Friday, August 31, 2007

Farewell To the Best!




Thursday, August 30, 2007

John Edwards' Two Americas




Edwards: One Of The Americas Can Engage In Conspicuous Consumption
Ed Morrissey--Captain's Quarters

John Edwards got a big round of applause from union workers in Florida when he shared his policy direction on the environment. He told the crowd that Americans should be prepared to sacrifice, and the first sacrifice should be the sports-utility vehicles that American drivers prefer:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said Tuesday during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles."

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVs, he said, "Yes."



Edwards' campaign concedes he does own a hybrid Ford Escape SUV, along with a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica midsize SUV, but says he uses that less often now...

But that's not the entire story about Edwards' call for sacrifice. One union member asked the candidate why other Americans have to sacrifice while Edwards' family sucks up energy and space in a 28,000-square-foot mansion. Edwards drew himself up in righteous indignation:
He said he came from nothing, worked hard all his life, has always supported workers and fought big corporations as a lawyer.

"I have no apologies whatsoever for what I've done with my life," he said to loud cheers. "My entire life has been about the same cause, which is making sure wherever you come from, whatever your family is, whatever the color of your skin, you get a real chance to do something great in this country."

Oh, okay. If one accepts the notion that Edwards came from "nothing" -- his father had a pretty decent job while Edwards grew up -- then it's acceptable and even laudable to engage in conspicuous consumption. Edwards must think that he purchased the sacrifice offsets as a kid, and now can use them to take a pass on the same sacrifices on which he will insist if elected President. He can criticize the decisions of ordinary Americans in purchasing their vehicles with concern to safety, but don't dare criticize his decision to live in a house the size of Luxembourg.

Most Americans work hard for their money. Most of them would make the kind of sacrifices that Edwards asks if the country really needed them. It's impossible to take that kind of demand seriously from a rich personal-injury lawyer standing in front of his enormous mansion.


Thanks to Prairieson for bringing us this one--and the blog daddies at Captain's Quarters. Please visit their wonderful blog!

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Morning News Shows 'Promoting' Democrats, Study Finds

Morning News Shows 'Promoting' Democrats, Study Finds
By Nathan Burchfiel

In covering the 2008 presidential campaign, the network morning news shows are "overwhelmingly focused on Democrats, [and] they are actively promoting the Democrats' liberal agenda," according to a study released today by the conservative Media Research Center (MRC).

The study examined 517 campaign segments on the morning news shows broadcast on ABC, CBS and NBC in the first seven months of 2007. It found that the shows covered Democrats "nearly twice as much" as Republicans and framed interview questions from a liberal perspective most of the time.

The study was produced by the MRC's News Analysis Division. The MRC is the parent organization of Cybercast News Service.

The study found that 55 percent of campaign stories on ABC's "Good Morning America," CBS's "The Early Show" and NBC's "Today" focused on Democratic candidates while only 29 percent focused on Republicans. The remaining 16 percent were classified as "mixed/independent."

The morning shows aired 61 stories focused exclusively on Sen. Hillary Clinton, 44 stories on former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and 41 stories on Sen. Barack Obama, all of whom are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Former Vice President Al Gore, who is not officially running, was the subject of 29 stories.

Republican candidates received less attention, according to the study. Sen. John McCain was the focus of 31 stories. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the focus of 26 stories and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was the focus of 19 stories.

Interviews with Democratic candidates or their representatives accounted for more than four-and-a-half hours of airtime in the first seven months of 2007. Interviews with Republicans candidates or their representatives accounted for less than two hours, according to the study.

In addition to the time disparity, the report alleges that "the top Democratic candidates received much more favorable coverage than their GOP counterparts, with Sen. Clinton cast as 'unbeatable' and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama tagged as a 'rock star.'"

In contrast, the most-featured Republican candidate, McCain, "was portrayed as a loser because of his support for staying the course in Iraq," the report says. "[M]uch of McCain's coverage has emphasized the sinking nature of his campaign - declining poll ratings, and fundraising that has failed to meet expectations."

MRC Director of Research Rich Noyes told Cybercast News Service that the organization is not calling for government imposed standards of fairness like those that could be established under a Fairness Doctrine. "The remedy," he said, "is for the networks to cover the campaign in a fair and balanced manner."


Goodbye Karl Rove!

It's A Karl Snarl!
White House jokers wrap Bush aide's Jaguar in plastic wrap on private driveway next to West Wing.

The CIA Proves Clinton's Dereliction Of Duty

The CIA Proves Clinton's Dereliction of Duty
By Tom Fitton

The CIA Inspector General released a report last week detailing the intelligence failures leading up to the September 11 terrorist attacks, reserving its harshest criticisms for former CIA Director George Tenet, who, according to the report lacked a “documented, comprehensive” approach to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Tenet should certainly be held accountable for whatever role he played in the lack of U.S. preparedness with respect to terrorism. However, as New York Times editorial page correctly noted, warnings were issued, and ignored, by Tenet’s first boss, President Bill Clinton:

“The C.I.A. inspector general’s report on the agency’s failures before Sept. 11 was devastating — but not because it showed that America’s spies missed the rise of Al Qaeda. George Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, rang the Qaeda alarm. He sent a memo to the entire intelligence community saying that he wanted no effort spared in the ‘war’ with Osama bin Laden. He took on the president’s closest advisers to agitate for a strike on a Qaeda base in Afghanistan. The disturbing thing was that this all happened under President Bill Clinton.”

This certainly squares with a Judicial Watch investigation into the September 11 attacks. Update readers may recall that in 2005, Judicial Watch obtained a declassified document, dated August 19, 1996, that very clearly articulated the threat bin Laden posed to the United States.

According to the report, provocatively entitled, “Usama bin Laden: Who’s Chasing Whom?” at the time, bin Laden’s many passports and his private plane allowed him considerable freedom to travel “with little fear of being intercepted or tracked.” The report also warns that bin Laden’s prolonged stay in Afghanistan “could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum.”

It goes on... “[Bin Laden’s] informal and transnational network of businesses and associates remains resilient…[He] can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost worldwide.”

There is plenty of bipartisan blame to go around for the federal government’s pre-9/11 failure to protect the American people from the threat of terrorism, in general, and Osama bin Laden, in particular. However, the first and most obvious mistakes were made by Bill Clinton and his national security team. Had they acted aggressively, September 11 may never have happened. And no amount of revisionist history can change that fact.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

The Left Loses the Vietnam War

The Left Loses the Vietnam War
By Robert Tracinski

In political battles--and all too frequently in war itself--victories are rarely complete, defeats are rarely final, and the real significance of a battle is often not evident for years, even decades afterward.

America's defeat in Vietnam, for example, was seemingly a triumph for the anti-war left, which had long proclaimed the war to be unwinnable quagmire. Yet the years following that defeat--the era of American retreat and "national malaise"--proved so traumatic that the American people have never wanted to repeat them. Thus, what the anti-war radicals regarded as a vindication ended up discrediting the left on foreign policy for a generation. You could say that they won the political battle over the war--but they lost the peace.

Today, we may be seeing the final chapter of that process. The left is losing the Vietnam War itself--losing Vietnam, that is, as a rhetorical high ground from which to pillory any advocate of vigorous American military action overseas.

In a speech last week, President Bush surprised everyone by citing Vietnam as an analogy to Iraq. Just as we paid a "price in American credibility" for our abandonment of Vietnam, he argued, so we will suffer an even worse blow to the credibility of American threats and American friendship if we retreat from Iraq.

The New York Times, borrowing "military parlance,"
described this as Bush's attempt at "preparing the battlefield--in this case for the series of reports and hearings scheduled on Capitol Hill next month." The military terminology is appropriate, since this war will not be won or lost only on the battlefield in Iraq; it will be won or lost in the political battles that will be fought in Washington, DC.


MSNBC, CNBC Refuse To Run Pro-War Ads

MSNBC, CNBC Refuse To Run Pro-War Ads
John Hinderaker--Power Line

We wrote
about the television commercials that Freedom's Watch has produced, featuring veterans and their families, that urge Congress and the public to continue supporting the Iraq war. The commercials are well done, and convey the simple message that the Iraq war is important and winnable, and that we should allow our troops to see the mission through. The ads are appearing in the context of a blizzard of anti-war ads by left-wing groups, intended to pressure Senators and Congressmen into pulling the plug on the Iraq effort.

Freedom's Watch has placed its ads on Fox and CNN, but CNBC and MSNBC have refused to run the ads. Ari Fleischer wrote this morning on behalf of Freedom's Watch to let us know that CNBC and MSNBC have stubbornly refused to air the pro-war ads, even though they have run issue ads on other controversial topics. Freedom's Watch has written to CNBC and MSNBC to protest their decision; here is the text of that letter:


Castro Backs His Favorites...

Castro Votes for Clinton-Obama Ticket

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.

Clinton leads Obama in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the November 2008 election, and Castro said they would make a winning combination.

"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

At 81, Castro has outlasted nine U.S. presidents since his 1959 revolution turned Cuba into a thorn in Washington's side by building a communist society about 90 miles offshore from the United States.

He said all U.S. presidential candidates seeking the "coveted" electoral college votes of Florida have had to demand a democratic government in Cuba to win the backing of the powerful Cuban exile community.

Clinton and Obama, both senators, called for democratic change in Cuba last week.

We'll Sue Murtha, Chessani Lawyer Vows

We'll Sue Murtha, Chessani Lawyer Vows

If Marine Col. Jeffrey Chessani is exonerated of the charges against him he may haul Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha, into court, suing him for libel, one of his lawyers told

Brian Rooney, one of the attorneys at Michigan's Thomas More Law Center representing Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani and a former Marine captain himself told that his client, who is alleged to have failed to fully investigate the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha November, 2005 and not reporting an alleged Law of War violation, may follow the example of another Haditha Marine, SSgt. Frank Wuterich who is suing Murtha for libel.

Murtha set off a media firestorm last year when even before the matter had been fully investigated he charged members of Kilo Company, 3rd Bn, 1st Marine Regiment had gone on a rampage and slaughtered 24 Iraqi civilians in cold blood to avenge the killing of a member of their unit in an IED explosion. He also said that the incident occurred in the absence of any firefight, although it occurred as part of a day-long battle with insurgent ambushers that wounded 11 Marines.

Rooney told NewsMax.Com that his group that, if as they expect, Chessani is cleared just as one officer, Capt. Randy Stone and two enlisted men have either been exonerated of had a hearing officer recommend exoneration they will seek to hold Murtha accountable.

According to Brian Rooney , SSgt. Frank Wuterich -- one of the other defendants in the investigation now awaiting a hearing on murder charges -- is already suing Murtha for those libelous comments. He insists that Murtha should be held accountable for taking the word of Iraqi insurgents and calling the Marines "cold-blooded murderers."

"Staff Sergeant Wuterich's attorneys are suing Congressman Murtha for liable for saying that the Marines were cold-blooded murderers, and that suit's still ongoing," Rooney said.

"We're not suing Murtha right now," Rooney added. "I know that Frank Wuterich's attorney are suing him for libel, and we will explore that option once our criminal case has been concluded. We hope to show that Murtha is guilty of libel against our client because when he accused the unit's officers of covering up the incident he could only have been referring to Lt. Col. Chessani.

Rooney recalled that in June 2006, Murtha told ABC's Charles Gibson, "I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards, and there's no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story."

"We think Congressman Murtha abandoned his legislative role in attacking the Marines, and so we are going to explore that. We're going to take it one step at a time, but that's definitely something we're going to do once our client is exonerated."

Lunar Eclipse

It was gorgeous!

Dems Cheat To Win

Judge Tells Group To Stay Away From Politics
USA Today

In a case that marked the federal government's first use of the Voting Rights Act to accuse African-Americans of discriminating against white voters, a judge on Monday ordered a Mississippi county Democratic Party and its chairman to forgo election activities until 2011.
U.S. District Judge Tom Lee issued the order as a remedy in the 2005 lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Under his order, a "referee-administrator" will have full authority over the party's primary and runoff elections through November 2011. The job went to former state Supreme Court justice Reuben Anderson, the first African-American to serve on the high court in Mississippi.

In June, the mostly black-run Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee (NDEC) and Chairman Ike Brown, who is black, were found to have discriminated against white voters and their candidates by fixing absentee ballots and ignoring residency requirements.

Lee detailed in a lengthy June opinion how Brown orchestrated election activities so he could retain power. He called Brown dishonest and conniving, finding that he and party committee members schemed to disenfranchise white voters and dilute their voting strength.

"The court is convinced that Ike Brown, and the NDEC under his leadership, have engaged in racially motivated manipulation of the electoral process … to the detriment of white voters," he wrote.

Brown has said he was motivated by partisan, not racial, goals, in a county where parties naturally split along racial lines. He has argued that Republicans descend on Democratic primaries.


Leftists' Desire To Be Loved Is Their Achilles' Heel

Leftists' Desire To Be Loved Is Their Achilles' Heel

I have spent a good part of my life trying to understand people I disagree with, whether on the right or the left, whether members of my own religion or of other religions or of no religion.

In particular, I have wanted to understand people who hold leftist positions. Many people who hold them are personally decent, some very much so -- yet they hold positions that I believe increase cruelty (e.g., advocating withdrawal from Iraq); increase criminality (e.g., more lenient attitudes toward punishing criminals); hasten the decline of Western society (e.g., pushing multiculturalism); and undermine liberty (e.g., expanding government, passing more and more laws, taking away ever larger percentages of citizens' money).

They also panic easily (e.g., heterosexual AIDS in America, carbon dioxide emissions leading to global catastrophe); and the further left one goes, the more morally confused they are (e.g., the inability to label the Soviet Union an "evil empire"; the exaggeration of America's flaws -- it is sexist, imperialist, racist, homophobic -- and the undervaluing of its virtues).

Why is this? Why do so many good people hold bad positions?

There are many reasons. I believe that naivete about human nature and about evil heads the list. But high up there as an explanation of liberal and leftist thinking is the desire to be loved.All normal people want to be loved -- and that is a very good thing when the love is sought from good people with whom we have close relationships.

But many people want to be loved by far more than friends and relatives. For example, most celebrities ache for the love of the public, and while that is a psychological problem for them -- since the love of the public is not personally fulfilling and one then craves it more and more -- the yearning of celebrities for an adoring public has no negative impact on society.

The yearning to be loved becomes a major problem, however, in most other instances. It becomes a problem, for example, when in raising children parents are guided by a desire to be loved by them. Parents cannot properly raise a child if they are unwilling to be disliked, even occasionally hated, by their child.

Sometimes what we have to do to raise a good child means not being loved at that moment (or even for extended periods over the course of years). That is one of the major reasons it is so difficult to raise children.The liberal view of child-rearing over the last generation or two has placed love well above discipline, let alone punishment. The expressed reason is never that the punished child will not love the parent, but it is probably a factor in some liberal parents' mode of child-rearing.

But there are two areas where liberals do express a yearning to be loved, and these have macro, indeed, global, ramifications. The most dangerous one is the liberal desire for their country to be loved.


I run into this time and time again at DU. The Democrats/Leftists there are forever lamenting that America is not 'loved' enough, that we now have the 'most hated President' and are the 'most hated nation', in the world.

John Edwards and the other Dem presidential candidates speak of 'getting our moral authority', our 'respect', our 'reputation around the world' back--but they are all speaking of the desire to be loved. Prager has hit the nail on the head.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Bush Motorcade Crash Kills N.M. Officer; DU Reacts

Bush Motorcade Crash Kills N.M. Officer

A police officer in President Bush's motorcade crashed his motorcycle and died Monday, less than a year after a crash in Hawaii killed another motorcycle officer accompanying the president.

Rio Rancho Officer Germaine Casey, 40, crashed at the Albuquerque airport at a point where a road enters an underground parking garage, said Trish Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Albuquerque Police Department. He was pronounced dead at an Albuquerque hospital.

Bush had been headed to the airport after attending a fundraiser for Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

"Any time there is a presidential motorcade, the officers, that's part of their job, they drive at a high rate of speed," said Hoffman, whose department is investigating the crash.

Rio Rancho police department spokesman Officer John Francis said Casey's motorcycle hit a curb and then a tree, but investigators were reconstructing the accident to determine exactly what happened.

The motorcycle was near the front of the motorcade, and the president saw the wreck as he drove past on the way to the airport, Francis said. "President Bush called to give his condolences to our officer's family and to our department," he said.


FROM DU: Their Reaction To the Accident:

--A police officer riding in Fuckhead's motorcade was killed today...

--Where George Bush goes, tragedy is sure to follow.

--'W' was trying to steer the limo while on daddy's lap...

--Taking one for Bush Asshole's fund raising. How sad.

--How many more will die or be severely injured for Bush?

--There are a few military personnel of ours that have died due to Bush recently, and Bush doesn't seen to care a whole lot about them either.

--More blood on the hands of our President. He's a cop killer! Not even Clinton killed a cop before.

--They should donate the fundraiser take to the officer's family... Nah, they would only squander it on housing and food and maybe education. Better to put it towards greens fees at the local country club.

--Dubya was not on ANY official business... He was fund-raising. He should be made to take a fucking bus like McCain!!!

--Where ever Bush goes death follows. Nothing new here. Knew his record before he stole presidency.

--Running around, using government resources to raise partisan, GOP cash. And killing people in the process. How... Bushy.

--Another funeral he'll not be attending. He'll probably drop a note.

--It is not a coincidence when it is Damien, the Son of Satan, in the Presidential limo.

--I don't even want to know what he said - out loud - when he passed the crash site. I'm sure there was a snicker involved. How can I hate one person so much?

--All the cities in this country should declare Bush Asshole persona non grata. Protecting him is bad karma.

--Maybe he witnessed something and had to be removed... The crash occurred where the road at the airport goes into an underground parking garage... just the perfect place for no witnesses or helicopters to see what actually happened. Just a coincidence I'm sure, especially since this is the SECOND such "accident".

--He's the anti-christ! Yet this 'W' turd just won't flush...

--Bush laughed... he thought it was funny!!! People dying is what he craves!

These reactions are sick and repulsive. The idea that the President 'enjoyed' this is disgusting. Do you really want this Leftist division and hatred in the White House in '08?

Kerry Misses Deadline

Kerry Misses Deadline
By Clarice Feldman

Beldar notes that John F. Kerry let his opportunity to sue the Swift Vets for defamation close, despite Beldar's reminder. He's not surprised, nor should you be.

When I first brought it to his attention in September 2005, I reminded Sen. John F. Kerry that - based on the publication date on or about August 25, 2004, of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi - Sen. Kerry had already allowed the one-year statutes of limitations for defamation to expire in Texas (where Mr. O'Neill resides), New Jersey (where Dr. Corsi resides), and the District of Columbia (where their publisher Regnery Publishing, Inc. has its principal place of business and Sen. Kerry has his own regular place of business).

The Iraq Question Dems Can't Answer

The Iraq Question Dems Can't Answer
By Michael Medved

There’s one question about the Iraq War that Democrats can’t answer, or even confront:

Q. Is this struggle a deeply significant historical confrontation, or just a silly waste of effort, blood and resources? If the war is important, how can we afford to lose? And if it’s just a distraction, then why do its critics focus so obsessively on the issue--- with all the overheated rhetoric about the “biggest mistake” and “greatest disaster” in US history?

In other words, how will history remember this war? Is it a turning point of some kind, a hugely important episode that overshadows lesser issues in politics?

Or is it simply a political football, with both sides playing games to try to gain partisan advantage, with no huge security consequences for either success or failure on the field of battle?


Biased CNN ‘Warriors’ Crosses the Line

Biased CNN ‘Warriors’ Crosses the Line
By Jonathan Tobin

Biased...CNN? Naaaahhhh!

Critics of religion like to claim that the source of most of the world's ills can be traced to believers who wage wars in the name of their distorted fanatic faiths. Indeed, this thesis has led to a spate of new books advocating atheism and deriding religion in the past year.

Needless to say, critics of this trend have pointed out that the vast majority of the deaths incurred by conflicts in history's bloodiest century — the twentieth — were caused by fanatical non-believers in traditional faiths in the name of their Communist, Maoist and Nazi faiths.

But it must be admitted that violent religious extremists are, at this moment in time, the primary threat to the peace of the world. The only problem with this unpleasant fact is that the opprobrium rightly aimed at the perpetrators of this faith-based violence cannot be neatly distributed across the board to practitioners of the three major monotheistic religions.

Though present-day Jews and Christians are not all saints, there is no getting around the fact that neither of those religions has sprouted a contemporary movement aimed at world domination to be achieved by terror and war. That honor is reserved for the Muslim faith, among whose adherents Islamist terror movements have found a home in the mainstream of its culture.


The Democrats’ Counsel of Despair

myspace layouts, myspace codes, glitter graphics
The Democrats’ Counsel of Despair
By The Editors NRO

David Bonior has a problem with the surge — it’s had some success. The campaign manager for John Edwards slammed Hillary Clinton for telling the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention that “we’ve begun to change our tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in al Anbar province, it’s working.” Bonior called on Sen. Clinton to “reconsider her ill-advised statement and reaffirm her dedication to using Congress’ constitutional funding power to end this war.” Bonior himself, however, notes “our military’s hard-won progress in al-Anbar province.”

Bonior’s position appears to be that admitting that the surge is working should be avoided as much as possible, lest it increase political support for the war. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “It’s difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president’s policies.” Better, then, to ignore all progress?


Sunday, August 26, 2007


The Horror! The Horror!
By Noemie Emery

The paranoid style of the American left.

The fascists are coming! Or rather, they're already here, installed in the White House, planning like mad to subvert the Constitution and extend their reign in perpetuity, having first suppressed and eviscerated all opposition and put all of their critics in jail. Thus goes the rant of America's increasingly unhinged left.

If only, sigh many Bush partisans, wondering when this administration will get out of the fetal position and show some fighting spirit. To them, as to most reasonable observers, the White House shows the chronic fatigue of a two-term presidency reaching its final year. Nonetheless, paranoia about what Bush and Co. are up to preys on the minds of many progressives, who have progressed, in this case at least, beyond reason.


They Wait For Us To Run Again

They Wait For Us To Run Again

George W. Bush gave a speech about Iraq last week, and in the middle of it he did something long overdue: He attempted to appropriate the left's most treasured all-purpose historical analogy. Indeed, Vietnam is so ubiquitous in the fulminations of politicians, academics and pundits that we could really use anti-trust legislation to protect us from shopworn historical precedents. But, in the absence thereof, the president has determined that we might at least learn the real "lessons of Vietnam."

"Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Aug. 22. "Many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people…

A columnist for the New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: 'It's difficult to imagine,' he said, 'how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.' A headline on that story, dateline Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: 'Indochina Without Americans: For Most a Better Life.' The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be."


Thanks to our dear Prairieson for this one... (He's been red-hot, lately!) You can, indeed, know exactly who your friends are by how they stand with you when you are attacked. Do they want you to just 'go along to get along', unmindful of what it does to you? Or do they really, really back you?

Peace at any price is too high to pay.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Beware the September Protests

Q & A About the Iraq Anti-War Movement:
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
--American Thinker

Beginning August 28, America will witness the new thrust of Anti-Iraq War Protests. The aim of these protests is exactly the same as the other protests you have seen to date: altering the public perception of the War, thereby manipulating public opinion (polling) against the war.

True or False?

Q. The Anti-Iraq War Protests are spontaneous eruptions of true American discontent with the War -- its objectives, its means, and its results so far.


These Anti-War protests are carefully planned by professional organizers to maximize press coverage, and to give the "illusion" that they are "spontaneous eruptions of true American discontent".

In fact, organization for "the wave" of protests set for next week has been in the planning stage for months. The operational phase begins August 28, and it will receive massive press coverage.

Q. The protesters you see on television are just ordinary Americans, making huge, personal sacrifices of time and money just to let the Country know how much discontent there is over the Iraq War.


Many of these protestors are just doing the jobs they were paid to do - nothing more. The only difference between "them" and honest Americans working in factories and offices, in civil service and schools, is that their job will get them on the network news - and yours will not. Their job is to convince individuals in our American Congress that they will "face political extinction" if they do not "help end the War" - NOW.

Some of these protestors you will see on your televisions and in your newspapers have been "on the payroll" of a massively funded group of 527 organizations all summer. They are being paid $400 cash per week PLUS "free" housing PLUS "free" gasoline. For the past 3 months, they have been in the "professional demonstrator" training program that includes the following: "training in political messaging, earned media, legislative tracking, grassroots organizing, visibilities and other campaign tools".

Q. The signs carried by the protestors are original sentiments, and represent the true feelings of the vast majority of American citizens regarding the War in Iraq, and the current Surge, in particular.


The signs carried by the protestors were designed by professional advertising gurus, at substantial expense to the "backers," and should be considered with the same skepticism one uses when viewing a commercial for Budweiser or Cheerios. Even though the paid commercial makes it appear that all Americans should only drink Budweiser, just a small amount of "truth serum" will help your immune system determine that there are indeed other brands.

Corporate commercials are actually much safer, because Americans already know they are biased to sell more beer. These protest signs, on the other hand, are very dangerous, because they are professionally engineered to appear to represent the true and original convictions of the persons carrying them for free media advertising.

Q. "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq" is in reality a "multi-faceted, multi-million dollar effort," designed specifically to "target" more than 60 members of the American Congress who are blocking end-the-War-NOW legislation. They are essentially paid lobbyists.


The group uses those precise words to describe itself right on its very own
website. The only reason that the networks and newspapers will not tell you about this when they report on the "demonstrations" is that they feel no "truth-in-reporting" obligation to more fully inform you.

Q. Most of the financial backers of this professional "wave of demonstrations" (that are professionally designed at great expense to appear unrehearsed, unprompted, unorganized and honest) have the best interests of all Americans at heart, and truly want to see our forces win a decisive victory in Iraq, thereby substantially weakening the resolve of our Islamofascist enemies and ensuring greater safety and security for all Americans.


The primary financial backing for these demonstrations is provided, through a highly deceptive network of 527 tax-exempt organizations, by a multi-billionaire, naturalized American citizen, whose stated aim in life is to destroy the entire concept of Nation States and establish a one-world oligarchy. His name is George Soros.


Friday, August 24, 2007

Democrat Spirituality and Optimism

FROM DU: From the Looks Of Things On Earth, Do We Have A ROOKIE GOD? Full Of Mistakes and Blunders???

Like Bush is a Rookie prez??? Still is...still don't get it....never will...? What kinda God we got anyway??? The results so far sucks... (opihimoimoi)

DU Chimes In:

--Yeah, maybe this is just his practice universe.

--Kinda looks it... we humans are so close to making it... but no cigars at this time...

--There is no god, and God is made in our image

--God would say humans fucked up the earth all by themselves.

--Based on these results, I'd say we have a Keith Richards God.

--God... was a rookie? Well...that does it for me... Here I was thinking... that I was God... and perfect!!!

--If there is a god... he is a underachiever.

--His arm is weak, his fielding is atrocious, and he can't hit a curve. I think he needs to be sent down to the minors. He can get some extra help from Lucifer.

--Maybe God is dead. Or on vacation. Or non-existent. Or a dolphin. It's anyone's guess.

--If there was a god, he is at best incompetent and at worst a psychopath. Luckily for us, there is no god.

--I have no use for such a god, I am from New Orleans; any god sitting around this time of century "letting some things flow on their own" can go straight to hell, as far as I'm concerned. God, if he exists, has no conscience.

--(We're) an Experiment that went Really Really Wrong.

This is what the most blessed generation on earth thinks of God and their fellow human beings... If they aren't 'given' everything from cradle to grave, all they can do is complain about it, think their lives are terrible and that they are owed more--and degrade any creator that gave them life. Pitiful.

I have a feeling that, when they say other human beings are awful, they mean only Republicans. They don't believe in the Savior; they think THEY are mankind's savior...

Did Clinton Lie About Targeting Bin Laden?

Did Clinton Lie About Targeting Bin Laden?
Captain's Quarters--Ed Morrissey

Imagine, a man that can muster such 'feelings'--all while telling a lie...

It appears that Bill Clinton may have exaggerated his record when it came to strategizing against Osama bin Laden. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball take a look at the Inspector General's report of the pre-9/11 intelligence failures at the CIA and find an interesting nugget. Despite Clinton's angry assertion to Chris Wallace in last year's controversial Fox interview, he never gave the CIA an assassination order regarding bin Laden (h/t: CQ reader Mark):

The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal "constraints" agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. "What did I do? What did I do?" Clinton said at one point. "I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general's report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to "kill" bin Laden—one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. "The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations," the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general's findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. "There was never any ambiguity," he said. "None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone...


Thanks to our dear Prairieson for bringing us this one!

Why the World According To Obama Is A Cause For Concern

Why the World According To Obama Is A Cause For Concern
By Bronwen Maddox

It is hard to take Barack Obama seriously on foreign policy, even though he is making it one of the most prominent angles of his campaign.

The senator from Illinois, who is Hillary Clinton’s constant challenger for the Democratic nomination for president, and whose star quality has given the race its highly charged and unpredictable air, has now challenged his rivals (and President Bush) on the whole sweep of recent US actions abroad.

To some acclaim; David Ignatius, the Washington Post columnist, pronounced yesterday that “over the past month, Obama has been shaping the foreign policy debate for the Democrats - and getting the best of the arguments”.

Then that is only because the others are so inhibited from saying anything definite, on Iraq and elsewhere, that they have said nothing. Obama’s collected thoughts on foreign policy, so far, are an extraordinary mixture of belligerence, evasion and contradiction, which lack the intelligence and coherence of his proposals on other fronts.


Hillary Says Terror Would Be GOP Boost

Hillary Says Terror Would Be GOP Boost
By Geoff Earle

Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again...


Imagine, Hillary's biggest concern about terrorism is how it would impact the election she wants to win! Is she trying to send a message to the terrorists, or what? They know that, if she is elected, they'll have an easier time of it--just like they did under her husband...

Libs Say the Darndest Things

Libs Say the Darndest Things
By James Lewis

Here's a fun exercise for conservatives: Spend some time just listening to your liberal friends. Don't bother to say anything at all. You'll be amazed. I've certainly been wowed every time I've tried it.

Libs believe the darndest things. They're not as cute as the things kids come out with, but having millions of adults who are stuck in false beliefs puts our society at a lot greater risk.

Among the pearls of political wisdom I picked up from ordinary, friendly, prosperous and apparently intelligent lib friends were the following:


Thanks to our dear Prairieson for bringing us this one... I'm sure there's more where this came from! (Those from my age-group will recognize the pic.)

MUST READ: Courage

Courage, Cowardice and the Wordsmiths
By Stephen Rittenberg, MD

When I served as a Navy psychiatrist during the Vietnam War, one of my weekly duties was interviewing and assessing potential draftees who were seeking to avoid service by claiming mental illness. Many of these were recent Ivy League graduates, students of the humanities, who were active protesters of what they insisted was an immoral war. They thought of themselves as idealists.

Yet they were not principled conscientious objectors. Instead, they were glib, had read up on symptoms of psychosis, and could feign the manifest behavior of any disqualifying syndrome-including homosexuality. Their efforts to dissemble were usually rather obvious. They were predicated on the arrogant assumption that they were smarter than any military psychiatrist.

Once it was pointed out to them that if they avoided the draft, someone else, less educated and less favored by fortune would go in their place, they quickly revealed their true motivation: fear. I realized I was observing cowardice masquerading as idealism. These young men would do anything to avoid the risk of fighting and dying for their country.


Thursday, August 23, 2007

HERE'S Someone To Blame:

Until I-35W Disaster, Democrat Oberstar's Funding Focus Wasn't On Bridges
By Katherine Kersten

In the wake of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse, DFL leaders want to raise the state gas tax to fund transportation needs.

At the same time, Minnesota Rep. Jim Oberstar -- the powerful chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee -- has called for a "temporary" 5-cent increase in the federal gas tax to raise what he says is a critically needed $25 billion over three years for a national bridge-repair trust fund.

"If you're not prepared to invest another five cents in bridge reconstruction and road reconstruction, then God help you," he said after the bridge collapse.

Polls suggest that ordinary folks aren't convinced of a divine mandate for higher taxes. Most likely, they're skeptical about how our pols are stewarding current transportation funds.

Oberstar is Exhibit A. He's long been well-positioned to help steer funds toward bridge safety, and has known of the seriousness of the problem since he held hearings on bridge conditions 20 years ago, he says. But he's had other priorities.

For example, on July 25 -- a week before the bridge collapse -- Oberstar issued a press release announcing his latest coup for Minnesota.

He had obtained more than $12 million for his home state in a recently passed House transportation and housing bill. Commuter rail was the big winner, getting $10 million. The Cambridge-Isanti Bike/Walk Trail got $250,000, and the KidsPeace Mesabi Academy in Buhl got $150,000. Only $2 million went for meat-and-potatoes road improvements.

Not a penny was slated for bridge repair.


Please, Please, PLEASE Rectify Things!

Elvira Arellano Says U.S. 'Broke The Law First'

The Truth About Elvira Arellano
By Michael Reagan

You would have thought the United States had committed some unforgivable crime against humanity if you listened to the howls of rage emitting from a horde of liberals whining over the fate of an illegal alien who played them for suckers.

Her name is Elvira Arellano and whatever else she may be, she’s a master propagandist who knows full well just which buttons to push to unleash a flood of liberal do-gooder tears from those who don’t recognize a con man (or woman) even when the con is so obvious a ten-year-old could see it.

In case you haven’t been paying attention, for the past year Sra. Arellano has been playing the part of a victim of heartless U.S. immigration laws that demand that she be deported just because as a serial illegal alien she just plain doesn’t belong north of the U.S.-Mexican border, which she has long used a her own personal revolving door.


49-Year-Old Rambo Headed for Iraq

49-Year-Old Rambo Headed For Iraq

They call Damian Horne “Grandpa Rambo.”

The Sante Fe, N.M., public defender volunteered for a 9-month deployment with a special forces unit of the Colorado National Guard and is scheduled to ship out for Iraq in October.
Damian Horne turns 49 on Friday.

“I really wanted to support what I believe is an honorable job,” said Horne, a former Army Ranger and reserve Green Beret who has a 3-year-old daughter and a 7-year-old son.
“I looked at the men and women who are serving, and I was so proud of them. I thought if they’ll take an old Rambo back, then I’d join up.”

Horne has been trying to get to Iraq for nearly two years. He joined the New Mexico National Guard in 2006, but New Mexico doesn’t have a special forces unit, so he attached himself to the Colorado unit and attended Air Assault School in February, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported.

“It’s billed as the 10 toughest days in the Army,” Horne said. “At least 40 percent of our class didn’t make it.”

But Horne made it through the program, even though the next oldest man in the class was at least 15 years younger.

Horne’s wife Sydney West, also a public defender, said he gave her no advance notice of his decision to re-enlist, and she wasn’t surprised that he opted for a combat job over anything else, including putting his legal background to use.

“I wouldn’t think he’d want to go over there to write wills,” she told the newspaper. “If he gets back alive, I’m going to kill him.”
As for those who might call him irresponsible for heading off to combat with two children at home, Horne said: “I can’t think of a better example to set for them.”

Of Course We Are!

USA Is An Overwhelming Force For Good
By Kevin Rudd

FOR the 21st century to be a truly pacific century, a truly peaceful one, it must still have an international rules-based order. It was important for the century just gone, and will be just as important for the century just unfolding. And you cannot deliver a rules-based order in the absence of the underlying ballast of US global strategic power. Carefully husbanded, selectively deployed - without that a rules-based order ultimately withers

America today, moreover, should not disengage from the world post-Iraq and I say that as someone who has been for almost five years a continuing and consistent opponent of the war in Iraq. But I say that despite Iraq, the world needs America. I say that despite Iraq, America is an overwhelming force for good in the world. It is time we sang that from the world's rooftops.


Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Please Remember Them In Prayer...

14 U.S. Soldiers Killed In Chopper Crash
By Kim Gamel-Seattle PI

Four men were from our own Ft. Lewis...

Fourteen U.S. soldiers were killed Wednesday when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed during a nighttime mission in northern Iraq, but the military said it appeared the aircraft was lost by mechanical problems and not from hostile fire.

It was the Pentagon's worst single-day death toll in Iraq since January and indicated how forces are relying heavily on air power in offensives across northern regions after rooting out many militant strongholds in Baghdad and central regions.


"President Hillary Clinton Surrenders America"

News of the Future: "President Hillary Clinton Surrenders America"
By Douglas MacKinnon

It can credibly be argued that the presidential election of 2008 is the most important in the history of our Republic. Why? Because if we get this one wrong, Islamic terrorists will almost certainly strike into the heart of America. That is their stated goal. That is why they are paying so much attention to this election.

Political correctness has made us a weaker nation because it has killed some truths. The paramount truth most liberals, and most in the media, will not allow to be spoken, is that if you are in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, if you are in favor of ending or scaling back the “Patriot Act,” if you are in favor of stopping or even criminalizing warrantless wiretaps, if you are in favor of preventing our spy satellites from being used to protect our homeland, if you are in favor of never using facilities such as Guantanamo Bay to house murderous terrorists, if you are in favor of never letting our allies interrogate terrorists, then you are opening up the United States to a horrific terrorist attack. Period.

A second truth being that Senator Hillary Clinton is a far-left liberal who is in favor of all of the above. Just because she is ethically challenged does not mean she is not bright. Since the day she became a United States Senator, she has been running for president. Toward that end, she understands better than any, that she has to successfully deceive enough Americans into believing she is a “centrist” -- instead of the committed socialist she is – in order to obtain the most powerful office in the world.

As the election plays out, it is imperative that we continually ask ourselves a question that drives the media and the liberals into a frenzy anytime someone dare pose it. That being, “Would the Islamists bent on our total destruction prefer that the citizens of the United States elect as president, a person who will use any means to track them, hunt them down where they sleep and hide, wring the truth out of them, show them and their allies absolutely no mercy, and lock down our borders, or…would they prefer a president such as Hillary Clinton, who will keep our borders open, never allow profiling, never listen to their communications with terrorists inside our nation, think it is wrong to detain them outside of the United States or let our allies question them, bend to the will of other liberal or socialist nations, and always treat them as criminals instead of cold blooded killers?”

Any school child could tell you that the terrorists would prefer to have Hillary Clinton elected president. At the risk of further enraging the far left, I give you a plausible scenario three years into the first term of President Hillary Clinton:

Washington, DC – September 11, 2012 – Today, President Hillary Clinton received the following joint communiqué from the leadership of Al Qaida, Hezbollah, and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez: “Because your policies so easily allowed us to reconstitute our powers and infiltrate your pathetically porous borders, we have hidden three nuclear weapons in three major American cities. If you try to find them, we will set them off. If you do not give in to our demand, we will set them off. Our demand? That you surrender your nation to us or suffer the loss of millions of Americans. There will be no negotiation.”

Washington, DC – September 12, 2012 – Today, President Hillary Clinton surrendered the United States of America to terrorists.

As “Camp Hillary” and the far left denounce this column, I would remind them – and all of us – that there will be no second chances if we get this election wrong. None.

Those who mean to exterminate us are anxiously awaiting the results.

The 18% Congress...

Testing Congress: Faith and Face
By Michael J. O'Shea

Bored by playing God, Congress now plays admiral and general.
Despite endless complaints about HMOs -- not doctors -- deciding patients' fate, Congress repeats the arrogance, rejecting those:

--putting their lives on the line,
--working daily with Iraqi troops and political leaders,
--seeing the patient fight back and start to stand on its own.

But Congress knows better. And toys with pulling the plug.

It's a pathetic cycle. Congress's DNA is documented in Iraq, yet it denies paternity. It then claims the pregnancy's too tough and wants to abort. It next protests that lifting a people to life is too hard and opts to abandon them to play law of the jungle to see who will survive and not caring which one does.


"No Solutions" For the Democrats

Obama: No Military Solution in Iraq

Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday the recent increase in American troops in Iraq may well have helped tamp down violence, but he insisted there is no military solution to the country's problems and U.S. forces should be redeployed soon.

Obama spoke a day after his main Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, made similar comments. She said the tactics of the short-term troop increase were working but political progress did not seem to be in sight and the U.S. should begin bringing some troops home.

Obama said in a telephone briefing, "If we put 30,000 additional troops into Baghdad, it will quell some of the violence short term. I don't think there is any doubt about that."

But that won't solve Iraq's critical political problems, he said in the call and again later in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "All of our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq," Obama said at the VFW convention in Kansas City.


This is just one more Democrat banking on the failure of the United States. Note how often they play the "damned if you do/damned if you don't" game. When we use a military solution, they say only politics will work. When we use a political solution, they'd say only the military will work. When they say Bush hasn't been to Iraq, they say he's 'estranged' or neglecting the war. When he goes there, they say he's grandstanding and it's just a 'plastic turkey photo op'.

When Bush listens to his generals he's 'making his underlings run the war'. When he makes decisions for himself, he's 'not listening to the 'boots on the ground'. When the President wears a flight suit while co-piloting a 'tailhook' landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the Dems jeer he's 'codpiece Bush'. If he'd worn a business suit instead--or worse, levis and cowboy boots--they'd have accused him of being a neophyte or even a fake pilot. And Fred Thompson can't even wear loafers in Iowa without being accused of being over-dressed--while Cheney is derided for not wearing an upscale-enough coat in Germany!

Whichever side of the news the Republicans fall on, the MSM--and Democrats everywhere--will paint it as a negative. They pretend that, in order to gain favor, the Republicans only need to 'do things our way' (though they're usually careful not be too specific about what that is, though).

Instead, they are really just playing a game of 'Whatever the GOP Does Is Wrong--We'll Show You'. Everytime you hear a Democrat criticize the Republicans again, ask yourself if the opposite actions would have fared any better in Democrat eyes. THEN you'll have your answer as to what the news was REALLY trying to convey. With them, it's all about power and politics.

Another Socialist Lie...

Why the U.S. Ranks Low On WHO's Health-Care Study
By John Stossel

"Free health care" isn't FREE--it's PRE-PAID.

The New York Times recently declared "the disturbing truth ... that ... the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care."

As usual, the Times editors get it wrong.

They find evidence in a 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May.

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."

The Commonwealth Fund looked at Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States -- and ranked the U.S. last or next to last on all but one criterion.

So the verdict is in. The vaunted U.S. medical system is one of the worst.

But there's less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading.


Tuesday, August 21, 2007

John 'Effen' Is STILL Working With the Communists!


Here's the reality this week: Karl Rove is gone but a broken Iraq policy remains. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a party cling so disastrously to a policy that is as wrong as it is unsuccessful.The pressure for change has been building day by day since I offered legislation last year to set a deadline to redeploy American troops, and still they insist on more of the same. So, we need to push even harder.

This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course. All summer, our friends at Americans Against Escalation in Iraq have been organizing in swing districts and states across the country to put even more pressure on Republicans to do what is right and break with the President.

Now, next Tuesday August 28th, they and will be holding events all around the United States to try to set the stage for the fights in September. These "End it in September" town halls and vigils will put even more pressure on Republicans, giving them lots to think about as they end their August recess in their home districts.

It will be a big month ahead, and the chances of us getting a new direction are better than ever. A large event with lots of participation next week can set up our efforts for next month. We're getting closer; I can feel the mounting desperation in my Republican colleagues. But we have to make sure that any talk from them is backed up by real action. We won't stand for anything less than a firm deadline that will force this President to change policy.

Do what you can to turn August 28th into the largest series of events yet in the fight for a new Iraq policy. I'll try to keep you updated when the legislation starts to move in September. It will be a busy month for the effort to get a new course in Iraq, so let's keep the pressure up on Republicans and get some movement on that.

John Kerry

These people have serious plans for September to sabotage General Petraeus' report and damage the war during 9/11. Let's keep this in mind--and remember that is a communist front organization.

John 'Effen' is still working with the communists!