them laughter. Does it get ANY better than that?
I've been invited to write a weekly column at FamilySecurityMatters.org, which is pretty exciting, considering the talent there includes Brigitte Gabriel, Joel Mowbray and Peter Brooks. My debut column can be found here.
I also have a piece running at American Thinker today. Check it out!
UPDATE: Both of my articles referenced above discuss Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, and their attempt at a power grab. This editorial by the Washington Post echoes some of the sentiments I discuss. This paragraph really brings it home:
Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
I had discussed the Republican congressmen's visit in this post. Seeing the WaPo editorial helps clear things up quite a bit. It's also nice to see that, unlike the New York Times, the Washington Post is an outfit that still has some common sense about them.
Well written to be sure. I had forgotten about the Kerry/Dodd junket - so numerous are the offenses being committed by the new Dem majority (and their hanger-on-RINOs).
I have posted the full text of the Logan Act at my site along with my own rant about this situation. Not only do I question their judgment, I DO question their patriotism. They have performed so many anti-American deeds and uttered so many anti-American words that I cannot give them a "pass" any longer.
You marred an otherwise good column by misrepresenting the relationship between the executive and the legislative branches. That someone who claims to be a conservative would describe the executive as the "parent" of the legislative branch is supriseing. Your view of government more closely resembles that of a government loving liberal, frankly.
Critical Mass bikers in San Francisco mobbed 'round a minivan, smashed its rear window, and badly frightened the children inside. The cops have no control over these monthly rides, and Sgt. Ed Callejas' only suggestion to the van's owners was to write a letter to the mayor.
I have a better idea: Sue the city. For big bucks.
Sorry, but if driving through San Francisco on the last Friday night of the month means you might be attacked by lunatics posing as environmentalists on two wheels, then perhaps the only way to get the city to do something about it is to hit them where it counts.
That's an interesting theory, Fritz. However, the DRIVER called 911. The rest of your analysis is fcsked as well. Try this:
Mom (with kids in the van) is surrounded by a bunch of jackoffs, perhaps tapping one of them with her vehicle. One of them who disobeyed traffic regulations and unsafely passed her.
Mom (with kids in the van) then attempts to get out of the way of the cyclists.
Mom calls 911.
Mob surrounds van to prevent law and order from prevailing.
One idiot smashed out the window and scares the kids.
Police arrive, can't sort anything out as cyclists are ranting and raving like children, and there's too many of them. Cyclist who was "assaulted" realizes that the situation is out of control, leaves like a little pussy bitch.
If this were the law-and-order society that we all want, the mob would have been arrested for their crime.
Fritz, that's an interesting theory. But let me propose an alternative one: you're a dumbass.
The DRIVER called 911. The cyclist who was "assaulted" refused to assist police, and ran away like a little crybaby bitch. The mob did not attempt to ensure that justice was served, they terrorized and attacked a family.
If anyone had stuck around to actually provide testimony or take responsibility for their actions, I might agree with you. All this shows is that a bunch of thugs was out cruising around San Fran. Those cocksuckers give us bike commuters a real bad name.
I usually carry a rock hammer in my car (being a geologist). If a mob broke a window and threatened a family member, I would consider that to have been a direct invasion of my personal space. And if some mob member gets pulled into my car during the melee and is somehow harmed by said rock hammer, that is just too damned bad.
Gee, it's interesting that they didn't attack a big 4X4 pickup driven by a redneck with a bad attitude. As he drove away, no doubt he would be wondering "When did they put all of these speedbumps on this street?".
It is nothing more than premeditated mob violence. Is it premeditated if we plan out our self-defense methods?
I went to Dictionary.com to look up the specific definition of the word mandate for something I'm writing. Take a look at the first example sentence:
1. a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative: The president had a clear mandate to end the war.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he will "pardon" the sailors and return them home as a "gift" to the British people. How magnanimous of him. I guess he's used them all he can for his little PR stunt, and figures he'd better get while the going's good.
Ahmadinejad said Iran will never accept trespassing in its territorial waters.
"On behalf of the great Iranian people, I want to thank the Iranian coast guard who courageously defended and captured those who violated their territorial waters," he said.
"We are sorry that British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran," Ahmadinejad said.
There is doubt that the sailors were even in Iranian waters, despite the fact that the sailors "confessed" to trespassing. But Ahmadinejad's not the kind of guy to let conflicting evidence to get in his way.
Ahmadinejad went on to criticize the British navy for deploying Lead Seaman Faye Turney overseas when she has a child at home, deploring the West's lack of "family values." I suppose Middle Eastern family values, where women are considered to be subhuman and children are used by terrorists in car bombings, are more to his taste.
I won't believe Ahmadinejad until those sailors have been handed over. He's not the kind of guy I would trust in a handshake deal. If he is true to his word in this instance, I'll be glad that the whole thing is over. Until, of course, the next time. I have no doubt there will be some kind of next time.
UPDATE: From yesterday, but still worth reading. John Hawkins discusses how this hostage situation has shown the worthlessness of European allies.
Whats been lost in this is the release of the Iranian diplomat(?) taken by the Iraqi`s in December. He was released yesterday and there has been no talk so far of a trade.
Hmmm...apparently a few Republicans made a trip to Syria, something that is just coming out now. They were there shortly before the much brouhahaed arrival of Nancy Pelosi.
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt of Haleyville, a Republican, was one of three congressmen to visit Syria last weekend, a trip that is getting new scrutiny since President Bush has criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Damascus a few hours later.
...
Aderholt was with Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania on a Middle East trip that included stops in Damascus and Israel. According to a statement, they met with government officials, businessmen, religious leaders and other members of Syrian civil society, including opposition leader Riad Seif.
"We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue," according to the statement.
There has been a lot of criticism of Nancy Pelosi and her contingent. But hey, there's plenty to go around. What are these guys thinking?
The visit by Pelosi is likely more damaging to President Bush's credibility due to her position as House Speaker. Her high profile is also the likely reason that her trip has received wide coverage while that of the three Republicans (I haven't heard of any of them before this) has been virtually ignored.
From what the article linked above says, it doesn't seem that these three guys had plans to meet with President Assad. So I suppose we have to give them credit for that. But come on! When congressmen and senators begin acting like foreign policy experts, especially when a sitting president has cut off diplomatic relations with a particular country, it erodes America's credibility. It doesn't matter if the junketeers are from the same party as the president or not.
These three should be held up to scrutiny as well.
UPDATE: It would be helpful to know exactly why these guys made the trip...are they looking to act as negotiators, or are they simply "fact finding," like so many congressmen and senators like to do on our dime? As I mentioned above, it doesn't seem as though they had plans to talk to the big kahuna with a "message" from Israel. Yet it's troubling that they went to Syria at all. These are questions that should be answered.
i tend to agree w/a post i just read. though i wasn't fond of the author's lack of tact his point is well taken. it is one thing to be on a fact finding mission and quite another to be a negotiator.
Hmmm...it's an interesting post, but am not sure what it has to do with the Republican trip. I do agree, however, that it's one thing to be a negotgiator, and another to simply go fact-finding. Nancy Pelosi is looking to be the negotiating savior...
(As for the post you link, I'm older than the 18-35 age bracket that Joe Leonardi challenges to sign up for service.)
Tacoma police say last month's 12-day anti-war protests cost the city an unbudgeted $500,000 to provide a large-scale law enforcement presence.
The rough estimate covers overtime, regular compensation, equipment and food for hundreds of workers from Tacoma police and other agencies, Assistant Chief Bob Sheehan said.
The city plans to ask the Port of Tacoma and the military to cover some of the costs.
"That's a tremendous hit on our budget -- a half-million dollars of unexpected expense," said Tacoma Mayor Bill Baarsma, adding that the military would get the first invoice.
Remember, these protestors harassed and shouted down our troops as they went about their jobs.
Has Mayor Baarsma considered billing the groups who organized the protest? Thought not.
So not only did our military have to endure the nasty, overblown rhetoric of a bunch of people who revile them, but they're expected to pay for the privilege. Oh, and don't forget, it's our military's very existence that helps secure the freedom for protestors to spit on them.
The article said they would charge the military to pay for part of the cost, and it didn't say that they weren't going to charge the organizers of the protest.
You can't charge people for protesting, for goodness sake, unless there's vandalism or such.
And I'm sure the presence of the military and the resulting benefits to the city of Tacoma more than offsets the costs of any occasional protest. Get some perspective and stop holding out your hand for help.
Some Much-Needed Perspective on Brit Hostage Situation
Tim Wilson, writing for Family Security Matters, chimes in on how he thinks the British sailors and Marines got into this mess, and why it's dragged on as long as it has. Here's his opener:
The current hostage crisis in Iran is showing the problems of weak leadership at a time when strength is needed. Prime Minister Tony Blair may have been committed to Iraq, but his failure to respond robustly to this latest outrage shows clearly he is no Churchill or Thatcher. His popularity in the USA is not matched at home and amongst the UK military he was not well regarded before this latest challenge. As a result he is more worried about petty politics than the damage done to Western credibility by the success of this latest Iranian outrage.
Click here for the rest. According to Wilson's bio, "a retired British Army officer who served in a variety of command appointments on numerous operational tours during a 30 year military career," so I would think his insight carries some weight.
UPDATE: Sucker alert: me. But Ace was too (scroll to the bottom of his post), so I don't feel so bad.
If this is true, then we really have reason to worry about the sanity of the greenies (h/t Moonbattery):
BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.
Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.
Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.
PLEASE! Don't tell our current Congress, whose motto is, "Any excuse to raise taxes!" And not only would they have Al Gore and his sycophants pushing this, but PETA would get involved as well.
Next thing you know, they'll be taxing smokers for every cigarette they smoke that adds to their "carbon footprint." You think I'm joking?
Pam - they're already taxing smokers out the ears. I think something like 65% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is taxes. About 2 years ago the State of Ohio raised the taxes on a pack of cigarettes 70 plus cents in one big hit!
Chicken Hawks, Defeatists, and the Debate About Iraq
If the left had its way, very few citizens at home would be allowed to lend moral support to our soldiers in the field because the majority of us have not served in the military. This is the so-called logic behind the “chicken hawk” argument: If you have not served, or are not currently serving in the military, then you cannot under any circumstances support a war where real soldiers are dying. “Suit up or shut up!” “When are you going to enlist?”
Using this logic, if “chicken hawks” cannot support a war because they know nothing personally of warfare, then what makes those on the left who have not served more qualified to speak out against the war? Who are they to criticize the goings-on in Iraq? Do they know more than the president and the top military brass in the field? Why is it that leftwingers who haven’t served are qualified to say, “Bring the troops home now,” while rightwingers who say, “We support the troops and their mission” are hatemongers who pooh-pooh the very real dangers our soldiers face every day?
No one I know who supports the troops wants them to die. We would love for each and every one of our men and women in uniform to come home safely to their families. Unfortunately, we know the realities. Soldiers sign up for military duty for various reasons, but they all do so knowing that they might someday be called upon to go to war. They sign the dotted line knowing that even if they disagree with the mission, they have sworn to uphold it – or face the consequences of a court martial and possible jail time. And they do this even though there are people at home who think they are either ignorant or have no other options than the military. They do this even though some of their fellow citizens consider them to be murderers and baby killers.
By putting their lives on the line, our volunteer military allows us to continue to have the freedom to say whatever we would like, including the freedom to insult the very ones who keep our freedoms secure.
I believe part of the reason the atmosphere surrounding this war is so toxic is because of the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful thing in many ways: it allows information to be disseminated without being filtered by the old media, so that we are truly more informed now than ever before. It also allows average citizens to become actively involved in the debate, something that once was nearly impossible unless one had a “letter to the editor” published. Unfortunately, the ease with which people can either post blog entries or comment on blog entries made by others anonymously makes it easier for them to let out whatever pent-up rage or frustration that they may have about a situation. Rather than debate an issue civilly online, many prefer to unleash the kind of vitriol that would not be acceptable in face-to-face conversation. Personal, ad hominem attacks are frequent on both sides of the political fence. The only thing that does for the debate is to cheapen it.
Whether you approve of the war or not, it’s important to be able to support your reason. And like it or not, what we say here at home has a definite impact on how our soldiers function in the field. I would rather err on the side of supporting our troops and the mission they uphold than to demand they come home simply because war is an uncomfortable thing, with the consequence that our enemies would consider this our defeat.
And calling me names or telling me I’m full of hogwash certainly isn’t going to make me change my mind about these and other important matters.
I agree and I owe you an apology!!! But then there is the posts of Wyatt and Gayle who further anchor the polarization of the views of Iraq. Who the hell is Gayle to question the patriotism of any American? Wyatt is just plain ignorant in the same way that I was but at least I can recognize it and apologize to you for it.
The so called "moonbats" (whatever the hell that is) are not any less patriotic for wanting our troops home then you are for wanting them to complete this mission. You are patriotic enough to want to see success and the others of this country want our men and women home and home safely. Who is wrong and who is right when both sides make very valid points.
A question: Ths President has said time and time again that he's "going to listen to his generals" so why hasn't he? The first wave of generals told this administration that if they were going to occupy this country and maintain it's security for the transition, they would need a lot more troops. Those generals, relieved of duty and replaced with a bunch of bobble-heads. Now General Patraeus has said that "there is no military solution to Iraq". Does that not mean anything to anybody at all? What that means is our troops canot possibly achieve victory. Patraeus has also said that there needs to be a political solution or there will be no victory. When Hillary said that, y'all called her names and attacked her credibility but when Patraeus says it, its completely tuned out like he's talking to Martians. And what is so wrong with putting it to the Iraqi people to "get your head out of your asses or we're out of here!!!" If these people want to kill each other bad enough where the gift of democracy we gave them is that trivial to them then let them kill each other! See ya! Why waste any more American lives on these ungrateful bastards. The Al Qaeda want us to leave? The Al Qaeda wants us to stay so they can further undermine our credibility and they know the Shias will wipe them off the Earth if we leave. I say let the Shias wipe the Sunnis off the Earth. Bye bye Al Qaeda in Iraq. They can flee to Pakistan where they're all hiding anyways at the base and at least we'll know where they all are and will do nothing about it like we have for the past six years. I'm patriotic to know that a broken promise from a bullhorn is still a broken promise. Where is the justice I was promised? I lost loved ones on 9/11 and justice? It sure as hell isn't in Iraq. Its in Pakistan!
Now we have people "chomping at the bit" for a war with Iran and we haven't won the two wars we got. Hello? We got American soldiers going on their fourth tour of duty and people want to put them through more? We invaded two countries that couldn't defend themselves and we still can't claim victory and now we want to go up against a country that CAN defend itself while those responsible for 9/11 still get to enjoy their freedom 6 years later in Pakistan. How much combat stress can an individual possibly take? Do you know and do you care? And politicians taking strolls through Baghdad to prove how safe it is. Did you know that McCain's little photo-op BS stunt cost the lives of six American soldiers? How are we expected to believe these people anymore? I November of 2006, the American people made it clear...we don't beleive them anymore and Gayle questioning the patriotism of the 78% of this country who don't believe them anymore only makes the 78% question her minority status and her own "idea" of patriotism. It is the will of the American people. Get on board or get out!
If this were 1776, this Congress would be in danger of the tar-and-feather brand of American displeasure for using our battlefield troops as pawns in their childish game of mere politics and public posturing. This is not a photo-op for Nancy Pelosi and her grandchildren. Nor is it a bar-hopping night for Ted Kennedy. This isn't American Idol and it most assuredly is not a sing-along happening with Joan Baez. This is WAR! Our real sons and daughters are gallantly shedding their blood in a National effort to prevent even greater atrocities than 9/11, and our Congress is behaving like this is an interactive video game without genuine consequences. A presumed "Culture of Corruption", however deep, is far, far better than a Culture of Cowardice when it comes to protecting our children from maniacs who see them as nothing but fodder for their senseless Jihad. And anyone who cannot make that distinction should be home baking cookies and watching American Idol - not running the Country.
This entire must-read by Kyle-Ann Shiver is over at American Thinker.
I think it shows how weak the Democratic Party is when dealing with National Security and Defense issues. Their only concern is their well being and ability to better themselves at the expense of those brave Americans fighting for our freedom. Why can't they develop a strategy to win the war in Iraq? Why is their party so weak in ideas and so pompous in nature?
Swick, I wish I had an answer for that. But when you look at the pompous people who populate it (Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et al), who believe that they know better than all of us about everything, then you get an idea as to what kind of people you're dealing with.
I will agree with your thoughts. I still wonder why voters in Massachusetts keep voting in those two when they have no values nor leadership qualities.
British Schools Drop Holocaust Studies to Avoid Offending Muslims
Some schools in Britain are no longer studying the Holocaust for fear of offending resident Muslims (h/t Moonbattery):
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.
It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.
There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.
The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.
Those of us who wonder why Blair's government has not been more forceful in the hostage situation with its sailors can quit wondering. It seems all of Britain is infected with PC-itis, especially as it pertains to Muslims. My advice to the Brits: start ordering those prayer mats and burqas now and beat the rush.
Hey, aren't these the same school teachers who courageously teach evolution and sex education despite the fact that Christian fundamentalists object? What could possibly be the difference here?
There used to be a time when Britain didn't take guff from anyone. As one of Michelle Malkin's readers comments,
25 years ago today, British Royal Marines fought back when someone came to get them. See the Royal Marine Detachment at Port Stanley at the opening of the Falklands War.
In an earlier post, I said Tony Blair wasn't squishy when it came to his military. It seems I'm being proven sadly wrong. In this Washington Times op-ed, Diana West concurs.
When a civilization no longer inculcates an overriding attachment to its own survival, well, it no longer survives as a civilization. In peacetime, the disintegration appears more theoretical. In wartime, the holes really begin to show.
Sticking with Britain as an example, when Tony Blair long ago brought forth his "Cool Britannia," multiculti, domestic agenda, the ensuing debate was a "culture war," not a real war. It might have politically divided Britain, but the country seemed to remain intact. When the government of Britain recently responded to a recognized act of war against its military personnel by threatening diplomacy, a kind of emptiness to the whole British enterprise was exposed.
Indeed. A commenter at this post says, "Blair is almost to the point of yelling, 'Great Scott!'"
Britain used to be one of the world's foremost military powers. Now, instead of giving Iran an ultimatum and then following through, government officials are thinking of apologizing to Iran. Winston Churchill must be rolling in his grave. I can't even imagine what Margaret Thatcher is thinking.
Iran is exploiting this namby pamby, "We Are the World" attitude that has swept Britain (and other Western nations) into its thrall since the 1990s. Mark Steyn puts in his two cents:
So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of “international law”: If you’re in a “warship,” you can’t wage war. If you’re in a “destroyer,” don’t destroy anything. If you’re in a “frigate,” you’re frigging done for.
All this dithering on Britain's part only serves to embolden Iran and other would-be rogue states. A popular British mascot has been the bulldog, known for its tenacity. Perhaps the Brits should consider replacing the bulldog with the teacup chihuahua. Truth in advertising, and all that rot.
UPDATE: I was looking for this link, as I wanted to include it in the main post, but only just came upon it (h/t Right Wing Nation):
The only wry smile to be derived from the humiliating circumstances in which our 15 sailors and Royal Marines were captured by just six Iranians came from the comment by Patricia Hewitt. "It was deplorable," pronounced our tight-lipped Health Secretary, "that the woman hostage should be shown smoking. This sends completely the wrong message to our young people."
Considering British doctors were pushing to have long sharp knives banned because they can *gasp* be used as weapons, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised that the Health Secretary is more concerned with Faye Turney having a stress-relieving smoke than the fact that Turney is being held hostage in Iran. Priorities, people...
Oh look...the chicken-hawks are trying to wage yet another war with other people's lives while hiding behind their blogs like the cowards that they truly are. You chicken-hawks playing Risk with the Iraq war with your yellow-ribbon toy soldiers you "claim" to support haven't even won the last war you're hiding behind your blog from and now you're trying to play yellow-ribbon chicken-hawk with Britain's soldiers? Suit up or shut up coward!
Oh yeah, New England's Liberal wasteland ain't keeping you here. If ever you decide to put on your panties and crawl out from under your blog, feel free to kiss our ass on the way out.
Syntax - you are clearly off your meds - or need to get some.
What part of "they want to kill us" do you not understand? What part of - it isn't our fault, but rather the fault of their own perverted view of their religion's teachings that makes them want to kill us - do you not understand?
God help this nation if people like you are EVER allowed to crawl out of your little wet dreams and into positions of influence!
Is s/he blaming the US for the Brits being taken hostage? And what do bloggers have to do with war in general and the Brit hostage situation in particular?
Maybe if s/he learned how to express something other than fear we could communicate.
Thanks Gayle, Kitty. Syntax sounds like a very angry person, and what better way to blow off steam than to anonymously launch an ad hominem attack at a blog? As for my "chicken hawk" status, I'd rather err on the side of supporting the mission our troops are sent out on than be seen as a demoralizing naysayer who thinks I know more than the administration and top military brass.
In a related note, I an a detective in Philadelphia, and if idiots like Syntax do not wear my uniform, I would like him to shut the hell up about crime in America. The next time he gets burglarized, don't bitch unless you wear the uniform.
Funny stuff! I don't recall saying anything about crime in America Wyatt wannabe. Now I know where my meds went.
Any of you fear-mongering chicken-hawks in NYC on the morning of 9/11? Any of you fear-mongering chicken-hawks understand those who "want to kill us" are still free as birds and not a single one of them are in Iraq nor have they ever been to Iraq? Are any of you ever going to rise above this corn-fed stupidity? Ever?
You 22% left in this country spew out the tired old rhetoric like obedient little drones while the other 78% of America has grown tired of this Iraqi-special olympics cheer squad BS. OMG!!! THE EVIL IRAQIS ARE SWARMING IN THE ATLANTIC AND COMING TO KILL US ALL!!!! How freaking stupid. A ten-year old child isn't that stupid. "The Al Qaeda will build a base in Iraq and use that base to launch attacks against America!!!" Heard that from the wet-pantied chicken-hawks. Why would a terrorist organization comprised mostly of Sunnis build a base in a country where they are severely outnumbered by Shias who would like nothing more than to kill them all? Common sense anyone? Wouldn't the Sunni Al Qaeda organization be better off building their base in a country comprised mostly of their own kind so they can operate with support and without interference? A country like Pakistan maybe? Didn't our intelligence agencies just release a report saying the Al Qaeda has done exactly that, build a base in Pakistan to operate without interference? Wow man....thats deep.
You support a foreign policy of a President who when Pentagon officials were advising him of the possibility of sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites, his response was "Sunnis and Shi'ites?!?! I thought they were Muslims!" You honestly believe I'd be dumb enough to vote for an idiot like that? Hell know and I ain't singin' his BS war tune neither. Those "who want to kill us have benefited greatly from this administration. They've been given just short of amnestly for 9/11 and are releasing more videos than Justin Timberlake. As far as Britain/Iran? It's Britain's problem! Let them deal with it!
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