Not MORE Shady Dealings By the Dems?!!!
I created this blog as a response to the hypocrisy, nastiness, and negativity at Democratic Underground. The D'RATS do not allow disagreement on their site; they demand their posters tout their party line word-for-word. Any poster who does not march in lockstep is immediately banned. Their cowardice in this, and their calumny towards America's leaders, will not go unanswered as I address the issues of the day--and one of the most negative, detrimental influences in the blogosphere.
Believe the Words Of Our Enemies
That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband
*Stonewall Democrat Leader Had Sex In Public
For what is believed to be the first time in its history, the U.S. Senate will on July 12 be opened with a Hindu prayer, the Senate Chaplain's Office confirmed Monday. For more than 200 years, the Senate has opened each workday with a prayer usually delivered by the Senate Chaplain, currently Barry Black, a Seventh Day Adventist.
It is common, however, for senators to recommend religious leaders from their home states to serve as guest chaplains. Rajan Zed, a Hindu chaplain from Nevada, on will become the first Hindu to deliver the morning prayer. In a statement announcing his scheduled appearance, Zed called the occasion "an illustrious day for all Americans and a memorable day for us."
Censorship Disguised as Fairness
Jim Frederickson, the research director at the Composting Association has called for data on worms and composting to be re-examined after a German study found that worms produce greenhouse gases 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
“Turncoat” Trent Lott Helping Democrat Debs
Hugo Chavez: Prepare for War With U.S.
Iraq's 'Chemical Ali' Sentenced To Death
From DU: Are You Still Terrified From Sept. 11th, 2001?
It was a terrible day, and what has happened to America since then has also been terrible. I was terrified on that day, we all were, are we still? I am not however terrified of Osama bin Laden because he seems to be utterly forgotten, I am now terrified of dick cheney and his plans for us all. Is the nine eleven mojo still working on you? Are you more terrified or less terrified now? (Philosoraptor)
DUers Chime In:
--I don't know - Katrina seems just as scary.
--Isn't it incredible how the fear and paranoia spread? Every time a plane passed overhead, I got a little anxious. It was like wildfire. I was terrified for weeks. This is why when people talk of a conspiracy, I have to say "hmmmmmmmmm"..... Bush's word was gold. The government could do no wrong. Everybody flew the flag. It was a neocon's dream.
--Really? Were you really terrified for weeks? I was very annoyed with people who were saying, "Thank goodness Al Gore isn't president!"
--I remember that some people reacted with fear, but many did not. I was asking a lot of questions that day, like, where is the president? My then-husband and I instantly knew that Osama bin Laden was responsible.
--To be honest, the whole thing never scared me that much. I watched everyone around me turn into raving paranoid nutcases, but without having the TV, I didn't get the subconscious programming that everyone else did, and I never got overly scared.
--I had TV at the time and I still wasn't scared.
--No, I was not terrified on that day. I didn't get scared until POS Bush started to turn our country into a secretive, police-state agitprop-driven aggressor nation.
--Not terrified, except of my gov't.
--No, in fact since Oct. 2001 and the Patriot Act, I've been far more frightened by the actions taken in response to it. Everything done in the name of 911 is hogwash perpetrated by authoritarians seeking to use it to gain power.
--I'm not terrified. I'm damn well pissed off at those who use it to further their nefarious plans. And I'm pissed off at everyone who buys into their meme, wringing their hands and saying "whatever it takes to keep us safe." Land of the Free and Home of the Brave? Not anymore.
--If I had known how bad things would get under Bush's fascist regime, THEN I would have been afraid. But the attacks of a handful of terrorists, while horrible, were not that unusual.
--Yes. I am petrified about what horrendous shit the evil fucking bastards occupying the White House are going to do to us next.
Jane Fonda Wants Bush, Cheney Impeached
Jane Fonda and a number of other prominent liberal figures have joined a campaign to impeach President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "war crimes.”
An organization calling itself The World Can’t Wait has taken out a full-page ad in Friday’s New York Times seeking donations and announcing upcoming town meetings in several cities.
Miss War Crimes Of 1972 has the nerve to accuse ANYBODY else of them! Only on the Left would folks be so arrogant--and so clueless.
From DU: I Call Bush A 'Piece Of Shit" In Front Of My Kids
Yes, I teach them to DISRESPECT 'the president". The man is not worthy of an ounce of respect, and yeah, I'll say it - neither is the office. Respect is something that is EARNED. Just winning an election and surrrounding yourself with flags and trappings does not make a person or even his office worthy of respect. Only deeds can do that.
My kids are 7 and 9, and I have taught them since they were very small that George Bush is a liar and murderer and the worst person to take the presidency in American history. They have seen the photos of what Piece-Of-Shit Bush has done to Iraq, and they know the lies he told so he could do it.
Here in the public library they even have two excellent CHILDREN'S books about the devastation Piece-Of-Shit Bush brought upon Iraq, as well as the bullying and starvation campaign that was in effect ever since the FIRST Piece-Of-Shit Bush's war against them.
In spite of those things, I taught my kids not to hate this horrible man, because even he might possible somehow see the error of his ways someday and become a human being. I'm not holding my breath though...
My kids know they can love their country and still condemn its "leaders" when they are corrupt and traitorous.
I teach my kids these things because it's important for them to know, and I won't apologize for it. (Matsubara)
This post from Democrat Underground, the Democrat party, Leftists, and Liberals is the very essence of what they are all about. It is why they are bad for America--it is why we say they hate this country--and how they prove that they do. That anyone could teach their children these things reveals their thoroughly evil intentions; these comments speak to nothing else.
Vote for a Democrat in '08 and this is who you will be empowering.
How Liberal Dems, Major Media Perpetuate A Cycle Of Negativity
From DU: A Zygote Is Not A Human Being; This Stem Cell Veto Has Me Fuming
There is no debate here. The scientific facts regarding this issue are crystal clear. If you are one of the people who believe human life begins at conception because of so called "religious" reasons, I have to wonder where in the Bible it says or when Jesus or Allah or God or Zeus or whatever imaginary being you worship said the words "Thou shalt not remove DNA from thy zygote"
Your religious "leaders" are lying to you. A zygote is not a human being. A zygote is a cell with genetic information that has the potential to grow and develop into a human given the right environment.
Similarly, a sperm cell and an ovum also have the potential to grow and develop into a human, given the right environment, (eg. Close proximity in the latter environment), which, if followed to the religious fundamentalists' "logical" conclusion, makes every single menstruation and ejection of sperm (whether through masturbation or urination) the "killing of a human". It is absurd.
It angers and saddens me to see America - once the world's hub of scientific enlightenment - reduced to this. What happened to the America that invented the light bulb, the America that cured polio, the America that put a man on the moon?
Now, in the year 2007, there are creationist "museums", disclaimer stickers on biology textbooks regarding evolution, Arabic translators being kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation, and the President of the United States vetoing scientific research because he and FORTY ONE PERCENT OF AMERICANS believe that a zygote is a human being.
How and when did America become a backwards theocracy? (lynyrd_skynyrd)
DUers Chime In:
--These people are a bunch of phonies, and I wouldn't be surprised if drug companies don't have some vested interest in preventing actual cures for things like diabetes, which they probably make a ton of money off of. I've seen George Bush send thousands of people to their deaths, he turned a cold shoulder to Katrina and more than a thousand people died, he's shown himself to be completely lacking in morality and compassion, despite his proclamations of being a "compassionate conservative". I know he doesn't give a damn about these embryos, he's just trying to play to his base and/or protect the big drug companies.--Our bodies shed DNA 24/7 and don't see it as significant. Logically, that's no BFD.
The idiocy of these posts is so sadly apparent. That these dopes thinks a fertilized egg--one that, absent intervention, would develop into a human being--is not a 'life' is totally absurd. This is the hippy flipdip thinking of the Leftists, the Democrat party, who rationalize all kinds of B.S. to further their own aims.
Their lack of scientific knowledge--or plain common sense--is staggering. Their lack of moral direction is disgusting. Vote Dem in '08, and this is what you get.
Hillary Clinton Tape Reveals 'Felony'
Rush Limbaugh Stays Despite Censorship Bid
Mugabe Is Black People’s Role Model
Free Scooter Libby
If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case? And why is such a nugatory issue a legal matter in the first place?
Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions.
--Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
--Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place.
--The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak—his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally—was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that).
--In the other two "counts" in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count.
--The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president's office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary.
--The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame's identity to Karl Rove.
Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?
I know of a senior lawyer in Washington who is betting very good money that if the case is heard again on appeal, the conviction will be reversed. This is for three further reasons, which I call to your attention.
1) There is an important constitutional question regarding Fitzgerald's original jurisdiction. It is a rather nice legal question, having to do with whether, as U.S. attorney for the northern district of Illinois, Fitzgerald is a "principal" or "inferior" officer under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A dozen senior legal scholars have filed an amicus brief, arguing that the authority under which the original prosecutorial investigation was conducted was itself dubious. I have no expertise in this very important matter, but in granting them leave to file, Judge Walton made the following hair-raising comment, which I reproduce in full because it is longer than his order and needs to be read in full:
It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.
The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse.
The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.
2) This low sarcasm displays not so much bias against the defendant, but actual animus. What does the number of days have to do with it? In how many cases involving poor defendants is an issue of constitutional law involved? Does the judge not know that Libby has already been almost ruined financially and faces incarceration? Would he have adopted the same tone if 12 experts ranging politically from Robert Bork to Alan Dershowitz had filed a brief arguing the opposite position? It's difficult to see how an appeals court can avoid these questions.
3) The judge refused to let the jury hear from a memory expert and would not admit much of the evidence about Libby's extremely heavy workload on matters of pressing national security. An amazing collection of testimonials has been prepared, from all points of the political compass, regarding particularly Libby's concern about inadequate troop levels in Iraq and his work in strengthening the country's defense against bio-warfare terrorism. It seems to some legal observers that the judge's exclusion of some of this exculpatory evidence was a payback for Libby's decision not to take the stand, which is his constitutionally protected right.
The rush to prejudge the case and pack Libby off to prison seems near universal. (Patrick Fitzgerald has denounced him for failing to show remorse; a strange charge to make against a man who has announced that he intends to appeal.) Given the unsoundness of the verdict, the extraordinary number of other witnesses who admitted to confusion over dates and times, and the essential triviality of the original matter (an apparently purposeless coverup of a nonleak, in private and legal conversations, involving common knowledge of information that was not known to be classified), it is unlikely that the verdict at present can stand scrutiny, let alone the sentence. But why go through all this irrelevant and secondhand hearsay again?
Those who want to "get" someone for "lying us into war" have picked the wrong man and failed to identify a crime. Let them try to impeach the president, who should in the meantime step in to avoid any more waste of public money and time and pardon Libby without further ado.
From DU: Will Libby's Pardon Be Enough For You To Demand Impeachment?
Will Libby's Pardon be the straw that broke the camel's back for you? Will it be enough for you get go into the streets and demand impeachment, will it make you call your Congress person and your Senators to demand impeachment of the head of this lawless Administration?If its not what will it take for you, does the son of a bitch have to eat a live baby on TV? (ThomWV)
DUers Chime In:
--Ditto! (Impeach. Remove. Indict. Convict. Imprison. Rinse. Repeat.) We're an outlaw nation unless and until we rightfully prosecute and imprison those who've committed war crimes and crimes against our Constitution. Our nation has no honor nor courage as long as "impeachment is off the table."
-- I have been writing my congress people and senators regarding impeachment for years. I have sent several emails to Whitehouse.gov and letters to the White House asking the stupid son of a bitch to resign because he is incompetent and endangering Americans with his actions.
--Dems have not done enough to where anybody cares. It's another slam-dunk issue which has been ignored by the politicos.
--For it to be successful, both Bush and Cheney would have to be booted, so Pelosi could step in.
--The difference is that there is no Washington Post or CIA anymore to do the final takedown.
--Without formal investigations into the criminal activity of the Chimp, democracy is dead. Nothing is more important than impeachment.--I think a Libby pardon would be a tipping point. It strengthens the chance that Congress and American people will actually go ahead and pull the trigger and Impeach this mob.
--If Congress truly wants to impeach, they should be able to find many other reasons, not just the pardon.
--There's a deep misunderstanding about Impeachment. It'll wound the GOP, regardless of whether the Senate eventually votes to convict.
--Libby's CONVICTION is enough to call for impeachment. NOW.