Thursday, August 31, 2006

DAVID LIMBAUGH: More Of Carter's Little Pills

More Of Carter's Little Pills

When I wrote about Jimmy Carter's antics recently, some suggested I should quit wasting my time discussing someone so irrelevant. Well, I'd be happy to comply, except that their assumption is incorrect. What this misguided and increasingly bitter man says, especially on foreign soil, does matter.

Don't forget that the Democratic Party leadership embraces Carter, as witnessed by his prominent role in the party's national convention, where he called President Bush – in no uncertain terms – a liar. Remember that when you're tempted to think of Carter as just a benign senior statesman.

I'll concede that Carter has done some good works since he was defeated in 1980, but why that should insulate him from scrutiny for the many inappropriate and mean-spirited statements he's made since then escapes me.

I thought Democrats unanimously agreed that one of America's highest aspirations should be to ingratiate itself to its allies and other nations. Above all else, we should strive to be the most popular player on the international block.

They have brutalized President Bush for acting "unilaterally" and alienating the rest of the world. They say that by attacking Iraq he has made peaceful Muslims the world over – who are otherwise inclined to love us dearly, of course – hate us and become homicidal suicide bombers.

Why, then, does Carter get a pass for constantly contributing to America's negative image by telling the world how bad we are?

Well, now he's not just telling them how bad we are, but how bad our greatest single ally in the war is. Carter told The Sunday Telegraph: "I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behavior. I think that more than any other person in the world the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington – and he has not. I really thought that Tony Blair ... would be a constraint on President Bush's policies towards Iraq."
Carter said he holds Blair "substantially responsible" for his "compliance and subservience" to Bush, which has exacerbated America's unpopularity overseas "in countries like Egypt and Jordan," where "our approval ratings are less than five percent."

Notice that Carter gets a twofer here, blasting both Blair and Bush with his rhetorical popgun. His unstated premise is that if Muslim countries disapprove of our policies in the war, they must be right and we must be wrong. Wouldn't it be shocking if – just once – people like Carter would draw the opposite conclusion: that Egyptians and Jordanians are improperly sympathetic to the terrorist cause? And don't tell me this isn't about sympathy for Muslim terrorism.

Would you prefer to believe the Jordanians and Egyptians are righteously angry with us for deposing an incredibly evil dictator who enslaved, tortured and slaughtered his own people? Does that sound more reasonable to you?

Look at the Lebanese people's overwhelming support for the Hezbollah terrorists. How much more evidence do we need that it isn't our actions that cause them to hate us? Or, even if it is, that we can't quit fighting this war just so we can score higher in foreign popularity polls? (This is just a wild hunch, but I'll bet Jimmy's best buddy, Fidel Castro, disapproves of Bush's foreign policy, too.)

Since Carter has no plans to rebuke himself for slamming the leader of America's strongest ally, perhaps other Democratic leaders will step up to the plate and at least gently admonish him for alienating our allies and trying to validate the Muslim world's complaints against us. Right.

The truth is that Tony Blair has been a courageous statesman and a refreshingly reliable ally throughout the war. He's stood tall against those in his own country and ours who have, in the spirit of Neville Chamberlain, turned their backs on the realities of 9/11 and pretended the evils we face don't exist, rather than confronting them.

By contrast, Jimmy Carter only sees evil in those who are fighting for good and opposing evil, like George Bush, Tony Blair, the United States and Great Britain.

Since the Democratic ex-presidents club is so determined to violate the traditional rule that former presidents don't criticize sitting ones, maybe President Bush should consider breaking that rule in reverse. As the sitting president, he might apologize to Tony Blair and the British people for the uncharitable, unfair and reprehensible remarks of former president Jimmy Carter, who has dishonored the sacrifices of America, Britain and their respective armed forces.
When it comes to foreigners' attitudes toward America, I'll take respect over popularity any day.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

PRAIRIESON: Consider the Lot Of Canada

Consider the Lot Of Canada

What's to do there when there's no hockey? Besides, it's harmless childishness on their part. Canadians have never been known for great maturity. One has to consider that before taking too much of what they say or do seriously.

They also know that we'll simply laugh it off -- they wouldn't dare try something like that with, say, Iran or Syria. Imagine them being brave enough to ridicule Syria or Iran -- ain't gonna happen. Only the French would surrender quicker.

It's like the kid brother annoying his older, much larger older brother. If they weren't brothers, the kid would wind up in a hospital.One has to consider, too, that they only recently wised up enough to throw the idiot Liberals out of office.

Considering the Liberals ruled for so long, it will take a while before Canadians are sane again.

Their whole economy would go into the toilet if we ever billed them for the defense benefits they get by being next door to the United States.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

NO, Canada!

Bush Mocked in Canadian University Ad

Posters and a Web site mocking President Bush have put the spotlight on a small Ontario university that thought a bold and edgy recruiting campaign was just the ticket to attract potential students.

The Web site,, has a black and white picture of Bush, with the caption: "Graduating from an Ivy League university doesn't necessarily mean you're smart."

This was a disgrace. I hope Harper has got a few words for them. I love Canada--we have Canadian relatives--however, we are good neighbors, are key trading partners, and provide a huge amount of Canadian military support.

I wouldn't make this stupid a comment about a country that I guarded--OR from whom I was required to buy my own defenses!

Nasty, Nattering, Nagin:

Ray Nagin Apologizes For 9/11 Remark (We Sure Feel His Pain...)

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin says he's sorry he used the term "hole in the ground" to describe the World Trade Center site.

"I wish I would have basically said that it was an undeveloped site, which it is," he said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

This sniveling, do-less, nasty little man is BENEATH even hell's contempt! (Dante wanted to give Naggy his own special ring therein--but Satan said he didn't want to waste the space!)

Sunday, August 27, 2006


Men With Whom I'd Be PROUD To Eat Dinner!

Rockey Vacarella was so serious about having dinner with President Bush that he brought a gourmet chef with him. However, though his meeting with the President was delayed until the next day he says the trip was worth it considering he didn't dine alone.

Rockey Vacarella is a Katrina survivor who towed his "FEMA trailer" all the way to Washington, DC to deliver a message from the Gulf Coast."Our whole mission is to thank the President. We're not negative. We're not here to say it's your fault hurricane Katrina came - 'cause it's not.

It's mother nature"

This is a great guy! I heard his interview shortly after it was done--and it was quite a different thing than the usual pissing and moaning that the Democrats do! He has a wonderful attitude, he's reasonable--and he doesn't try to apportion blame according to partisan politics (ya think we could clone him?)

My hat's off to you, Rockey!

Friday, August 18, 2006

DAVID LIMBAUGH: Sympathy For the Devil

Jimmy Carter: Sympathy For the Devil

Want to know where the Democratic Party stands and where America would be under their leadership? Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Carter is certainly not bashful about bashing the United States, even on foreign soil or to the foreign press. He sat for an interview with Der Spiegel recently and fired with both barrels at President Bush, "fundamentalist" Christians and Israel.

But do Carter's views represent those of the Democratic Party? Well, he sure seems to think so. He told Der Spiegel, "I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country." If so, that's scary.

Expanding on the theme of his latest book, "Our Endangered Values," Carter said the Bush administration has abandoned the nation's "old" moral principles. That's a curious concept: By upholding traditional moral values President Bush has diverted the nation's moral course?
Carter is particularly exercised about Bush's foreign policy. He said: "Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of pre-emptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a pre-emptive basis."

But no less an antiwar Democrat than Sen. John Kerry – after savaging President Bush for his "pre-emptive" attack of Iraq – admitted in the first presidential debate that "The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for pre-emptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War."

No matter how persistently Carter's Democrats attempt to rewrite history, President Bush attacked Iraq because he believed it was a threat to America's security – and it was, just as Iran is today. Carter is delusional if he believes Bush was just recreationally flexing America's "imperialistic" muscles to spread democracy.

The debate here between Democrats and Republicans isn't over the use of pre-emptive war – as Kerry reluctantly confessed – but on the assessment of threats to our national security. Specifically, the debate centers on the parties' respective views of the nature and scope of the terrorist threat, whether Israel is seen as more of a victim surrounded by hostile regimes bent on its destruction or a bullying, aggressive nation, and whether we should defer on these questions to anti-American leaders in Europe and the United Nations.

Carter states the Democrats' position quite clearly. Islamo-fascist terrorists aren't that bad. They are probably peace-loving people like the rest of us who just have their noses out of joint over Bush's "unilateral" foreign policy and his "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq. Indeed, Carter said the Arab world hates us because we invaded Iraq, and even more so for "supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon."

So the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, occurred because we attacked Iraq in 2003? Israel was unjustified in retaliating against Hezbollah, which is supported by (and a part of) the Lebanese government and its people? If we would just talk to these reasonable terrorists – such as Hezbollah and Mike Wallace's hero, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we could achieve peace?

In the interview, Carter pointedly blamed Bush's foreign policy on his Christian "fundamentalism." He nicely articulated the position of today's Democratic leaders, who, while scrambling for "values voters," consistently insult them, and while holding themselves out as superior guardians of our national security, see America, not the terrorists, as the problem.

Carter, after unmistakably implying that Bush is a fundamentalist, said that fundamentalists believe "they are speaking for God" and "anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong" and "inherently inferior." "In extreme cases – as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world – it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant." Since "the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality" the fundamentalist (read: President Bush) "can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them."

Carter also said that since the fundamentalists believe they are speaking for God, they think they are above making, much less admitting, mistakes. "So when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist [read: Bush – again] to admit that a mistake was made."

Carter couldn't be more wrong. Bush, though not even close to a fundamentalist, is a Bible-believing Christian who by definition believes in the equal dignity of all people.

But leave it to Carter to say Bush "permitted" torture, which is an outright lie. Leave it to him to believe the worst about "fundamentalist" Christians and the best about Islamo-fascist terrorists.

Sadly, I believe Carter does speak for the Democratic leadership, and that speaks volumes about the Democrat leadership.

The Quintessential DU Post and Poster:

FROM DU: Our President Throws A Tantrum

Chucklenuts was just doing a presser from Camp David (is he EVER not on vacation???). He was whining about the ruling yesterday."I'll be 'insteristed' in seeing how other 'poli-icy' makers react to this."

Fuck you, you felon.

And does he ever not have a bullet proof vest on? Even at Camp David, as secure a place as any on Earth, there he is with an obvious vest outline as he plods away from the podium, head down and lookin' all sullen an shit.

I HATE these people.

edit to correct spelling .... and to add this: Y'ever notice when he's not comfortable with what he's saying, he has lots of 'sss' sounds in his otherwise slurred speaking style?'insteristed' was the jewel this morning. Lazy tongue? Nervous habbit? An artifact from his little chimpo days days before he was given the gift of speech? (Husb2Sparkly)

Let's take a look at this oh-so-typical d'Rat post... First, he says the President has 'thrown a tantrum', but then he offers no evidence of that. Then he says the President mispronounces a word....ho hum. THEN he gripes that Bush bothers to protect himself! (Especially necessary with these foaming S.O.B.'s all around!)

Then, in a burst of wishful thinking, he assumes Bush is all 'sullen' and in a bad mood--though there's no evidence of THAT, either. He wraps up his phlegmatic, meandering post by carping, once again, on the same allegedly mispronounced word he opened his post with. I guess that's all he could scrape together to bitch about this morning.

Besides reminding us of his ever-present hatred for Bush--like that wasn't evident in every supposition, exaggeration, and insult--he can't even spell his own crap correctly he's so upset. Clearly, it isn't BUSH that's having the tantrum!

Philosoraptor Is Being Stupid Again...

FROM DU: Don't Forget To Do Your Part and PANIC Today!

Just a friendly reminder to remember to panic at anything out of the ordinary today, we can all do our part by remaining panicky and hysterical between now and November.

And also please remember to fly off the handle at the slightest sound or newsflash, to instill a state of constant upheaval and paranoia in your children as well, someday they shall inherit all of our fears and horrors.

Most importantly, as a true patriot you should lose your cool and your composure while all those around you are remaining calm, its always better to join the panicky crowd and participate in the stampede than it is to keep your perspective and hide safely and selfishly off to the side.

Do your part for Uncle Sam and Uncle george, give into the herd mentality and PANIC on cue.Thank you and have a panicky day. (Philosoraptor)

Having a decent sense of caution, being more aware than usual, and being able to correctly identify an enemy or threat is a key survival tool in ANY kind of a world (but especially this one.) I say that as someone who lives only about a dozen city blocks from the Jewish Federation and the shooting we had here in Seattle a few days ago--AND as someone repeatedly called a 'Jew-lover' and 'Zionist' yesterday by the same D'RATS that Philosoraptor buddies up to at DU. You think I don't know what you people are all about?

Saying we are trying to instill 'panic' as an election device is stupid and dangerous. It's leaving us and yourselves unprotected--and that is worse than the supposed 'fearmongering' you so easily accuse us of doing.

The truth is, constantly telling the world our government is evil and doing bad things is fearmongering of your OWN doing. It's a lie that will generate more terrorism than the worst bomb scares we raise ever could.

The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world. Foaming in the media that President Bush is dumb, or incompetant--THAT'S 'fearmongering'; it makes everyone insecure. Calling him 'Chimpy' and making constant references to impeachment--THAT makes us weaker, increases people's fears, heightens anxiety, and makes the entire WORLD more unstable. THAT'S 'fearmongering' and 'panic production'--and it just might work best--to help terrorism and the terrorists.



Before my link to it was removed from DU, several of you called me a 'Zionist', a 'Jew-lover'--and several more unprintable slurs against the Jewish race and religion.

For once in your anti-Semitic, hypocritical, unkind, racist lives YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! I DO love the Jews, DO support the glorious state of Israel, and I just DARE you to come over HERE and try and run your mouths about it!

Something tells me you cowardly, traitorous, ugly-hearted S.O.B.'s don't have the cojones to pick a fight openly. No, you gutless wonders have to sneak and do it--and then go run to Skinner to wipe your noses before I can splatter them all over your weak-chinned, trembling little faces!

Well, I whomp ya here everyday (where you're afraid to come)--and I LOVE IT!

Consider yourselves noseless (you now have less of one than Michael Jackson...!) Go clean yourselves up--if that's even possible. You're disgusting!

Curb the DU Doggerel


If only to belong...
To be a part
To be a cog.

If only to belong...
We bend a little
Or a lot.

If only to belong...
We change the way we smile.

If only to belong...
We die a little. (Tom Yossarian Joad)

This is one of those 'deep feeling', 'meaningful', little masterpieces they pen over at DU. I guess this idiot is trying to show how 'sensitive' he is... What tremendous hogswaller! I haven't read something this insipid in a long time! Gad, what bad poetry! LOL!

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

DU Wants To Help the Terrorists All They Can!

FROM DU: Wants To Help the Terrorists All They Can!

Stop Profiling - Take Up A Muslim Appearance! A woman I heard on C-Span recently said "We're all Americans" when it comes to Profiling. So why should only certain Americans face harsher conditions when trying to enter airplanes?I propose a controversial solution to Profiling.

Look like a Muslim.

Something as simple as a fake beard or headscarf will suffice. Imagine the looks of the faces on the people who support profiling to look at the airport and see everyone looking like a Muslim. (ck4829)

I don't know if some white dude in a kaffiya will amount to the same thing, but I guess they get an 'A' for effort (D'Rats can always think it stands for 'Allah'!)

Here's A Great Military Poster For OUR Side!


Over at D'Ratworld, they've been featuring it--directed at Bush or Cheney etc.--but with the caption "How About A Nice Big Cup Of Shut the Fuck Up!". THIS poster is a great answer to that!

The Clearest Column I've Ever Read: What Democrats Do Best...

We Are Losing the War

We are just weeks away from the fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and yet we have quickly forgotten the lessons of that terrible day. We understood then that a group of Islamic fanatics had declared war on the United States and that our only option was to defeat them.

Barely five years later, we seem to have lost our resolve. But our enemies haven't lost theirs, as the interrupted plot to blow up U.S.-bound airplanes in Great Britain demonstrates all too well. So what are the chances we will ultimately prevail?

First, it's important we understand who the enemy is and why they have targeted us. We are not fighting a war on terror, despite the nearly universal shorthand most of us have adopted. The terrorists who flew airplanes into American buildings, blew up hotels and nightclubs killing Western tourists in Bali and Kenya, bombed trains in Spain and England, and sent missiles and suicide bombers into Israel are fighting a religious war.

In their view, we are infidels who must be converted or killed. There is no room in their ideology for peaceful co-existence or detente. And they are willing to sacrifice their own lives -- and, most importantly, the lives of their children -- in order to kill as many of us as possible.
We have never faced an enemy like this before. Even the Soviet Union at its most ruthless was not as pernicious a threat. The Soviets wanted territory and power, but they always acted rationally. Mutual Assured Destruction worked as an effective nuclear deterrent because the Soviets would never have sacrificed their own lives just to kill us.

Imagine how differently the Cold War would have turned out if the Soviets were willing to sacrifice Moscow in order to obliterate New York. But we know that the Islamists are perfectly willing to pile up body after body of fellow Muslims so long as they can maximize the body count of dead Christians and Jews. The difference is that the Soviets wanted their reward here on earth, while Islamic extremists don't expect theirs until they die.

In the face of this deadly purpose, we in the West seem totally ill equipped for battle. Rather than single-mindedly tracking down those who want to kill us, we worry that we might be infringing on their civil liberties. When we do take action, as Israel did in attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, we become paralyzed with remorse when innocent bystanders die, as they do in every war.

Yet our enemies think nothing of strapping explosives onto the chests of their own women and children in order to kill us. How many times have we heard the mothers of suicide bombers praise their children's martyrdom and boast of those they sent to the grave, while we shed tears at the loss of innocent life?

This is an asymmetrical war not because we have more sophisticated weapons and they have only crude methods with which to fight, but because the moral constraints are so lopsided. Can you envision Hezbollah expressing regret and sorrow if one of their rockets had hit an Israeli target killing two dozen women and children, as Israel did when its bombs killed 28 (not the 54 originally reported) in Qana, Lebanon? We cannot, and should not, adopt their perverted morality, but we should recognize the imbalance for what it is.

Unless we learn to see our enemies for who they are, we cannot hope to win this war. We've got to stop treating our own government as the enemy. We have to quit worrying about whether the rest of the world will love us when we take actions to protect ourselves. We have to give up the illusion that if we just retreat from the world or abandon Israel the Islamist fanatics will leave us alone.

We must recognize that it took most of a century to defeat communism and it may take much longer to vanquish Islamofascism. Our best hope for victory may well be that radical Islam, like the Soviet Union, will begin to collapse from within.

DAVID LIMBAUGH: First Priority for Democrats: Politicize War on Terror

First Priority for Democrats: Politicize War on Terror

The political party that is known for nothing if not for politicizing the War on Terror claims to be upset that Vice President Dick Cheney was "politicizing" the war when he suggested that Ned Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman could embolden terrorists. Couldn't they please spare us the phony outrage for a change?

Adding insult to injury, Lieberman said that Lamont's demand for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be "taken as a tremendous victory" by terrorists.

The victorious and victimized Lamont is beside himself at both Cheney and his temporarily fallen opponent Lieberman for bringing up the subject of terrorists. How dare they address the most important issue of the day? Don't they realize that only antiwar liberal Democrats have the floor on this matter?

Lamont said, "My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how can we turn this to partisan advantage. I find that offensive."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, never one to be outdone in the inauthentic expression of rage department, took to the op-ed pages to decry Cheney's remarks as "ugly" and "frightening." He was obviously upset at Cheney's remarks precisely because they were so relevant, as Kennedy specializes in irrelevant, incoherent rants.

Of course, this is the same senator who, among shameless others, has repeatedly leveled the scandalously "ugly" and "frightening" allegation that Bush and Cheney lied us into war. It's the same cheap-shot artist who forever attempts to smear Cheney because of his ties to Halliburton.

It's not just Lamont and Kennedy. Countless Democratic leaders have made it their No. 1 priority to politicize the war and shield themselves from return fire from Republicans by saying that any dissent from their dissent constitutes a chilling of speech and unfair partisan politics.
It used to be that politics stopped at the water's edge (of the United States), but for today's Democrats, politics doesn't even stop at the edge of the Dead Sea.

For example, you would think that when we received the good news that British intelligence, with our cooperation, thwarted a terrorist plot to explode some 10 America-bound jets, all Americans would rejoice, give thanks and applaud our success in the War on Terror, right?
Wrong. Democrats couldn't resist using the incident as yet another opportunity to condemn the Bush administration for attacking Iraq and diverting our resources from the "greater terrorist threat."

Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas said, "Five years after 9/11, our country is not as safe as it needs to be, or should be. Americans deserve real security, not just leaders who talk tough but fail to deliver." This, after we just foiled a deadly attack, not to mention that we haven't been hit with another major attack since 9/11, and not to mention if Democrats had their way on the Patriot Act and the NSA Surveillance program, we'd be much more vulnerable to attack.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "Five years after 9/11, it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win." Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists."

Are Kennedy and Reid not apologizing for the terrorist plotters here, implying Bush's foreign policy has given the terrorists grounds to attack us? Well, how about these two senators joining the rallying cry against the terrorists instead of President Bush?

These people are either inexcusably clueless about the nature of the terrorists and the gravity and scope of the threat they pose, or they are aware and choose to lend them moral support anyway. Remember, they aren't just pontificating university professors but Democratic Party leaders.

The Democrats' position on the war, in lieu of a plan, is that we've diverted our resources by deposing Saddam instead of pursuing bin Laden. But we have never ceased vigorous pursuit of bin Laden. More important, we are fighting a war not just against bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but Islamic fascism, which also includes Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.

Whether or not we capture bin Laden, there will always be plenty of others to take his place. This is a global war with a global enemy driven by a hateful, life-devaluing ideology. Wake up, Democrats, and either get on board or get out of the way; and quit accusing Republicans of politicizing the war to mask your own engagement in the practice and your failure to contribute anything constructive to this national cause.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

D'Rats Teach Tolerance By Being Intolerant

FROM DU: I Need Your Help--Please

My stepdaughter came home last night with a bumper sticker on her car that said Marriage = (stick figure of man) + (stick figure of women). I about went ballistic. As it is I have to apologize for embarrassing her in front of her boyfriend. She's only 17, and I don't think she really understands how offensive that can be to some people, both gay and straight. And I don't think she's thought about how she's labeling herself as a bigot for the whole world to see.

If anyone here can point me in the direction of some good literature, website, poem, hell...anything that may get her to understand that no class of people are above any other class of people. Something that shows how it doesn't matter, that two people in love shouldn't be discriminated against. The less complex the better, maybe something with pictures showing true love and compassion. I'm so disappointed and disheartened right now, I feel like I owe you all an apology.

I want her to remove this idiocy from her car out of her own motivation, but if she doesn't after I've tried to show her exactly what she's saying I'm going to make her take it off, it just angers me too much. (Jamnt)

This screwy idiot needs to APOLOGIZE to her STEP-DAUGHTER...

The 'Party Of Peace'!



Gotta Luv These Peaceful, Loving Dems!

A city councilwoman has been charged with two misdemeanors for allegedly choking and hitting the mayor during a council meeting.

Theresa Peguese was charged last week with assault and battery and obstruction of a government function during the July 18 council meeting.

Peguese's lawyer, Hugh Davis, said his client, who is black, was provoked when Mayor Larry Salisbury used racial slurs as they argued over a resident's request for relief from the city's zoning ordinance to build a modular home in Ecorse, a city of 11,000 about 10 miles southwest of Detroit.

Salisbury's lawyer, Bill Colovos, denied the racial slur claim and said the councilwoman was "out of control."

"This lady is in need of some serious anger management classes," said Colovos, who said he reviewed the tape of the council meeting and heard no racial slur.

The Party Of Shame Shows Itself Once Again

FROM DU: D'Rats Have No Compassion For Kidnapped Fox Journalists

--Somehow, I have trouble feeling any compassion for these particular "journalists".

--I'll squelch any ill-advised jokes for the moment.

--After all that FOX has done to help promote the war, and doing everything in their power to provide unbalanced coverage, that it's ironic that they would find themselves victims. Maybe I am a bit of a cynical bastard, though.

--Crocodile tears.

--Either they'll let him go soon, or he's dead. Bet the poor bastard wished he worked for some OTHER outlet other than the Dunce's favorite news channel....

--I don't think we'll see Rush or Bill O'Really's ass anywhere near the front lines in our lifetime. (If it was...) Rush or Bill O'Reilly, I probably wouldn't lose any sleep about, callous as that sounds, but they've created the same situation for others.

--Damn! Cheerleaders find themselves on the field getting roughed up!

--I don't care.

--I hate Faux News as much as the rest of you, and I too wouldn't mind if Hannity...

-- I really don't care one way or another about reporters that spread lies and propaganda. It's best to just ignore them. That is why, I really just don't care.

--When I first heard about this (this morning) the first thing that came to my mind was dirty tricks. What better way for FAUX to make their own news.

--I wonder how long before we'll be hearing and seeing stories like "Brave Journalists on the front lines." We'll never hear the end of this. Trust me.

Cantcha just feel the 'luv' from the Party Of Compassion and Kumbaya?

Monday, August 14, 2006

Mahmood Ahmadinejad vs. Mike Wallace

Ahmadinejad's 60 Minutes Interview

I watched Mike Wallace's interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with great interest. If the interview were a boxing match, the Iranian President won in a blow out. This is more a comment on Ahmadinejad's skill, however, than a slap at Wallace. In Wallace's defense, as a guest in Tehran interviewing the President of Iran, he has an obligation to treat the man with a certain amount of deference and respect.

But Wallace really isn't the point here. He deserves credit for just scoring the interview. In all likelihood Ahmadinejad is going to have a profound effect on what happens on the world stage these next five years and Wallace's interview was a chance to at least gather more information on this very pivotal figure.

I found the interview itself quite disturbing. Much has been written about the similarities between today and the 1930's in relation to appeasing Ahmadinejad and Iran, but there was something about the man's demeanor and appearance that I found eerily similar to Adolf Hitler. In the late 1920's and early '30's Hitler was written off as a sort of silly looking rabble rouser by the real powers behind the scenes in Weimer Germany. Even as late as January 1933 when Hitler assumed the Chancellorship, much of the German "establishment" thought that he could be controlled. They were, of course, wrong.

We see similar stories today, speculating on how Ahmadinejad is really just a pawn used to placate the masses and really doesn't have control and/or make the actual decisions in Iran. We'll see.

I found his answers to Wallace extremely cunning, crafty and dangerous. You can almost hear Hitler spouting out "grievances" of the Sudentland Germans and the Germans in Danzig when you hear Ahmadinejad take up for the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iraqis. Granted, Hitler controlled one of the most powerful and advanced societies in the world by the late-1930's, and Ahmadinejad's Iran is far lower on the scale as a threat to project force. However, Ahmadinejad is making a play in many ways to speak for the world's one billion "aggrieved" Muslims, where Hitler only professed to speak on behalf of a mere 100 million Germans.

The solutions here are obviously not easy. No one wants war with Iran or, for that matter, war with a billion Muslims.

This morning the New York Times editorial page unhelpfully seeks to blame the Bush Administration for this growing crisis, insinuating that if only the United States had played nicer with other countries around the world this problem would magically not exist. The Times is utterly naïve and delusional as to what it might take to neutralize Ahmadinejad, but unfortunately their approach and mindset represents the mainstream thinking of most of our allies.

The truth is the relentless advance of technology will make it utterly impossible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons at some point in the future, no matter what we do. Given that we cannot change the fact that Iran will gain nuclear weapons, if they want them, the serious policy needs to be towards changing the Iranian regime and its current President.......before it is too late.

DAVID LIMBAUGH: Democrat Party Hijacked

Democratic Party Hijacked

More noteworthy than Ned Lamont's defeat of Joseph Lieberman is the loony left's and Democratic leadership's puffed-up reaction to it. I say give them more rope and let them completely hang the party they've hijacked.

Many are acting surprised at the Democratic Party's readiness to throw Lieberman overboard. They shouldn't be.

Lieberman's 90 percent liberal voting record isn't good enough for the monomaniacal antiwar fringe. Complete obedience is required. No belligerence toward terrorists can be tolerated; all venom must be reserved for President Bush and the neoconservative cabal.

While Joe Lieberman was good enough in 2000 to join Al Gore on the national ticket, he probably wouldn't even be allowed in Jimmy Carter's prestigious box at a Democratic National Convention today, unlike the rabid Michael Moore, who has rooted for the terrorist insurgents against American troops in Iraq.

No matter how loyal Lieberman has been to the party, he violated the cardinal rule against showing civility to President Bush. Worse, he supported him on the War on Terror, Iraq Theater - a truly unforgivable sin. Didn't he realize that all interests, including America's national interests, must be subordinated to the overarching agenda of hating and demonizing President Bush? Well, he'll realize it now. Or will he?

While Republicans are falling all over themselves praising Lieberman, they, too, should be careful not to turn into single-issue advocates. While Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq against the oppressive Democratic tide has been admirable, let's not forget just how liberal he is on almost all other issues, from taxes and abortion to guns and Kyoto.

Nor should we overlook how Lieberman was virtually forced to behave as the election approached to ensure a respectable showing against his anti-Bush primary rival. He made clear he was no Bush-lover and certainly no conservative.

In a speech at the East Haven Community Center two days before the election, he couched his remarks in terms chosen to clarify - above all - that he was no Bush lapdog. He "opposed the Bush ban on stem cell research." He opposed the "Bush constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He "opposed the Bush bankruptcy bill" and "the president's efforts to undermine affirmative action." He "stood with my fellow Democrats to oppose George Bush's plan to privatize Social Security."

Let's not lose our heads and pretend Lieberman's a conservative - such as with the Weekly Standard's toying with the idea of his running as a vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket in 2008. There are plenty of national security hawks on the Republican side who are also conservative on economic and social issues.

I respect Lieberman for doing the right thing on national security, but his post-election posturing shows how even honorable Democratic politicians are willing to pander in a desperate effort to avoid permanent ostracism by liberals.

Let's keep our eyes on the big ball. This isn't about Lieberman, but the Democrats' steadfast refusal to support the good guys against the bad guys in the War on Terror and their excommunication of anyone in their ranks who dares to buck their thought police.

While Republicans are pointing to the Democrats' purging of Lieberman as proof they've marginalized themselves as the party of Cindy Sheehan, Democratic operatives and leaders are boasting about the development and what it portends for 2006 and 2008.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says he is more confident than before Lieberman's defeat that Democrats can recapture control of the Senate. Sen. Chuck Schumer joined read in saying, "The results bode well for Democratic victories in November." Sen. Kennedy called the election a "clarion call for change."

But these Democrats, perhaps unwittingly, are just reinforcing what we've been saying about them: They have no constructive solutions and no policy agenda other than to oppose and trash President Bush and "his war." Reid and Schumer admitted as much when they essentially dismissed Lamont's role in the election, saying it was "a referendum on the president more than anything else."

Liberal Slate magazine confirmed this Democratic mindset in an article following the July debate between Lieberman and Lamont by conceding that "Lamont is less a candidate than he is a conduit" for the expression of displeasure against Lieberman for supporting Bush on the war.

Hopefully, Democrats will continue to glean the wrong message from this election and believe they can rely exclusively on an anti-Bush wave to carry them to victory instead of resuming their long lost role as a credible party offering an alternative agenda. Such ill-begotten and delusional smugness is exactly where we want them to be going into 2006.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

The Saddest, Ugliest Post I've Ever Read: MY RESPONSE

FROM DU: Isreal, Isreal, Isreal...Why Should I Care?

It's mentioned on the news alot.....

None of my relatives come from there. I'm not Jewish or Palestinian.

I don't trade with them/they don't trade with me.

I barely know where it even IS.

Oh, my Lord & Savior was "born there" (am I really sure of that 'fact'?)

You want me to send my precious child over there to Isreal to 'serve'? Why?

Who are these people? What is this place ~ Isreal ~ anyway? ("Mind_your_head")

This idiot says he intentionally misspelled the name of " Israel"... Well, isn't that just in keeping with the rest of what he wrote and the level of his intellect--'I barely know where it EVEN is', indeed! I am absolutely appalled.

I don't care that I am not Jewish. I don't care that I was not born in Israel. I don't care if I deal in commerce with them, or them with me. I do not care that their religion is different than mine--and, yes, I sure as hell DO know exactly where it is, AND the Jezreel Valley, Mar Saba, the Judean Desert, Phoenicia, King Solomon's Mines, Masada, Emperor Justinian's St. Catherines', the oldest Synagogue at Beni Ezra, the Rabbi's tombs in Tiberias--and lots of other things which with this dope should have a nodding acquaintance...

And, YES, if I were blessed with a precious child, I would certainly send him 'over there' to defend Israel. Indeed, he would be raised with that firmly planted in his mind and heart as his DUTY--and he would do it.

Why? One, because Israel would do it for us, and they are our good allies. We don't have to agree with every single decision they make for themselves to know that, or have it be true.

Second--and mostly--because it is the right thing to do. There are things and people and principles that are larger than ourselves and what we can think of and consider. Things that have always been here--and it is right that they are here and are a part of our world--and they must remain so. They are a part of me, and I am a part of them--and it does not matter that I am not Jewish, and wasn't born there, and don't go to temple.

I know that what and who they are flows in MY veins. Their religion is in me, too, part of my life, my world--what I think, how my mind and heart and laws and sense of right and wrong is ordered. I don't need to be Jewish to know that. (How stupid do you have to be to NOT be aware of those things???)

And I'm sure the day I die--without ever seeing the beautiful state of Israel, and without ever having been inside a temple, or eaten a kreplach, or decorated my house for Shavuoth, or covered my mirrors in death--a part of those people will die with me, as I die with each one of them. Having thus shared our life and death SO closely together, how can anyone say we were ever, ever apart?

He Looks Like THIS and TEDO Is the One Who's Scared???

Awwww..... Teddy's Afwaid!

Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy is charging back at the vice president for his remarks on the Connecticut Senate race.

Vice President Dick Cheney claimed last week that Ned Lamont’s upset victory in the Democratic primary could embolden terrorists. He suggested Lamont’s victory might encourage "the al-Qaida types” who want to break the will of the American people.

In an opinion piece in the Hartford Courant’s Sunday edition, Kennedy said Cheney went "too far” in his swipe against Lamont. He said the vice president’s words were ugly and frightening.

FROM DU: We Need To Paint Republicans As Demonic

FROM DU: We Need To Paint Republicans As Demonic

George W. Bush is a perfect example of an anti-Christ. Christians who follow the false gods of conservatism and the Republican party need to be educated that they are following a dark path that leads ultimately to Hell. This needs to be done. Pound it home. Republicans are Luciferian in their ways and the current administration is of the devil. (Jara sang)

DU Chimes In:

--I've taken to referring to it as the Republican Cult. They function like a cult. Blind allegiance, never questioning, repeat the same buzzwords, giving the leaders whatever they want, even if they hurt the country.

--They are already doing a great job by themselves.

--The Neocon Death Cult. I hate to paint every reep in the world as evi las TRUE Conservatives are waking up, coming over, and need to reclaim their party, too. Is a great website.

--Agreed. But the Repub Party is even more centrally controlled than the Dems and most federal candidates were hand picked by Cheney. I hope rank and file Republicans are so dissatisfied that they sit this election out.

DU's List Of 20 Things For Which They Are 'Thankful'

FROM DU: Post Something Positive That You're Thankful For

--Ned Lamont defeated an incumbent in the primary, and did it fair and square.
--My desire to improve my health, and my ability to learn.

--Our senator (Feingold) headlined a fundraiser this week and I got to shake his hand.
--Ted Kennedy. Hits the nail on the head every time he speaks.
--The internet; that comes with a baloney detecter.
--John Edwards proving that not everyone from our state is a stupid RW hick!

--My big-heartedness right now is going out to Casey. I'm immenseley looking forward to his skewering of Mr. "Man on Dog" Santorum. Burn in Hell, you crazy fuckers... burn in Hell.
--I'm grateful for Phil Donahue and Marlo Thomas.
--Open Source Software
--I am thankful for my husband who is going to be the best State Senator our district has ever had!
--I am thankful for families like saracat's. Running for office is tough for all involved.

--The weather here is absolutely beautiful - and less hot and humid!
--That 3 congressional seats could shift to dem, in Indiana this fall.
--I'm glad that Tom Harkin is one of our Senators here in the great state of Iowa. And it's a nice day today.
--I'm thankful that the RAND corporation suggested a new type of communication to the DoD.
--I'm thankful for 8 year Presidential Term Limits...
--I'm thankful that this year at Thanksgiving I can enjoy my meal knowing that WE have the power to check that motherfucker with Congress.
--I just learned this week that my candidate was a John Edwards delegate from WI in the 2004 primary - he worked on his Senate campaign when he was in grad school at UNC.
--The Internet.
--Our Dem Gov (Sebelius) is heavily favored to win re-election.

At no time did any of them mention they were thankful for our safe nation, beautiful country, freedoms, rights, Constitution, Bill Of Rights, our ending slavery/Hitler/Communist Russia, our elected government, freedom of religion, high standard of living, our medical care, our inate decency towards others, our fighting for freedom, liberty, and that same decency around the world, our education system, our freedom to travel and own land, our ability to have as many children as we want, our voluntary military, our very honorable police that keep us safe, our charity, our foreign aid, our constant help towards others, our wonderful allies around the world--particularly Australia, Canada, Britain, Japan, Poland, Israel, our friends, our families, our kids, our God, our fellow Americans--and that is the short list.

The long list includes not having to be a slave, or build pyramids with our lives, not wear a burqa, not be denied the right to live in a different city in which we were born, not be limited to one child and the others killed, not be allowed to leave this country or travel without a male watching over us, not be forced into an army, not crucified for our religion, nor impaled, not made to bow down to a Caesar or Ivan, not made to die for a Pol Pot, or forced to grow poppies or pick coca leaves all day, not be auctioned off for a bride price or 7 cows, or standing in rice paddies all day, with our private parts scraped off or covered up--or being raped to 'punish' our brother or dad.

I don't have to mind corn or sheep in the hot sun all day, or freeze in Afghan snow, or hide in Tibet. My husband doesn't have to dig ditches all day, or mine coal, come home wth brown lung or a ruined back. My mother wasn't a wartime 'comfort woman' and my dad didn't march at Bataan. I wasn't spending my young years in a Magdalen Laundry, I have no kids in an orphanage. I didn't suffer TB or polio--and I don't have 3-4 brothers and sisters with AIDS and no hope.

There is so much more we have to be grateful for; I'm sorry to come up with the short list I have when real life has been so much more--and less--for so many others, and throughout history. The rude, selfish list of the D'RATS is all the worse--they don't know how most of the world has had to live. They think they are all there is. Count your blessings--and don't make that same mistake.

D'Rats Worry About Bottled Water On Planes--Not Terrorists!

FROM DU: And They Say WE Are Fear-Mongering???

Even if people get it or not, those H20 bottles are probably more dangerous... you than any terrorist! In an emergency on an aircraft, I have said for years... those water bottles will cause more deaths than any one thing on the entire aircraft...

Just imagine an crash, or running off a runway, or aborting a take off... and 100 water bottles rolling into the isles of the aircraft... and you trying to get 100 people down those isles (small as they are) with people tripping on water bottles and falling over and piling up on each other in panic.

Now slow up the evacuation because water bottles have flooded the small isle... please don't think it won't happen... the water bottles start rolling down the isle and many end up at the feet of the flight attendants!

And I have said for many many years... since the explosion of the water bottle boom... nothing will be done about it until there is an accident and people die because they could not get to an exit because they were tripping in the isle on water bottles.

In accidents or emergencies, it does not take much for people to pile up near exits and never getting off in time. I see water bottles as a major problem and a possible reason for needless deaths in an accident! (flyarm)

This idiot is all preoccupied about some silly bottles of water on an airplane--NOT any terrorist on board! The priorities at DU just crack me up!

Home Grown DU Idiocy and Cowardice:

FROM DU: This Cease Fire Is Just Insane To Me

So they have to stop killing each other at Monday at 8am, but for the next day it's fine to continue killing each other? And you know both sides are going to go full force the next day and to kill and cause as much damage as possible before the cease fire. (Herman Munster)

DU Chimes In:

-Everyone has to get the memo. If there is a cease-fire immediately, but some guy doesn't know it, he'll "break" the cease fire and they'll need to go back to the negotiation table.

-It's sad, but they don't have everyone's cell phone number.

-That doesn't explain the conscious escalating by itself. Though the reasons seem clear enough to me. Bargaining chips, territory control, bypassing and trapping Hezbollah forces in the hope they can be cleaned out later somehow.

-Exactly. They can send out messages to everyone saying "stop" now.

-I thought the same thing. What about the people who are going to be killed between now and next Monday. Don't those people count. It's beyond insane. Leaders of nations play their power games and normal average people die. All the people of the world should just refuse to engage in war.

"Trapping" Hezbollah? Why, those por, por misunderstood, victimized folks! I guess that's how a d'Rat engages in war. Next thing you know, they'll be spoonfeeding the Hezzies and tuckin' 'em into bed at night!

Friday, August 11, 2006

Our Own Will Beat Us Before 'Allah' Does...

'Mass Murder' Foiled - No Thanks To the Left, the ACLU, or the NYT

Americans went to work yesterday to news of another astonishing terror plot against U.S. airlines, only this time the response was grateful relief. British authorities had busted the "very sophisticated" plan "to commit mass murder" and arrested 20-plus British-Pakistani suspects. As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11 without another major attack on U.S. soil, now is the right moment to consider the policies that have protected us--and those in public life who have fought those policies nearly every step of the way.

It's not as if the "Islamic fascists"--to borrow President Bush's description yesterday--haven't been trying to hit us. They took more than 50 lives last year in London with the "7/7" subway bombings. There was the catastrophic attack in Madrid the year before that left nearly 200 dead. But there have also been successes. Some have been publicized, such as a foiled plot to poison Britain's food supply with ricin. But undoubtedly many have not, because authorities don't want to compromise sources and methods, or because the would-be terrorists have been captured or killed before they could carry out their plans.

In this case the diabolical scheme was to smuggle innocent-looking liquid explosive components and detonators onto planes. They could then be assembled onboard and exploded, perhaps over cities for maximum horror. Multiply the passenger load of a 747 by, say, 10 airliners, and this attack could have killed more people than 9/11. We don't yet know how the plot was foiled, but surely part of the explanation was crack surveillance work by British authorities.

"This wasn't supposed to happen today," a U.S. official told the Washington Post of the arrests and terror alert. "It was supposed to happen several days from now. We hear the British lost track of one or two guys. They had to move." Meanwhile, British antiterrorism chief Peter Clarke said at a news conference that the plot was foiled because "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."
Let's emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs.

Remember those great old 'Loose Lips Sink Ships' posters from WWII? I think the NYT and the rest of the media need a boatload of 'em....!

The Best Of the Web!

Another Incredible D'Rat Fairy Tale Hysteric...

FROM DU: Fantasy Is Much More Palatable Than Reality

What Are Better Ways To Kill Americans?

Liquid bombs are puny compared to what real terrorists could do to this country. My greatest fear is that 10 or 20 jihadists looking to go to heaven for their 72 virgins would,"go to the countryside and find some super-mega high energy transmission lines" destroying the electrical power grid that supplies electricity to tens of millions of homes,businesses, etc.

Does that sound far fetched? Think it can't be done? Remember Oceans 11?

It was just 3 short years ago August 14 2003 that the power went out along the Eastern seaboard knocking out power to 50,000,000 people. Fortunately most power came back within 24 hours and no real cause for what had happened was determined. How would 100,000,000 Americans act without electricity for 30 days? I'm too scared to think of the kinds of riots that would ensue. The rich would be OK in their ivory towers complete with generators but what of the average joe's and jane's?

Liquid bombs, sorry but that doesn't top 911 and for all we know about these al-queda/neocon types they need to one-up 911. Plus, could 10 pyromaniacs set the West on fire? Or, how about CBS who last year ran a story on 60 Minutes about a Chlorine plant in the shadow of NYC (12 miles away) with the gates open and a dozen chlorine tanks (10'ft. tall) just waiting to be destroyed allowing for a cloud of gas that would be upon NYC in minutes possibly KILLING millions. I called CBS about that and chewed them out.

I bet some of you DU-er's could even top my worst fears and if so, please do. Anyway, thanks for allowing me to post this because the liquid bombers were taking too much air time. (DemInDistress)

It's much easier for the DU crowd to believe all this made up crap--no matter how farfetched--than the reality that is right before their eyes. 'Oceans 11' is possible to them--but terrorists planning to bomb airliners is nothing but a plot of George W. Bush, the BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire), and the rest of the 'PNACers'!

Yep... Even though they've seen those same airliners rammed into buildings right before their eyes, they can't believe it now because the terrorists didn't resist enough when caught, the bombs were 'too small', or there's better ways to kill Americans!

Bush: Ahead Of the Terrorists

American Wireless Surveillance Played A Key Role In Stopping Terrorist Plot

Yesterday, we learned although Scotland Yard is getting all the praise, American wireless surveillance played a key role in stopping this terrorist catastrophe. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times (perhaps the best national security reporter alive)
reveals, “U.S. officials publicly congratulated Britain for the arrest, but privately two officials suggested that electronic surveillance of terror suspects in Pakistan and Britain provided the initial clues to the plot.”

Time magazine verifies, “MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.” Fox News has reported these were phone calls intercepted from American targets speaking to al-Qaeda operatives, without a “dry run” would have preceded a blood-drenched assault.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

I've Never Heard Such Damned Nonsense...

FROM DU: D'Rat Hysteria Reaches It's Zenith:

Is the real Bush goal to break our military? Often throughout the past years I have asked this question. How many wars can we fight simultaneously? Has he set up the grounds for a catastrophic defeat? Has he encouraged the torture in order to expedite attacks on our own soil? Who would benefit from our military powers being broken? Who does he really report to?

No, I am not a believer of the latest news regarding the supposed plot. However, I have maintained since we invaded Afghanistan that we will see war on our own soil. Lately I am predicting that will we not only see blood on our mountains, but our lives will soon be similar to those in Palestine. Fearing the next bomb, not knowing which one of our loved ones will be killed by a car bomb or home blown apart.

How many of you would stand idle after seeing your family members or fellow Americans tortured in the fashion that we have tortured? How many of you would want revenge when your country has been blown up beyond repair?We already know he has broken our banks, crippled our chances of surviving monetarily, left our country with very few jobs and a very bleak outlook without even shedding a tear.

We know our health care system is in shambles, with many of us unable to afford medical care and many of our doctors filing bankruptcy because not many can afford their care. I also ask for the real numbers of our kids who have died in these senseless wars? How bad is it, really? Just like New Orleans after Katrina, how many really died?

Does he have some elaborate underground city he plans to escape to when all he world begins to REALLY attack us? Who is really paying him? I have ALWAYS believed it to be for oil, but what good does it do for oil company owners to be making trillions of dollars if the entire earth is scorched with war? There has to be more to the motive... Why is he baiting countries to attack our own soil? (NoBushSpokenHere)

This person HAS to be mentally GONE. I ask myself if they even live in the same country that I do! What incredible nonsense!

DU: The Stupidest Post Of the Day

FROM DU: The Stupidest Post Of the Day

Hear me out, damn it. I bet that at least once a week or more somewhere in this country some joker who has an outstanding warrant for traffic tickets or back support or who gets caught in the act of doing something stupid decides he is going to barricade himself somewhere and shoot it out, or threaten to shoot it out, with the police, or decides to try to run for it in a car or on foot. Yet in all these "terrorism" cases we never hear of anybody making a break for it or resisting arrest in the slightest.

Since these terrorists all "hate us for our freedoms" and want to be martyrs so they can get up to heaven and do the nasty with those virgins, why is this? Since any "real deal" terrorist with knowledge of a plot can expect to be rendered and tortured, and probably would spill the beans, why the hell would they not fight to the death to avoid capture? Why do they go quietly? It can't be good for Al Queda recruiting to see these guys being hauled off meekly to the pokey and I doubt Osama would approve. Why would someone who is willing to blow up an airplane while he is on it and kill hundreds think twice about engaging in a fight to the finish with the authorities?

Is it that they don't want to disturb the neighbors? Because they want to get their security deposit back at the end of the lease? Why don't these "evil ones" have cyanide capsules in hollowed out teeth? Do Muslims not read Ian Fleming? I will believe that true terrorists have been captured when I see some them put up at least as much resistance as the Symbionese Liberation Army did. (rzemanfl)

Oh, I see--they couldn't be terrorists--they didn't resist enough! LOL! What a dope!

How about they don't resist because 1) they don't expect to be caught--Allah is protecting them, surely--and, 2) anybody that would plant a bomb to do blameless others in is basically a passive-aggressive S.O.B. who isn't going to have intestinal fortitude with which to engage in a face-to-face fight?

This genius ever think of that? (Maybe he needs to watch more crime 'profiling' shows on the ol' cable station...)

Is 'GoreGreen' the Color Of Hypocrisy?

Gore Isn't Quite As Green As He's Led the World To Believe

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

MICHAEL MEDVED: Why the World Hates the Jews

Why the World Hates the Jews

Many of the bitter controversies in every corner of the globe inevitably raise the same ancient question: why does the world hate the Jews?

Whether it’s the angry international reaction to Israel’s efforts to defend itself in Lebanon, or Mel Gibson’s drunken rant in Malibu, the age-old specter of anti-Semitism refuses to disappear. With only 13 million Jews in the world – less than one fourth of one percent of the earth’s population – why does this tiny group inspire such bitter, widespread and often violent animosity?

The answer is obvious to anyone who monitors anti-Semitic propaganda from all its multifarious sources. People who express hatred, resentment or fear regarding the Jews almost always focus on charges of Jewish arrogance, elitism, aggressiveness and lust for power.

According to the classic logic of anti-Semites everywhere, Jews deserve harsher treatment than anyone else because they work harder than anyone else to enshrine their own superior status. This argument suggests that the only way to answer constant Jewish demands for special treatment and privilege is to impose special limitations and restrictions on their instinctive will to dominate.

According to such logic, the rest of the world must work together to cut Jews down to size; only then will they function on the same plane as everyone else. As Hutton Gibson (Holocaust-denying father of the scandal-tarnished star, Mel) revealingly declared to interviewer Steve Feuerstein: “I don’t know what the Jewish agenda is except that it’s all about control. They’re after one world religion and one world government.”

This central, primeval charge that arrogant Jews seek global dominance originates from three distinct historical factors:

1- The emphasis on the “Chosen People” concept in the Bible
2- The prominence and prosperity of Jews in most nations in which they’ve established significant communities, and
3- The startling successes of the State of Israel in the mere 60 years of its existence.

These circumstances sometimes perplex even people of good will and therefore deserve deeper consideration and explanation:


This, to me, is the most inexplicable thing I have ever encountered--unless you boil it down to simply jealousy and needing a scapegoat. How else is it understandable?