Thursday, January 31, 2008

"Maverick" and "Conservative" Aren't Synonyms

"Maverick" and "Conservative" Aren't Synonyms

Many conservatives have said Sen. John McCain is not conservative enough to suit them. Some of McCain's defenders have not only disagreed but have impugned his critics, hypocritically blaming them for divisiveness.

But intramural bickering isn't the issue. What's important is that conservatives have an intellectually honest and open discussion about GOP presidential contenders.

It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain -- overnight -- into a Reagan conservative.

McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back -- not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.

Former senator Rick Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, said, "I don't agree with (McCain) on hardly any issues." Santorum told radio host Mark Levin, "I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the senator from Arizona." Santorum said McCain has been damaging to conservative causes and would be no friend to conservatives in the White House.

McCain's defenders -- in the McCainian spirit of chilling political speech -- forbid us from criticizing him because he is a war hero. That's irresponsible nonsense. Voters and analysts have an obligation to assess McCain's suitability for the presidency. To consider and verbalize the negatives is not to demean his service or sacrifice.


McCain vs. Limbaugh


McCain vs. Limbaugh
By L. Brent Bozell III

You can tell a lot about how the news media feel about conservatives by watching how they talk about Rush Limbaugh. They want his influence curbed. They pine for the day his career hits the skids. They’re constantly looking for a moment where they can declare that conservatives no longer have – that Rush Limbaugh no longer has -- the Grand Old Party in a menacing trance. They don’t want Republican candidates seeking a Limbaugh endorsement.

They think they found that moment on January 19.

When McCain won the South Carolina primary, The Washington Post sharply declared the next day that he had “defused conservative attacks, from Rush Limbaugh to Tom DeLay.” CNN’s Carol Costello sounded boastful a few days later: “Conservative radio talkers bragged their influence helped put George W. Bush in office. How times have changed. Now leading many Republican polls -- John McCain. And those same talkers aren't bragging anymore. Voters have betrayed them, despite what's playing on Rush Limbaugh's show.”

No one chortled more loudly than that expert on conservatism, former NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw. He proclaimed on “Meet the Press” that the voters of America are now rejecting “dogma,” and they are a “nomadic herd” hungering for “solutions” rather than ideology.

Translation? The Reagan ideology is finished (thank God); the conservative movement is gone (good riddance); and happy days are here again, with Republicans embracing Democratic policy prescriptions instead (as they should).

Brokaw doesn’t want Republicans to have any troublesome litmus tests to decide which candidate is most conservative, not only because moderates like McCain will fail the test, but because it leads Republicans to pitch campaign promises at that conservative base that the media would like to believe is irrelevant.


Given the intellectual vacuum of the GOP leadership, somebody needs to lead conservatives to analyze the candidate who is truest to their creed. Many talk-radio hosts are taking up that task. So why the hostility toward Rush in particular? Yes, he’s the biggest and most influential. But Rush is also uniquely powerful in keeping conservatives from demoralization – a key objective of the liberal media. Conservatives are understandably glum about their erstwhile champions in Washington, so ingloriously surrendering to liberal pressures. The left would like nothing more than to keep conservatives glum. A McCain nomination would go a long way to making conservatives want to stay home and stew on Election Day.

Tom Brokaw offering advice to Republicans about how to win elections is like Rush Limbaugh offering advice to the network anchors about how to stop the bleeding of their ever-declining ratings. It’s no doubt heard by the recipient of the unsolicited advice as just so much noise from someone who doesn’t really wish you smashing success.

The only difference is this: Brokaw’s advice for the Republican Party is terrible. Limbaugh’s advice for the networks – try a balanced newscast instead of “drive-by” partisan target practice -- would actually be helpful advice. But they’ll never accept it.


UN Peacekeepers Vandalize Sahara Prehistoric Art

UN Peacekeepers Vandalize Sahara Prehistoric Art
From The Times

Spectacular prehistoric depictions of animal and human figures created up to 6,000 years ago on Western Saharan rocks have been vandalised by United Nations peacekeepers, The Times has learnt.

Archaeological sites boasting ancient paintings and engravings of giraffes, buffalo and elephants have been defaced within the past two years by personnel attached to the UN mission, known by its French acronym, Minurso.

Graffiti, some of it more than a metre high and sprayed with paint meant for use for marking routes, now blights the rock art at Lajuad, an isolated site known as Devil Mountain, which is regarded by the local Sahrawi population as a mystical place of great cultural significance.

Many of the UN “graffiti artists” signed and dated their work, revealing their identities and where they are from. Minurso personnel stationed in Western Sahara come from almost 30 countries. They are monitoring a ceasefire between the occupying Moroccan forces and the Polisario Front, which is seeking independence.


The extent of the damage is revealed in a report by Nick Brooks, of the University of East Anglia, and Joaquim Soler, of the University of Gerona, Spain, which was passed to The Times yesterday. It outlines the “severe vandalism”, saying that it “now appears to be an essentially universal practice when Minurso staff visit rock art sites . . . Minurso staff have felt entitled to destroy elements of Western Sahara’s and the Sahrawis’ cultural heritage, despite being aware of UN ethics in peacekeeping, and in breach of legislation enshrined in the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.”

It concludes: “Minurso personnel have played a major role in damaging archaeological sites, and such staff are engaged in the systematic defacement of valuable archaeological sites over a large area . . . the recent damage at Lajuad is unprecedented.”

The vandalism will reignite the debate about the conduct of UN peacekeepers after a series of scandals. Last January the UN admitted that more than 200 of its troops had been disciplined for sex offences, including rape and child abuse, in the preceding three years; in May it emerged that Paki-stani peacekeepers had been trading weapons with Congolese militia.


Berkeley Council Tells Marines To Leave

Berkeley Council Tells Marines To Leave
By Doug Oakley

Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 8-1 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m. Councilman Gordon Wozniak opposed both items.

The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December of 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast.
A Marines representative did not respond to requests for comment.


This is an utter disgrace! Any city that does not allow a military recruiting station deserves to have any protection they offer, in time of attack, withdrawn. Let CodePink protect 'em.

The Fallacy Of Grievance-Based Terrorism

The Fallacy Of Grievance-Based Terrorism
By Melvin E. Lee

The fundamental premise of much scholarly examination and public discourse is that grievances with U.S. policies in the Middle East motivate Islamist terrorism. Such assumptions, though, misunderstand the enemy and its nature.

In reality, the conflict is sparked not by grievance but rather by incompatibility between Islamist ideology and the natural rights articulated during the European Enlightenment and incorporated into U.S. political culture. Acquiescing to political grievances will not alter the fundamental incompatibility between Lockean precepts of tolerance and current interpretations of Islam: Only Islam's fundamental reform will resolve the conflict.

Many scholars mark the post-World War I partition of the Ottoman Empire as the origin of Islamist opposition to the West.

[1] The idea that the Middle East would be a tolerant, prosperous contributor to the global environment today if World War I victors had left intact the Ottoman Empire is a premise in the literature accompanying the rise of twentieth-century jihadism. Historian David Fromkin argued in his influential A Peace to End All Peace that present day Muslim unrest is the direct result of Winston Churchill's early twentieth-century decisions.

[2] British journalist Robert Fisk also holds British officials responsible although he prefers to blame Arthur Balfour, foreign secretary between 1916 and 1919.

[3] Both authors are wrong, though, to base their theories of grievance on such arbitrary demarcation of eras. The roots of jihadism and its opposition to the United States as part of the non-Muslim West were cast long before World War I erupted. The interaction between the United States and Muslim states and societies dates back to American independence.

[4] Contemporary jihadism is not the result of accumulated grievance; rather it has for cultural reasons been an integral factor in Islamic societies' interaction with the United States.


Wednesday, January 30, 2008

VIDEO: Non-Concession Speech: Rush Limbaugh Does Not Concede

Non-Concession Speech: Rush Limbaugh Vows To Fight On

One More Year Living Dangerously For Unsung Commander In Chief

One More Year Living Dangerously For Unsung Commander In Chief
By Thomas McArdle

Members of Congress from the president's own party, seated on one side of the hall, stood and cheered often at the many well-designed applause lines, while those on the other side, from the other party, usually sat quietly — just as always.

More bipartisan approval might well have been expected for a chief executive who for more than six years now has prevented a repeat of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Instead, there is bitter resentment from top Democrats over his no-holds-barred approach to the global war on terror.

President Bush acknowledges applause before delivering his seventh — and last — State of the Union address to Congress on Monday. The National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program, the CIA's interrogation program and this White House's steadfast refusal to follow official Washington's advice and accept "defeat with dignity" in Iraq have combined to infuriate congressional Democrats.

But in the course of the speech Monday night, there was one remarkably telling moment. President Bush noted that his new surge strategy in Iraq, widely considered the longest of long shots when he proposed it, had "achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago."

Seated behind him, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi clearly had no intention of clapping and standing.An instant later, however, she — and her fellow Democrats — thought better of it and joined in the applause.

Pelosi's relenting in that fashion signifies something: That with one year now left in his term of office, it is simply impossible not to give credit to this president for stubbornly refusing to accept anything less than victory over terrorism. And that credit will only be magnified when history begins to make its judgment on Inauguration Day 2009.


The frustrating paradox, which has not gone unappreciated at the highest echelons of the White House, is that the administration's success in protecting the homeland has made it easier for its critics to accuse it of trampling the Constitution with the very programs that have so effectively protected the public.

The more than six years without another domestic terrorist attack creates the illusion in the minds of some that the administration's measures are unnecessary.

It is in this context of post-9/11 enhanced intelligence-gathering that the hard stances of the Bush White House can be understood. On insisting that Congress, after six months of thinking about it, extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that expires Friday, the White House fears that further delays will allow turf battles between committees to lead to a watering down of the law.

With presidential campaigning and the party conventions coming this summer, this year's legislative session will be short, making it all the more imperative for Congress to renew a law that has proved indispensable to national security.


The Liberals' Mommy Fascism

The Liberals' Mommy Fascism
By Christopher Chantrill

At the end of the Bush administration conservatives need to clear their heads and think about the future. It's time to do some serious political philosophy. Jonah Goldberg believes that the way to start is to understand how ubiquitous fascist ideas have become in our present age.

A project like that runs immediately into the problem, first articulated by George Orwell right after World War II, that the word "fascism" no longer refers to the specific movement founded by Benito Mussolini. It has become merely a handy pejorative. For half a century the left has used the word to define themselves as the good guys and anyone that opposed them as the fascist bad guys.

As a conservative writer routinely blackguarded as a Nazi and a fascist by the Angry Left Jonah Goldberg understandably wants to put an end to all that. He does it by proposing that we think of fascism as a broad approach to government in which the frank revolutionary movements of Lenin's Bolshevism, Mussolini's Fascism, and Hitler's Nazism are specific instantiations.

Then, in Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning,he takes the fateful step. He argues that the American liberal tradition -- from early twentieth century Progressivism to the New Deal to Michael Lerner's politics of meaning and Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village -- is also an instantiation of the fascist concept.


Saturday, January 26, 2008

VIDEO: Bill Clinton Says Saddam Is A Threat

"He Has Nukes."

Dems Try To Pre-Empt State Of the Union

Photobucket Photobucket
Dems Try To Pre-Empt State Of the Union
By Laurie Kellman

Congressional Democrats, trying to have the first word on President Bush's State of the Union speech, challenged him Friday to renounce use of waterboarding in interrogations, close Guantanamo Bay to detainees and outline new policies toward Pakistan and Iran.

Domestically, Democrats said they expect Bush to invest more in the development of renewable energy and to support any compromise Republicans and Democrats strike to renew a law governing the president's secretive surveillance program.

At the National Press Club, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid launched into a tightly coordinated pair of speeches in which Pelosi focused on domestic policy — especially job creation — and the Nevada Democrat demanded that Bush restore the nation's standing in the international community.

Pelosi opened her speech with an acknowledgment of the political context in which Bush will deliver the last State of the Union address of his presidency. "Let's hope this is our last Democratic pre-buttal, that next year, we will have a Democratic president," Pelosi ad-libbed at the top.

In a bow to the end of his presidency, Bush is expected to focus Monday night on unfinished business and forgo the big ideas he unveiled in States of the Union past, the White House said.

The economy will be a dominant theme, and Bush will ask Congress to make permanent the tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010. He will prod Congress to extend a law allowing surveillance on suspected terrorists, renew his education law and approve free-trade pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

He also is likely to recycle ideas on alternative energy, affordable health care and housing reform, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.


Democrat Ex-House Harman Staffer Guilty in Fraud Case

Democrat Ex-House Harman Staffer Guilty in Fraud Case
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane

A former office manager for Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.) and two other House Democrats pleaded guilty yesterday to fraud for taking $200,000 in public money by submitting phony expense reports, according to Justice Department and House documents.

Laura I. Flores, 47, of Arlington pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in federal court in Alexandria and is scheduled to be sentenced May 2, officials said. She faces as much as 20 years in prison.

Court documents filed yesterday did not identify the lawmakers for whom she worked from January 2005 to December 2006, when the thefts occurred.

But House records show that Flores worked as an office manager during that time for Harman, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii) and Rep. Jim Costa (Calif.). She left that joint position early last year, according to records and officials.

Many office managers in the House and Senate have great leeway in overseeing the expenses for congressional offices. However, Flores's case is unusual, in that it involves official funds.
Abercrombie said Flores "attempted to take advantage of her budgeting and administrative position or personal gain. However, the House accounting system includes built-in safeguards and Ms. Flores was caught. She will now have to accept the consequences."

Harman and Costa's offices did not respond to requests for comment yesterday. Flores's attorney could not be reached.


McCain Aide Touts 'Mexico First' Policy

McCain Aide Touts 'Mexico First' Policy
By Jerome R. Corsi

The Hispanic outreach director for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is a dual American-Mexican citizen known for his "Mexico first" declarations to immigrants in the U.S., WND has confirmed.

Word of the appointment, made in November, spread across the Internet last night, sparking reaction from secure-border activists who charge Juan Hernandez's position in the campaign belies the Republican candidate's attempt to position himself as an advocate of border security. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers emphasized to WND that Hernandez is "a non-paid volunteer to the campaign, and he does not play a policy role."

"Juan works with us to reach out to the Hispanic community to meet with the folks in the various states," Rogers said. Asked if the McCain campaign has repudiated Hernandez's "Mexico first" declarations, Rogers did not give a direct answer. Twice he referred WND to McCain's immigration position on the campaign presidential website arguing for border security.

In an appearance on ABC's Nightline in 2001, Hernandez said, referring to Mexican immigrants in the U.S., "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'" Hernandez told the Associated Press the same year, "I never knew the border as a limitation. I'd be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries."

Last August, Hernandez published a book entitled "The New American Pioneers: Why Are We Afraid of Mexican Immigrants?" in which he argued Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, were at the forefront of establishing a new North American market combining the U.S. with Mexico.

Mark Krikorian, director for the Center for Immigration Studies, asked last night on a National Review Online blog, "Has McCain offered Hernandez, a former high-level foreign government official who presumably swore an oath to uphold the Mexican constitution, a place on a future McCain Administration? That's not a rhetorical question."


Thursday, January 24, 2008

Anti-Bush Campaign Planned: Cost $8.5 Million



Anti-Bush Campaign Planned
By Jim Kuhnhenn

A liberal advocacy group plans to spend $8.5 million in a drive to make sure President Bush's public approval doesn't improve as his days in the White House come to an end.

Americans United for Change plans to undertake a yearlong campaign, spending the bulk of the money on advertising, to keep public attention on what the group says are the failures of the Bush administration, including the war in Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the current mortgage crisis.

In selling the plan to fundraisers, the group has argued that support for President Reagan was at a low of 42 percent in 1987 but climbed to 63 percent before he left office. "All of a sudden he became a rallying cry for conservatives and their ideology,'' said Brad Woodhouse, president of the group. "Progressives are still living with that.''

The group is a nonprofit corporation that made a splash by airing ads against Bush's plans to overhaul Social Security in 2005. The group has conducted polls and focus groups and is now raising money for their anti-Bush effort. It gave a Power Point presentation to representatives of about 30 liberal and labor organizations last week.

It plans to announce the campaign at a press conference Thursday afternoon during a forum featuring liberal critics of the administration. It also aims to air its first ad in advance of Bush's State of the Union speech on Monday.

Woodhouse said one goal is to make sure Bush does not enjoy a resurgence in public approval toward the end of his presidency that could help Republican congressional candidates and the Republican presidential nominee in this year's elections.

"Framing his legacy helps us in the '08 elections, there is no doubt about that,'' Woodhouse said. "But our principal mission would be defining the failures of Bush and the ideology he represents.''


Imagine all the good things to which this money could be put--rather than simply another spell of BDS. If you just want to ensure a good campaign against the other side, there are thousands of positive things you can do, productive ways you can get your message out. Even though none of the Republican candidates has even mentioned President Bush and his agenda, these people still think it's all about him. They'll do anything they can to tarnish his legacy.

There's A Method To Crafty Bill's Madness

There's A Method To Crafty Bill's Madness
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Why is Bill Clinton courting such intense publicity, inevitably much of it negative? Is he crazy? Crazy like a fox. He has two goals and is achieving them both spectacularly.

First, he wants to be the same kind of lightning rod for Hillary that she was for him during his run for the presidency. As the 1992 Republican convention approached, Hillary ratcheted up her comments and profile precisely to attract GOP fire so that they would leave Bill alone. He and I discussed the plan. Hillary's comment, for example, about "baking cookies and serving tea" put her squarely in the Republican Party's sights as the convention approached.

The Republicans fell for the lure big time and spent their entire convention going after Hillary. Bill was scarcely hit. And the 1992 GOP convention is one of the few that afforded its party no bounce at all. Now Bill is returning the favor.

In the days before Iowa and leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary was the prime topic of political discussion. She took shots for misusing Bill's record and trying to adopt it as her own, for minimizing King's contribution to civil rights, for crying, for attacking her opponents, and for changing her campaign style to become more likeable. Now, she rarely gets hit anymore. They're hitting Bill instead.

Like a red cape, he is attracting the attention of the bull so his wife the matador escapes unharmed.


The Seattle Post-Intelligencer LIES!


Torture: Sad But True
Seattle P.I. Editorial Board

The truth may set us free, but it can just as easily be embarrassing and, yes, inconvenient. That's a lesson Canada is learning the hard way -- publicly -- after putting the U.S. on the list of countries connected to "possible torture/abuse" of prisoners. It turns out others see the "harsh interrogation techniques" allowed by the Bush administration as torture.

The list is included in the internal government manual intended for Canadian diplomats to guide them in cases where Canadians have been tortured by foreign governments (it happens. See:
Maher Arar). But oh, they didn't mean to list the U.S., with whom neighborly relations are tricky (former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau likened being next door to the U.S. to sharing a bed with an elephant) but must nonetheless be maintained.

U.S. and Israeli ambassadors were shocked and offended to be on the same list as Iran and China. And so began the process to take the U.S. -- and possibly other countries --
off the list. Hey, Iran also calls the list biased. Our government maintains that it doesn't torture anyone. Funny thing about those who condone torture while under the guise of fighting a war to spread freedom and democracy around the world -- they're reluctant to admit to said torture.

Human rights activists are
up in arms over the move to white wash, sorry, we mean correct, the list, and so are we.

This is what happens when irresponsible officials from other countries make unfounded allegations that are too easily trumpeted by any Leftist nutbar out there. Here, without a shred of proof, the editorial board of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer--Roger Oglesby & Co.--has made a public statement owing that the claims of ONE Canadian muslim, with an ax to grind--and freedom to be obtained, are true.

This is an unconscionable, slanderous lie against the United States and Israel--and by a group that uses unfounded claims of 'torture' as a deliberate battle strategy wherein to gain easy treatment and early release of suspected terrorists. Thanks, Roger Oglesby for being the willing dupe and aid-and-abettor of those that wish to harm the United States and who easily believe we're always up to the very worst.

Though the original document was disseminated by a Canadian official--and not as a policy statement by the entire Canadian government--the damage to our reputation has been done. Now, every Leftist America-hater and ACLU lawyer can hop on the bandwagon the Canadian Office of Foreign Affairs has set in motion.

I doubt world opinion will read of any retractions or pooh-poohing it set out on p. 38 of section B, in maybe two or three weeks. (The same office that put out that crap in the first place needn't bother.) A high-placed Canadian government spokesperson should!

Mr. Oglesby, we have your number, too; you couldn't even GIVE away your newspaper to anyone in our family!

Happy Birthday, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!

Happy Birthday, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
By Bruce Walker

On Sunday, January 27, 2008, our nation celebrates an important political anniversary. Ten years ago Hillary Clinton (then the First Lady) went on television with Matt Lauer and said:

"This is the great story here for anybody willing to find and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."


The truth, of course, is different. The "vast right wing conspiracy" or VRWC lives on today, and is vast -- it includes tens of millions of intelligent Americans who have been systematically marginalized, demonized and defamed in the public debate about America. It has voices because technology, tenacity and innovation gave it voices, in spite of those who hold most of the levers of power in America. Rush Limbaugh worked in the trenches of the AM side of radio and was fired from radio jobs until he created his own place of influence. Anyone who listens to Rush knows that he makes his own mind up, that he panders to no faction, and that he stands up to any critics. This is hardly the stuff of secret groups plotting the destruction of an amoral politician from Arkansas.

The blogs that disassembled the plan to smear President Bush with forged documents about his National Guard service were open, not secret, about their findings. It was the blindfolded Leftist established press with its nonexistent research departments that yawned while the National Guard hoax was foisted on America a few weeks before the 2004 elections. The patriots who exposed the dubious heroism of John Kerry were slimed, not thanked, by the bureaucracy of Leftism which is CBS, NBS, ABC, CNN and all the other acronyms for mendacity. So, the term "Swift Boated" had come to mean something different from telling the truth, although that is precisely what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did.


Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Krazy Kucinich Gets Smacked Down On House Floor

Kucinich Makes Statement Then Is Forced To Withdraw It

Pueblo Wives Remember


Pueblo Wives Remember
By Steve Liewer

40 years ago, capture dragged crew's families through nearly a year of unbearable agony.

American Forces Network radio chattered in the background as Pat Kell fed and dressed her four children in Japan the morning of Jan. 23, 1968.

A month earlier, her husband – Chief Petty Officer James Kell – volunteered for a secret mission aboard a World War II cargo ship newly refitted with communications gear. The vessel deployed from Yokosuka, Japan, after a voyage from San Diego. Through the broadcast buzz, Pat Kell thought she heard the name of her husband's ship: Pueblo.

That can't be right, she thought. None of the crew members' families had known where the ship was going. In fact, few in the Navy had heard of the operation.

Pat Kell and the other crewmen's spouses would learn the sketchy details first from the media, not the Navy: The Pueblo was a spy ship. North Korean navy boats seized it in international waters near that nation's coast. One sailor was killed during the incident and 82 shipmates were taken prisoner by the communist regime.

“I was only 27, I was in a strange country and I was so scared,” said Pat Kell, who lives in Chula Vista. She recalled the crisis during a recent interview in San Diego with several Pueblo survivors and their wives.

Forty years ago today, the Pueblo crew began an ordeal of interrogations, beatings, starvation and humiliation that would stretch for 11 months. The U.S. government finally secured the crew's release with a sham apology to North Korea.

The shipmates flew to San Diego on Dec. 24, 1968, to a public that greeted them as heroes and a Navy that treated them as outcasts for surrendering their vessel without a fight.


Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Anti-War Veterans' Group: War Crimes Are 'Encouraged'



Anti-War Veterans' Group: War Crimes Are 'Encouraged'

At an event in Watertown, New York on Saturday, members of Iraq Veterans Against War charged that war crimes against civilians were encouraged by unit commanders.

"The killing of innocent civilians is policy," said veteran Mike Blake. "It's unit policy and it's Army policy. It's not official policy, but it's what's happens on the ground everyday. It's what unit commanders individually encourage."

Veteran Matt Howard concurred: "These decisions are coming from the top down," Howard said. "The tactics that we use, the policies that the military engages, will create situations, create dynamics, create -- ultimately -- atrocity."

Blake and Howard were among four veterans speaking at Watertown's Different Drummer Cafe, in a preliminary event to the 'Winter Soldier' gathering scheduled in Washington, D.C. in March. Named after the 1971 event in which John Kerry read testimony from soldiers on atrocities they had committed, this year's Winter Soldier will feature Iraq War veterans speaking about war crimes they committed or witnessed.

In Watertown, veteran Jon Turner blamed himself as well as the orders he was given. "It was my decision," Turner said. "I made it. Now I have to live with the fact I see someone's eyes screaming at me after I shot them."

Others have previously questioned US attacks that have killed civilians, though not as sharply.
In 2006, a Berlin attorney filed a war crimes lawsuit against erstwhile Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Republican Attorneys' Association and more than 40 other national and international human rights groups.

Germany's federal prosecutor announced in April of the following year that she would not take on the suit.

Gen. Butt Naked Confesses To Nude Killings

Gen. Butt Naked Confesses To Nude Killings
By Mike Pflanz

A former warlord known as General Butt Naked has confessed to Liberia's post-conflict reconciliation commission that his men killed 20,000 people during the country's civil war.

The feared rebel commander earned his nom de guerre for charging into battle dressed only in his boots, at the head of a gang of fighters known as the Butt Naked Battalion. The nude gunmen became known for terrorising villagers and sacrificing children whose hearts they would eat before going into battle during Liberia's 14-year on-off civil war which ended in 2003.

"I have been looking for an opportunity to tell the true story about my life and every time I tell people my story, I feel relieved," General Butt Naked, whose real name is Milton Blayee, told The Associated Press.

Mr Blayee returned from exile in Ghana, where he is now an evangelical Christian preacher, to face Liberia's truth and reconciliation commission last week. Modelled on South Africa's post-apartheid hearings, the commission is airing the worst atrocities of Liberia's brutal wars, notorious for bands of drugged fighters dressed in wedding gowns and wigs.

More than 250,000 people are believed to have died during the conflict, which started in 1989.


The only thing I could think of, while I read this article, was how this really makes a heck of a case against cultural relativity. Here, Liberia was the first African country to attain their independence--black people governing other black people--and look what they did with it. And, if that weren't a bad enough example, I could easily mention Charles Taylor, Idi Amin, what's happening in the Congo right now and, of course, Rwanda.

Colonialism has little or nothing to do with it; this is all tribal violence that has been going on in Africa since time began. Yes, the day after MLK day, black people steeped in nonsense PC 'history' and 'black studies' courses would rush to tell you how 'we all came from Africa' or about the 'wonderful African civilizations' that were developed by blacks, but discounted by whites.

However, after viewing modern African society, with blacks running their own affairs, I wonder if we'd ever have seen a Magna Carta, Code Of Hammurabi, or Declaration Of Independence out of them.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Bill Clinton Has A Dream--Nods Off During MLK Speech

Learning About the 'Three Sexes'

Learning About the 'Three Sexes'
By Rick Amato

A new law requiring California public schools to, among other things, allow students to 'choose their own gender' when deciding whether to use the boys or girls restroom and locker room is a glaring example of the cultural assault taking place in America. At stake are the minds, values and ideals of the children who parents send off to school each morning. The law went into effect on Jan. 11.

SB 777 as it is known, claims to be about creating safe schools, and prohibiting discrimination against students based upon gender. Instead it is another example of how the influence which special interest groups hold over our lawmakers results in poor legislation that is out of touch and unrepresentative of the values of the American people. The law alters the definition of the word "sex" as being biological in nature and replaces it with the word "gender" in California's Education Code. It further defines "gender" as "sex" based upon a person's gender identity or gender-related appearance and behavior, and not upon their natural sex at birth.

A supporter of the new legislation, Debbie Look of the California State PTA, told me, "We believe in the right to provide a safe school environment for all students. A 2001-2002 survey indicated that 7.5 percent of students reported being harassed based upon sexual orientation, which in turn leads to poor grades, skipped school days and worse."

But Jim Kelly — one of four Board members of the Grossmont Unified High School School District in San Diego who is currently suing the state of California over SB 777 — had this to say, "No one is arguing against anti-discrimination. There are current laws ... which protect students against the harmful effects of discrimination." But "what they have done here, however, is turn a disorder into a civil right. Gender identity issues are classified as a disorder by The American Psychiatric Association. This law makes it a civil right."


War? What War?

War? What War?
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

A pertinent question for 2008 might be: How many 9/11's does it take to wake a sleeping giant and keep him alert at the helm?

More than one, it would seem. How quickly America has been lulled back to sleep. With a heap of help from our watchful media.

For more than four years, every news outlet in the Country was stirring its anti-American pot and blasting news of the carnage from Iraq 24/7. They were counting the bodies and inflating the count. They were giving more coverage to the paltry numbers of paid anti-war protestors than they were to our military heroes and their families.

We heard about the horrors of the Iraq War day in and day out.

We were told how much we citizens decried the War and our President. We were given poll numbers after poll numbers citing our discontent. Our mainstream media complex raised a whole battalion of living-room warriors to advise our duly elected Commander in Chief on everything from bombing strategy to the actual nature of the insurgency.

The media declared Iraq an unwinnable quagmire, an all-out civil war, a dastardly imperialistic occupation.

Our media elites gave more coverage to Cindy Sheehan than they gave to our Medal of Honor heroes. They hung the 2006 congressional elections upon the utterly ridiculous mantle of peace at any cost, and gave the anti-war minions more to crow about for an entire year. When Harry Reid used his new position as Senate majority leader to state emphatically that "This war is lost," he wasn't even branded as a scoundrel, much less a traitor. Heck, our media would have given him a medal if it could have.

With friends like these...

But suddenly, we are winning the war that was lost, and you could hear a pin drop in the abandoned echo chamber of war coverage.


Friday, January 18, 2008

Environmental Terrorism and the Price Of Oil

Environmental Terrorism and the Price Of Oil
By Michael Reagan

Here we have the humiliating spectacle of a president of the United States begging an Arab potentate to increase our supply of oil while Democrats, who bear the major responsibility for the problem, scoff at him as a mendicant groveling at the feet of a foreign monarch.

As humiliating as it is for the United States to be put in a position where our economy is held hostage to foreign oil producers who can make or break our nation simply by limiting their petroleum production, thus causing the price of oil to skyrocket, it is even more shameful that we have allowed the so-called environmental movement to escape the blame for our predicament.

Make no mistake about it, you are paying exorbitant prices at the gas pump solely because the environmental terrorists and their Democrat allies in Congress have all but shut down our domestic oil production while refusing to allow the exploration and creation of new sources of this resource so vital to our economic health.

While President Bush was left with few if any alternatives to seeking help from the Saudis thanks to our inability to exploit our own untapped oil supply, it is disturbing that instead of demanding that Saudi Arabia act on our behalf by beefing up oil production, we asked them politely to do what they should do without being asked. They owe us at least that.


Bill Clinton Goes After TV Reporter

Bill Clinton Goes After TV Reporter

America’s Foreign Policy: Time To Stop Babysitting The World

America’s Foreign Policy: Time To Stop Babysitting The World
By John Hawkins

Earlier this week, an acquaintance of mine complained that,

"There is nothing inherently "conservative" about the war in Iraq, and nothing inherently objectionable to the idea that we should have a more humble, skeptical and cautious foreign policy. The way that Paul, Hagel, et al, have been virtually drummed out of polite Republican circles for arguing that we should be more cautious and skeptical is eternally frustrating to me. Even if I disagree with them, it's a valuable perspective - and, in the grand scheme of foreign policy, more often right than (wrong)."

The problem Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel have is not truly that they're disagreeing with most of their fellow Republicans, it's that they're disagreeable fellows who’ve adopted the offensive rhetoric of the Left as their own on foreign policy.

The people who back the war in Iraq -- which even included the majority of the Democrats in the Senate until the war became unpopular – aren’t doing so because they are malevolent people. People who support the war in Iraq (myself included) believe it's just and honorable, we believe that America is a decent country, and we hold the foreign policy views that we do because we think those policies are best for our nation.

If you rant about neocons maliciously tricking America into war and an American empire, excuse the terrorists for attacking us on 9/11, falsely accuse the President of lying to get us into war, and suggest impeaching Bush over a war that was initially even supported by the likes of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Chuck Hagel, you can't expect to be embraced by conservatives who agreed with Bush then, agree with him now, and think your arguments are insulting. Put another way, you can argue for a more "humble and skeptical" foreign policy without being a jerk about it -- and we definitely do need people to do just that.


The New 'Lepers': The Times' Trouble With Vets

The New 'Lepers': The Times' Trouble With Vets
By Ralph Peters

I've had a huge response to Tuesday's column about The New York Times' obscene bid to smear veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan as mad killers. Countless readers seem to be wondering: Why did the paper do it?

Well, in the Middle Ages, lepers had to carry bells on pain of death to warn the uninfected they were coming. One suspects that the Times would like our military veterans to do the same.

The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.

In the more than six years since 9/11, the Times has never run a feature story half as long on any of the hundreds of heroes who've served our country - those who've won medals of honor, distinguished service crosses, Navy crosses, silver stars or bronze stars with a V device (for valor).

But the Times put a major investigative effort into the "sensational" story that 121 returning vets had committed capital offenses (of course, 20 percent of the cases cited involved manslaughter charges stemming from drunken driving, not first- or second-degree murder...)

Well, a quick statistics check let the air out of the Times' bid to make us dread the veteran down the block - who the Times implies has a machine gun under his bathrobe when he steps out front to fetch the morning paper. In fact, the capital-crimes rate ballyhooed by the Gray Lady demonstrates that our returning troops are far less likely to commit such an offense.

Will Democrats Ever Acknowledge Progress In Iraq?

Will Democrats Ever Acknowledge Progress In Iraq?
By Mort Kondracke

It was simply ridiculous for Democrats to fight about race, but it's more serious that they won't disagree about Iraq.

None of the Democratic presidential candidates -- or Congressional leaders -- will acknowledge that the troop surge in Iraq creates the possibility that the United States could actually win the conflict and that their calls for hasty troop withdrawals may be misguided.

As Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) observed last week on the first anniversary of President Bush's surge announcement, if opponents of the surge had had their way, "Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al-Qaida and Iran."

On the campaign trail, McCain added: "Al- Qaida would be proclaiming that it had defeated the United States in Iraq." He's right. A year ago, a civil war was raging and the U.S. clearly was losing. Now, it has a chance to succeed, a turnabout with profound strategic implications.

For sure, the surge is working militarily -- U.S. deaths are down 80 percent; civilian deaths, 75 percent; car bombs and suicide attacks, 60 percent. Al-Qaida terrorists are on the run. Iraqi security forces have expanded by 100,000 and are now in charge of half of Iraq's provinces.
Politically, there is progress, too, especially at the provincial level. Former Sunni insurgents are cooperating with the United States and Sunni politicians may rejoin the national government. Shiite militants have declared a cease-fire.

The civil war has largely stopped. No national oil revenue law has been passed, but oil revenues are being shared. And Iraq's parliament has passed a law allowing former Baath Party members to collect pensions and serve in the government.

It's not victory. Political progress is slow. But Iraq is heading in the right direction. U.S. forces might have to stay for 10 years more -- but, eventually, as peacekeepers, not combatants, as in Korea and Kosovo. Instead of suffering a huge strategic loss, the United States would have shown it has tenacity, altering its image in the world.

Democrats, however, insist on minimizing the success and advocating early timetables for full withdrawal of U.S. combat forces.


MSM Smears the Military

Media Sabotages Military
By Oliver North

Here in "Cheesehead" country, where Green Bay Packers fans go to Lambeau Field with snow shovels, military recruiting never has been much of a problem — until now.

"These are outdoors, patriotic people," a military recruiter told me as I prepared to speak at a Boy Scouts function here. "Young people up here are tough. They hunt, they ice fish, they go to football games in an open stadium in the middle of a blizzard. This used to be a great place to be a recruiter, but not anymore," he continued. "What's happened?" I asked this two-tour veteran of the "global war on terror."

His reply was blunt — and an indictment of the so-called mainstream media: "The press is killing us. We have parents and high school guidance counselors telling our best prospective recruits that they have too much potential to waste it in the military. Last year, we had to debunk myths about how the war in Iraq was being lost. Now when we go to talk to parents, they ask us about stories they have heard about suicides, drugs — and now murders. There is no 'good news.' It's very discouraging." Remember those words: "very discouraging."

The "murders" my recruiter referred to are those "documented" by The New York Times in a front-page story entitled "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles." The "Deadly Echoes" piece appeared concurrently with the hunt for a male Marine suspected of killing a fellow female Marine in North Carolina — a story that has been repeated almost hourly on the cable news channels.

The authors of the Times piece claim that they found 121 cases where veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing, or were charged with one, after their return from war. What this amounts to, says the Times, is "a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak."


This collection of sensational headlines is an effective gimmick, but it ignores reality.
The homicide rate for 18- to 34-year-old civilians who have never served in the military is actually five times higher than it is for those who are now, or who recently have been in, the armed forces.


Thursday, January 17, 2008

Liberal Hatemongers

Liberal Hatemongers
By Arthur C. Brooks

A politically progressive friend of mine always seemed to root against baseball teams from the South. The Braves, the Rangers, the Astros -- he hated them all. I asked him why, to which he replied, "Southerners are prejudiced."

The same logic is evident in the complaint the American political left has with conservative voters. According to the political analysis of filmmaker Michael Moore, whose perception of irony apparently does not extend to his own words, "The right wing, that is not where America's at . . . It's just a small minority of people who hate. They hate. They exist in the politics of hate . . . They are hate-triots."

What about liberals? According to University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, "Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others." They also "believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference." Indeed, generations of academic scholars have assumed that the "natural personality" of political conservatives is characterized by hostile intolerance towards those with opposing viewpoints and lifestyles, while political liberals inherently embrace diversity.

As we are dragged through another election season, it is worth critically reviewing these stereotypes. Do the data support the claim that conservatives are haters, while liberals are tolerant of others?


Wednesday, January 16, 2008

No Jews For Oil/I Blame the Right, the Left--and American Jews

Photobucket Photobucket
No Jews For Oil
By Ben Shapiro

On January 11, President Bush ended his visit to Israel by visiting Yad Vashem, the country's monumental Holocaust memorial. "I wish as many people as possible would come to this place," Bush said. "It is a sobering reminder that evil exists and a call that when evil exists we must resist it."

That was the day after Bush called for "painful political concessions" from Israel with regard to the Palestinian Arabs, explaining, "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

Bush is no fool. He recognizes better than any president in recent memory that the Palestinian Arabs do not desire peace -- that they are, in fact, the world's most ardent supporters of anti-Western terrorism. And Bush recognizes that the establishment of a fully operational terrorist state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza would have catastrophic consequences for both Israel and the United States.

So why did Bush abandon his principles and pressure Israel to appease its Islamist enemies? Because four days after Bush's Israel visit, he visited Saudi Arabia and asked OPEC nations to boost their oil output.

The extreme anti-Bush crowd thinks the war in Iraq is about oil. It isn't. But the consistent focus on the Israeli-Palestinian situation is about oil. It has always been about oil. Israel knows it. Bush knows it. And most of all, the Saudis and their Islamist allies know it.

The Saudis have the upper hand with regard to oil. America needs Arab oil more than the Arabs need to sell their oil -- or at least that is what the Arabs would have us believe. And so the Arabs have leverage to push America to force Israel's piecemeal surrender.


I Blame the Right, the Left--and American Jews
By VerityINK

This offers the simplest, clearest, in-a-nutshell view of what is going on between Israel, the middle east, and America that you can find on the Net. If anyone wants to know why President Bush has so ardently backed wrongheaded or unfeasible solutions with the Palestinians, I urge you to read Ben's column.

Who is most responsible for this state of affairs? Well, obviously the root cause is to be found in Islam. With their goal of destroying the Jewish state, and their plans for spreading their power and influence, they would love to hold the west hostage--and, to a certain extent, they have.

On our end, I blame the Right, the Left--and American Jews.

I blame the Right for not developing alternative energy sources. In a country as large as America, it doesn't make sense for people to drastically reduce their driving; to deliver goods and remain employed, that's just not going to be possible. It's not our fault that we are not the size of a Belgium or Switzerland, Sweden or Austria. Actually, we're not even the size of Scandinavia, France, and Spain combined--we're much larger.

We're going to need a source of fuel to power our transportation--and there's not going to be any way around that. All the light rail lines in the inner cities, bus stops, and more-fuel efficient cars in the world will never begin to make up for the gas required by our long-haul truckers, our trains and planes that deliver people and goods--and our vast military, which guards a good piece of the globe.

Now, I don't know if the technology is out there for viable, affordable alternative energy sources (common sense and capitalism lends me to think that someone is not just sitting on this knowledge) but I have to think that it's not yet possible--or that there are under-the-table reasons why it is not being brought to the fore. Either way, the Right needs to get honest and get real about the importance of this issue and take the lead in setting this on fire.

The second group I blame--and probably most of all--are the Leftists/Democrats among us who continually balk at drilling for oil on our own land. They have put up so many restrictions on ANWAR drilling, off-shore drilling, and nuclear power that they have reduced alternative energy and/or our energy independence to nothing more than a bad joke.

The minute oil-rich shale deposits were found out west, these enviro-wacko flipdips started to protest the harvesting of them. The minute ethanol (an admittedly economically questionable alternative fuel) gained traction, these same people set up a hue-and-cry about corn prices (from which it is made.) The instant oil reserves were found off the coasts of Florida and Alaska, they moved to scotch the discovery and any possible benefit to us.

The Kennedys of the world block wind farms off their family compounds and in their neighborhoods, the leading Dem presidential candidates can't make up their minds about how to store nuclear waste by-products, and no Dem senator wants a refinery or nuclear reactor to be built in their state!

The EnviroDems I know all want America to be something other than what it is. They don't want it to be so big, require so many cars, or need so much energy. Their biggest flaw comes from turning a blind eye to the fact that, to be who and what we are, maintain our standard of living, and continue growing our economy, we're going to need vast fuel supplies. They'd much rather reduce everyone to bus stop park n' rides, carpooling, and borrow-a-bike communal lots. They refuse to be realistic about anything else.

I grew up in Colorado and had uncles that worked construction outside of Beattie, NV. They learned to cook for themselves--the nearest store that sold food was 57 miles away--with whom were they going to share-a-ride-to-work? My brother surveyed roads near Aspen and Marble during the summers--where was the light rail he was supposed to take from one point to the next? A family friend delivered furniture for Levitz--how was he supposed to accomplish this on foot?

Do YOU want to bicycle to work in Minnesota in January? Is it safe for a woman to walk home alone at night, any night? Can you pick up your three kids from three different schools on the bus? Can you carry 4 bags of groceries home, deliver teens to soccer practice and pick them up, and run by the dry cleaner after work on the train? American life is what it is--and the sooner the Lefties get real about that, they'll move closer to getting real about a sensible energy solution.

The last group I blame for the sorry state of affairs between the Palestinians and Israel are American Jews--specifically the ones who continually back the Democrat party. Why on earth would you continue to back, and vote for, a party that puts up the staunchest objections and road blocks to the very energy development that might free us from the yoke of oil-dependent control by the Arabs? Knowing that they are only using Israel for a bargaining chip--and one with which they intend to come out ahead (unto Israel's destruction)--why is every Dem presidential candidate assured that the majority of American Jewish support is a given?

Though the Right has been no bargain in producing solutions to our energy dependence on the oil-rich states of the middle east, the Left has been unconscionable in its obstructionism and unrealistic solutions. If you want a president to get determined to save Israel and end our dependence upon those who are wagering for it's death, a vote for a strong, energy-wise, realistic REPUBLICAN president might just do that. The only thing the Left has done is given you a different light bulb to screw in--I hope it doesn't illuminate Israel's demise.

MICHELLE MALKIN: Wanted: A “Suck It Up” Candidate

Wanted: A “Suck It Up” Candidate

I need a man. A man who can say “No.” A man who rejects Big Nanny government. A man who thinks being president doesn’t mean playing Santa Claus. A man who won’t panic in the face of economic pain. A man who won’t succumb to media-driven sob stories.

A man who can look voters, the media, and the Chicken Littles in Congress in the eye and say the three words no one wants to hear in Washington: Suck. It. Up.

The Michigan primary put economics at the top of the political radar screen, and the Democrat presidential candidates have been doling out spending proposals, stimulus packages, housing market rescues, and other election-year-goodie pledges like Pez candy dispensers gone haywire. Which leading GOP candidate represents fiscal accountability and limited government? Who will take the side of responsible homeowners and responsible borrowers livid at bipartisan bailout plans for a minority of Americans who bought more house than they should have and took out unwise mortgages they knew they couldn’t repay?

I don’t want to hear Republicans recycling the Blame Predatory Lenders rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Jesse Jackson. Enough with the victim card. Borrowers are not all saints. There’s nothing compassionate about taking money from prudent, frugal families and using it to aid their reckless neighbors and co-workers who moved into McMansions they couldn’t afford or went crazy tapping their home equity and now find themselves underwater.


Message to Washington: Stop treating every defaulting borrower like Mother Teresa.

A Farcical Pile-Up


A Farcical Pile-Up
By George Neumayr

The Democratic presidential campaign has become a farcical pile-up of left-wing contradictions. The Clintons, having bred their own PC destroyers, now scramble to use the bluntest weapons possible against them.

The low tactics are beyond parody. For example, the Clintons' planned MLK weekend festivities include trying to disenfranchise black culinary workers by encouraging a lawsuit against them for holding caucuses at their place of business. (Noting this irony on television, the head of Nevada's Culinary Union said the suit is nothing more than payback for its endorsement of Obama.)

Perhaps even more astonishing than that is the drug charges against Obama are peddled by affirmative-action surrogates who normally do somersaults for checkered black politicians but now turn prim on an upwardly mobile one.

Arrayed against a dignified family that looks like a reassuring episode of The Cosby Show, who do the Clintons unleash against the Obamas? None other than BET founder Robert L. Johnson, who before Hillary's purring gaze this week cast a successful black man as a former drug dealer, then added lying to his malice by denying the obvious import of his statement.

The most formative period in the Clintons' lives were the 1960s -- years of fairy tales, drug use, and empty eloquence. But at the end of their march they find before the final door an incarnation of the dream which they must destroy in order to enter it. The essential egotism of their project from the beginning is exposed for all to see: raw power, not idealistic principle, fueled it, and it is altogether fitting that these icons of a destructive generation choose as their last victim one who embodies its best hopes.

No one is more authoritarian than a successful revolutionary, to which this most corrupt couple in American political history provides vivid proof, displaying an ugliness greater than that of the establishment figures they overthrew.


Tuesday, January 15, 2008

DU's Crazy Hate Needs Muzzling


FROM DU: Comments Found On George Bush's Report Cards As A Child:

*Since my last report, your child has reached rock bottom and has started to dig.

*I would not allow this student to breed.

*Your child has delusions of adequacy.

*Your son is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

*Your son sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them.

*The student has a "full six-pack" but lacks the plastic thing to hold it all together.

*This child has been working with glue too much.

*When your son's IQ reaches 50, she should sell.

*The gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming.

*If this student were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice a week.

*It's impossible to believe the sperm that created this child beat out 1,000,000 others.

*The wheel is turning but the hamster is definitely dead. (William769)

This is the typical generic rage that is directed from DU at our President. It speaks of the overly-emotional and immature attitudes that have been promulgated by the Left. They don't have a specific complaint here, or an argument against one policy or another. No, all their feelings are tied up into making advocating a rightwing position--not merely a difference of opinion--but an absolute evil in itself.

Rather than buy into this sort of childish battling, I hope the Democrat party will have enough sense to nominate a presidential candidate that doesn't continually term things as one big continual 'fight' (as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have repeatedly done.) A 'fight' means 'war'--and the Leftist Dems have been at war with America long enough.

Though they can't seem to ever see an outside threat to our country, they see an enemy everyday across the political aisles--and those are the only ones with whom the refuse to speak of peace. 'Peace' to them means our capitulation; they need to learn to work with us even if we don't agree. That's the definition of 'democracy'.