Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Mark Levin Tells Michelle Obama ‘Stop Putting Down My Country!’

Mark Levin Tells Michelle Obama ‘Stop Putting Down My Country!’
By Noel Sheppard

For those that missed it, Mrs. Barack Obama recently told a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, crowd, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."

On Monday, my colleague John Stephenson wisely asked, "
Will Media Ignore Michelle Obama Remark?"

After looking at what MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski said on Tuesday's "Morning Joe," the answer to Stephenson's question is: media that don't ignore Obama's disgraceful comments will likely defend them.

Fortunately, conservative talk radio host Mark Levin isn't part of the mainstream media establishment, and on his program Monday, said what most press representatives would if they had any spine, and didn't behave like shills for the Democrat Party:

What do you mean for the first time in your adult life you're proud of your country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because you think people are hungry for change? Have you suffered? Have you suffered, ma'am? I'm tired of people putting down this country. I'm tired of people pretending that this is still pre-slavery, pre-segregation, pre-internment. That we're in a depression. I'm sick and tired of people ignoring the enormous progress we've made in this country and sacrifices one generation after another have made to make this a more perfect country. I'm sick and tired of it. [...]

I don't give you a pass. You finally have hope for this country? Well, that's somebody else's kids over there, fighting and dying so you can go to an Ivy League school, so you can send your kids to a private school, so you and your husband can have your day in the limelight, and to make millions of dollars. Stop putting down my country! Stop putting down my country when there's so many great people doing so many great things so you can have it all, so we all can have it all. No more pandering. Enough is enough. This may work with the radical left, but it doesn't work with me, and it doesn't work with most Americans.



Monday, February 18, 2008

Happy President's Day!


Saturday, February 16, 2008

Boomers and the Vietnam Shrug

Boomers and the Vietnam Shrug
By Frank Dudley Berry, Jr.

The Vietnam debacle was the second greatest trauma in the history of the United States. (First is the Civil War, without any serious contender, and we may all hope to God that it remains unrivaled on the list.) One respect in which it was not a disaster, however, was the moral perspective. The Vietnam War was colossally unwise. It was never immoral. Anyone who heard Tom Dooley once, let alone all summer long, knew -- or should have known -- that reality.

At base, after all the heat, after all the millions of words, after all the sound and fury, what the war was about was a frightened, even terrified, people resisting the imposition of a relentlessly tyrannical and inhumane regime. The moral judgment should always have been weighed in their favor, and to their allies by association. But as the 60's lengthened, and Vietnam became more controversial with each passing year, that base insight was lost.


Even for a fervent war opponent, the extent to which the war opposition had at base the self-serving interests of the Boomer generation was unsettling. Everyone mouthed the sentiments -- moral language is as easy to mimic as any other -- but the bottom line for a huge percentage of resisters, maybe the majority, was a resentment of being inconvenienced by two years military service, with kp, field drill, and master sergeants with their own view of the world.

Simply insisting the war was badly conducted would not do -- it didn't avoid that inconvenient two years. So the war became an impassioned moral cause, a crusade. 'Hell, No, I Won't Go' became a slogan that was chanted with blazing eyes and an even more blazing self-righteous indignation. The United States Army was recast as an invading army, and the defense of South Vietnam as an imperialist venture, a Western power imposing its will on a Third World people, as so often in the past. America thus became Amerika in those years of mass insanity.

Insisting that the issue was a moral one, rather than simply a matter of political alternatives, neatly linked draft resistance to war opposition. Obviously, if the war was evil and immoral, to participate in any form was to become complicit in the immorality. That inconvenient two year obligation thus disappeared. Consistency with that transparent rationalization is also the reason why Vietnam soldiers were treated so disgracefully shabbily in those years. To the extent that one acknowledged that the troops in Vietnam were not acting immorally, one had to acknowledge that maybe the righteousness of war opposition was in some doubt.

Maybe -- perish the thought -- some of the protest was motivated by selfishness and moral cowardice. That was not a notion that could even be entertained as a thought at that time, let alone spoken aloud. So the troops were vilified and the motives of the protesters never questioned.

This transformation of the dialog from a limited political issue to a great, sweeping moral condemnation that was absurdly blind to the actual facts of Vietnam has had huge repercussions. It was catastrophic for the people of Southeast Asia.

Persuaded by all the inflamed rhetoric that the United States was interfering with the popular will of a distant people, Congress not only withdrew troops, but cut off aid to South Vietnam, at a time in 1974 when many military historians believe that nation might have been able to withstand the assault with reasonable support. The successors to Ho Chi Minh, as Stalinist as he was, overran Saigon in 1975 and imposed the same brutality as they had in Hanoi two decades earlier. Deliver us from evil.

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge took advantage of the power vacuum the West had left behind to perpetrate the most appalling genocide since World War II, maybe in history, in the killing fields. (In 2005, filmmakers trying to make a documentary about the massacre found too few survivors to contribute.

In the United States, the war protest gave birth to the Great Sacred Cow of the demented Left -- that it had taken to the streets and, by heroic measures, brought an unjust and immoral war to its knees. For many Boomers, participation in the anti-war movement is the most significant moral action of their lives. For many, these are life episodes too precious to rethink critically -- and they don't. But the protests didn't stop the war. What it brought to a halt was the draft, which ended in 1971, as did the protests -- for it is hard to deny that had been the real point all along. The war went on until 1975. And the events that followed? The repugnant atrocities of Pol Pot and the concrete demonstration that North Vietnam had intended all along a ferociously tyrannical Communist regime?

In one of the great acts of collective rationalization in recorded history, the Baby Boomers -- my generation -- shrug their shoulders. Not our problem.

But the fact was that Tom Dooley had been telling the plain, unvarnished truth. The Vietnamese people -- the real flesh-and-blood kind, that live and die, suffer and hope (not the mythic 'People' of immemorial Leftist cant) -- began running from Ho Chi Minh in 1955. They kept running for the next two decades, as far south as the land would take them, then into boats and the open sea when the land ran out. The war was a dumb war, unwisely formulated, stupidly communicated, even more stupidly fought. But it was a just cause and a moral undertaking. It was the protest, with its utter contempt for the actual human reality, that was immoral.



Get Together With Friends!

Spring Planting!

Top Shrink Concludes Liberals Are Nuts!

Top Shrink Concludes Liberals Are Nuts!

Makes case ideology is mental disorder.

Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

--creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
--satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
--augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
--rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

On the Edge? The Media Smears Returning Vets

Photobucket Photobucket
On the Edge?
By Steve Russell

The media smears returning vets.

In the last several weeks I have learned a great deal about myself, thanks to all the wonderful media reports about serving and returning war veterans. For example, I have learned that I might want to kill my wife because of the trauma of war. Or, if I have no beef with my family, that I might go after my neighbors instead. Or if there are no other handy targets for my aggression, I might go after myself.

While waiting to appear on a talk show, I learned that combat veterans are "all a little bit on the edge." One brilliant commentator even suggested that combat soldiers and private security contractors tend to be the types of individuals that have a propensity to harm others and commit acts of violence.

As if I was not sufficiently depressed after absorbing these diatribes (perhaps it was just those suicidal tendencies), I also learned that the term "hero" no longer applies to hundreds of thousands of veterans who have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, according to a Men's Health magazine I read while getting a haircut, only miscreants who jeopardize fellow soldiers by deserting their units in wartime exhibit true courage. Although I don't feel the term is fitting for myself, I never imagined the term "hero" could be used interchangeably with the word "AWOL" in a mainstream magazine.

Hollywood has also done its part to help educate our fellow Americans about those of us who served. Films like In the Valley of Elah, starring Oscar winners Charlize Theron and Tommy Lee Jones, Redacted by Brian De Palma, MTV's Stop Loss, or even the Oscar-nominated documentary No End In Sight will reassure my neighbors that even if I don't kill them or myself, I have surely committed horrible atrocities against women and children and never really did find any of those bad guys that my nation decorated me for killing to save the lives of others.

As I have pondered these grotesque assaults on Iraq and Afghan war veterans and wartime civilian contractors in recent months, the picture has become quite clear. If our successes in battle cannot be argued against, then the subtle undermining of our honor and integrity seems to be the next best thing.



Does Congress Realize We're At War?

Does Congress Realize We're At War?
By Joel Arends

At midnight tonight America will become much more susceptible to a terrorist act. It will happen because the Democrat-controlled Congress failed to reauthorize the Protect America Act. This legislation gives our military, intelligence, and law-enforcement communities the tools they need to conduct surveillance on terrorists. Yet, instead of fighting to make us safer Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, blocked a vote on this bill all week and then went home on a twelve-day recess.

America is at war. I can attest to that after serving in Iraq as an Infantry Platoon Leader with the Army’s First Calvary Division. My unit, an Infantry platoon, was responsible for capturing terrorists. I can tell you first-hand that we are fighting a very real enemy, radical Islamic terrorists, who want to do harm to America and her citizens. We are fighting the same terrorists that recently strapped bombs onto women with Down's Syndrome and forced them to walk into a crowded marketplace and explode the bombs, killing themselves and dozens of other innocent women and children.

My comrades in uniform, brothers and sisters and moms and dads, have given their lives in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. This Congress, meanwhile, refuses to authorize our intelligence officials to collect important information that can disrupt terror attacks and refuses to give our law enforcement community the legal authority it never had before 9/11, but so desperately needed.

Today, because Congress failed to act, our intelligence officials no longer have the legal authority to collect foreign intelligence. Exactly the type of intelligence that disrupted several planned terrorists attacks on the United States. Because we face a very real threat to the national security of this country, we must take very real measures to protect our citizens and give our soldiers and our allies around the world the tools they need to keep us safe.

When will our Congress begin to display even a small amount of the courage that our men women fighting for us display day in and day out? Their refusal to reauthorize this legislation is more than an act of submission to trial lawyers, Moveon.org, and the far-left wing of a party that fails to recognize that we face deadly threats from radical Islamic terrorists. Its an act of political cowardice. It's a sign of an unwillingness to respect the sacrifices made by the members of the military who need that intelligence to successfully accomplish their mission.

In Case You Missed It: The President's Radio Address On FISA

Friday, February 15, 2008

What We Meant To Say Was...

What We Meant To Say Was...
By David Horovitz

Michael McConnell, the man responsible for the US National Intelligence Estimate that two months ago essentially cleared Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb, backtracked last week.
In testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 5, the admiral vouchsafed that, in hindsight, "I think I would change the way that we described [the Iranian] nuclear program."

Here's the very first sentence of that immensely ballyhooed NIE, which was greeted rapturously by Iran and with horror in Israel when it was published in early December: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Teheran halted its nuclear weapons program."

What McConnell is now saying amounts to the very opposite: Yes, runs the amended narrative, we think the Iranians may have halted what we narrowly, foolishly and misleadingly defined as their nuclear weapons program four years ago, we're not sure if they've restarted it, but the fact is that we led you all astray with our definition of that program in the first place.

You see, the new line continues, weapon design and weaponization - those narrow aspects that might have been halted - really constitute the "least significant portion" of a nuclear weapons program. In retrospect, we should have relied on more than a footnote to make that clear. The "most difficult challenge" is actually "uranium enrichment [to] enable the production of fissile material," and, as we probably should have stressed more prominently, work on that is proceeding apace.

Citing the "persistent threat of WMD-related proliferation," McConnell told the Committee that "Iran continues to pursue fissile material and nuclear-capable missile delivery systems." He then elaborated: "Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons. Iran continues its efforts to develop uranium enrichment technology, which can be used both for power reactor fuel and to produce nuclear weapons. And, as noted, Iran continues to deploy ballistic missiles inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and to develop longer-range missiles."

Or, to put it another way: Whoops. We meant to say that Iran is closing in relentlessly on a nuclear weapons capability, but we didn't express ourselves very effectively, and wound up making you believe the reverse. Sorry. But we're fixing that now, so we're all back on the same page. No biggie, right?



The Jena Six -- and Other Scams


The Jena Six -- and Other Scams
By Patrick J. Buchanan

While some $500,000 has been raised for the Jena Six defense, its whereabouts is unknown. Bailey did pose on the Internet grinning, however, with $100 bills in his mouth. Bell's mom is said to be driving a new Jaguar, and Bailey's mom a new Beamer. Two other Jena Sixers, Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis, appeared in rapper attire on Black Entertainment Television as presenters of a Hip-Hop Award.

"(S)ome Americans do not understand why the sight of a noose causes such a visceral reaction," declared President Bush to the White House gathering for Black History Month.

As The Washington Post rushed to remind us, President Bush was "responding to news coverage of such episodes as the 'Jena Six.'"But if history is about truth, not myth, that news coverage deserves another look, before the Jena Six enter the history books alongside Emmett Till and "the Scottsboro Boys."

By now, most folks know the media story. White students at Jena High in Louisiana hung nooses on a tree to warn black students not to sit under it. After a fistfight over this racist outrage, black kids in the fight were indicted for attempted murder, while the white racists who hung the nooses walked away with a verbal spanking.

Last September, 20,000 traveled to Jena to march against this prosecutorial outrage. Fortunately, however, there are still a few real journalists around. Among them are Craig Franklin, assistant editor of the Jena Times, whose wife teaches at Jena High, and Charlotte Allen, who wrote an extended piece for The Weekly Standard. According to Allen and Franklin, here are the facts and chronology you have been denied by the Mainstream Media.



Obama’s International Socialist Connections

Obama’s International Socialist Connections
By Cliff Kincaid

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?

DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.



Yes, Obama really does have a Che Guevara poster in his campaign office... Of course, the Demmies we know probably love that. (They don't even know what that man did... not that it matters to them.)

Hillary I vs. Hillary II

Hillary I vs. Hillary II
By Ron Rosenbaum

Ah, Richard Nixon. It seems he—and the mystery of his character and crimes—will haunt us forever. This past week, his cold, clammy hand emerged from the grave to reach out and touch another election. This one.

There was a strange column by the Times' Paul Krugman, which strained beyond the bounds of credibility to make the case that Obama's supporters were engaged in Nixonian politics "of slander and scare … the politics of hatred."

And shortly before that, Jerome Zeifman, a longtime Clinton critic who was one of Hillary's bosses on the committee that recommended Nixon's impeachment back in 1974, charged that Hillary was guilty of unethical, Nixonian behavior during her service on the committee.

The charges serve as a reminder that—fairly or unfairly—Hillary Clinton has become the kind of political figure whose conduct and character are at least as enigmatic and divisive—if not as demonstrably illegitimate—as Richard Nixon's.

Zeifman has been harping on Hillary's alleged Impeachment Committee misconduct since the mid-'90s, and when his charges appeared on the right-leaning Web site Accuracy in Media last week, they didn't get much mainstream play.

Nonetheless, they are worth examining for two reasons: First, they remind us that the conflicting picture of Hillary Clinton extends back to her very beginnings in public service. (Indeed, her 1974 service as a junior staff lawyer on the House judiciary committee's Nixon impeachment panel comes at the very beginning of the "35 years of experience" she so often cites.)

And secondly, the charges remind us just how unresolved the conflicting images of Richard Nixon remain and how the Impeachment Committee's failure to resolve a key issue—whether Nixon actually ordered, rather than merely helped cover up, the Watergate break-in—has contributed to his unearned rehabilitation in some quarters.

Whatever the nature of Hillary's conduct on the Impeachment Committee, the committee itself failed to find out the full truth about Richard Nixon's involvement in Watergate, thus perpetuating what I regard as Nixon's final lie. The one he took to his grave, the one that much of the media—scandalously, without examining it closely—still accepts.

Thus the Zeifman charges, regardless of their weight and motive, open up a can of worms, slippery, squirmy historical issues that even, as we shall see, drag in John F. Kennedy, who has become a kind of patron saint of the Obama campaign.

Before I read the Zeifman charges, I had wondered why, in her recent recitals of her "35 years of experience," Hillary didn't often mention her time on the impeachment panel—



This is a long article that carefully outlines Hillary then and Hillary now--and her grievous wrongs during Richard Nixon's impeachment hearings. Her great sense of entitlement and operating outside of the rules was evident at the outset, and it's the Hillary that we see, still, vying to be our president.

Based on her unscrupulous conduct, and inappropriate acts that come at the very beginning of her career in public service, it's a power and privilege she should be denied.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Conservatism is Dead; Long Live Conservatism?


Conservatism is Dead; Long Live Conservatism?
By Selwyn Duke

It seems like just yesterday that many were reading liberalism's epitaph. After the Reagan years, Republican Revolution of 1994, retreat of the gun-control hordes after Al Gore's 2000 defeat and George W. Bush's two successful presidential runs, many thought conservatism was carrying the day.

Ah, if only.

We might ask: With conservatives like President Bush and many of the other Republicans, who needs liberals?

While the media has successfully portrayed the Republicans as the party of snake handlers and moonshine, the difference between image and reality is profound. Bush has just spun the odometer, proposing the nation's first ever $3 trillion budget. On matters pertaining to the very survival of our culture -- the primacy of English, multiculturalism, the denuding of our public square of historically present Christian symbols and sentiments -- Republicans are found wanting. As for illegal immigration, both the president and presumptive Republican nominee support a form of amnesty.

Yet many would paint America as under the sway of rightist politics, and some of the reasons for this are obvious. Some liberals know that the best way to ensure constant movement toward the left is by portraying the status quo as dangerously far right. If you repeatedly warn that we teeter on the brink of rightist hegemony, people will assume that to achieve "balance" we must tack further left toward your mythical center. Then we have conservatives influenced by the natural desire to view the world as the happy place they'd like to inhabit. Ingenuous sorts, they confuse Republican with conservative, party with principles, and electoral wars with the cultural one. But there's another factor: One can confuse conservative with correct.

When is the right not right, you ask? When it has been defined by the left.



Forever Young

Forever Young
By Leon Wieseltier

What you think of a presidential candidate is in large measure determined by what you think of the world. Different circumstances call for different talents, different sensibilities, different approaches to power. "Leadership" comes in many forms. A sterling individual may be historically inappropriate; and a person whom it is impossible to admire may accomplish significant things.

The question of whether Barack Obama will make a fine commander-in chief finally depends on your view of the direction of history in the coming years. I cannot escape the foreboding that we are heading into an era of conflict, not an era of conciliation. I do not mean that there will be many wars, though I cannot imagine that the threat to American security from Al Qaeda and its many associates can be met without a massive and sustained military operation in western Pakistan, and I cannot imagine any Pakistani government ordering such an operation.

It is not "the politics of fear" to remind Obama's legions of the blissful that, while they are watching Scarlett Johansson sway to the beat, somewhere deep inside a quasi independent territory we might call Islamistan people are making plans to blow them to bits. (Yes, they can.)

One of the striking features of Obama's victory speeches is the absence from these exultations of any lasting allusion to the darker dimensions of our strategic predicament. He makes no applause line out of American defense. And jihadist terrorism is only one of the disorders in an increasingly disordered world.



Cindy Sheehan in Egypt for Islamists

Cindy Sheehan in Egypt for Islamists
By Maggie Michael

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan joined a protest Wednesday seeking the support of Egypt's first lady in ending a military trial of members of the country's largest Islamic organization.

Under the watchful eyes of dozens of black-clad and helmeted anti-riot police, some 50 heavily veiled wives and children of 40 senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood detained for the past year, gathered in front of the headquarters of first lady Suzanne Mubarak's National Council Women carrying banners calling for their release.

"I am here to protest the trial of civilians in front of a military tribunal as this is a violation to international law," said Sheehan, who gained fame in the U.S. for her sit-in outside President Bush's Texas ranch following the death of her son in Iraq.

"As a mother of a son who was killed in the war, I presented a letter to Ms. Suzanne Mubarak to realize how those women and children are suffering."


Tuesday, February 12, 2008

When Reality Bites

When Reality Bites
By David Brooks

There’s a big difference between the Republican and Democratic campaigns: The Republicans have split on policy grounds; the Democrats haven’t. There’s been a Republican divide between center and right, yet no Democratic divide between center and left.

But when you think about it, the Democratic policy unity is a mirage. If the Democrats actually win the White House, the tensions would resurface with a vengeance.

The first big rift would involve Iraq. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.



Reid’s Move Delays Semper Fi Bill

Reid’s Move Delays Semper Fi Bill
By Manu Raju

Senate Democrats left two days of legislative business officially open last week, hobbling GOP efforts to bring up a bill punishing a liberal California city for scolding Marine Corps recruiters.

Republicans said Democrats clearly wanted to avoid being forced to choose between the Marine Corps or Berkeley, Calif., known for its liberalism and fervent anti-war positions.

Instead of adjourning at the end of a day as usual, the Senate “recessed” twice, a move that, under Senate rules, slows the process of adding new bills to the calendar. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not adjourn until last Friday, effectively pushing back floor consideration on the GOP bill until Tuesday — the same day that the city council is likely to tone down its call for Marine Corps recruiters to leave town.

“The only reason to recess is to block something, and the thing that got blocked by Reid’s stall tactic was the Semper Fi Act,” said spokesman Wesley Denton, referring to the bill introduced by his boss, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

“Democrats have chosen not to defend the Marine Corps, but to pander to anti-war protesters and Berkeley officials that are actively trying to impede military recruitment.”

But Reid’s office says that recessing was done to give the majority the flexibility to map out broader floor strategy on a range of bills for the coming week.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the decision to recess resulted because of discussions over whether to start the process of bringing to the floor a short-term extension of an electronic surveillance law. The Senate is expected to vote Tuesday on amendments to a bill overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“Democrats are working to provide the intelligence professionals with the tools they need to protect the nation from terrorism, while Republicans have done everything in their power to block the Senate from finishing the debate over the warrantless wiretapping program,” Manley said. “And all that Sen. DeMint can do is complain that we recessed instead of adjourned last week? We should be the ones complaining.”

The process of recessing is very unusual in the 110th Congress. The only times the Senate went into recess were on Sept. 12 and before and after a number of quick “pro forma” sessions held late last year and in early January, in a tactic to keep President Bush from making recess appointments.

When the Senate adjourns, a legislative day officially comes to an end. To bypass committee consideration of a bill, a senator can request that a bill be placed on the Senate calendar two legislative days after it is introduced.

Once a measure is on the calendar, a senator can request the Senate to approve a bill by unanimous consent, or force at least one member to object to its passage. But on Feb. 6 and Feb. 7, Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) closed the chamber’s doors by recessing until the next day, a move that, unlike adjourning, does not change the legislative day.

That tactic effectively delayed an effort by DeMint and five other conservatives to bring forward a bill, introduced on Feb. 6, that would strip Berkeley of $2 million worth of earmarks inserted into the $516 billion omnibus spending bill Bush signed into law at the end of 2007. According to three GOP aides, DeMint signaled on Feb. 6 that he would request that the bill be placed on the legislative calendar before the decision was made to recess, rather than adjourn, for the night.

“Berkeley needs to learn that their actions have consequences,” DeMint said.

My Choice

My Choice
By Sgt. Seth Conner

Like my Marine brothers who fought alongside me in the Battle of Fallujah, I know a little something about choices.

When the nosecones of 767 passenger jets punched into the Twin Towers, my choice was simple to make. My choice was not, as the patchouli-smelling Berkeley hippies would have you believe, the duplicitous work of “salespeople known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises.” By that rationale, car salesmen are responsible for the 40,000 Americans who will die this year on the nation’s highways. Nice try.

No, as shocking as it may be to radical anti-military haters, the overwhelming majority of young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines like myself are deeply proud of the choice we made. As shocking as it may seem to the Code Pink crowd, we feel blessed to have been given the chance to defend our nation and be steeled and shaped by those charged with leading us.

Ironically, for people who claim to be “tolerant,” “open-minded,” and “peace-loving,” the Berkeley protestors and their ilk proved just what a sham their operation truly is. If they were really interested in saving the lives of innocents, they would listen to the countless stories veterans bring back from Iraq about pivotal moments of decision that saved lives—both American and Iraqi.

I remember standing in the blinding sun looking through a sweat-drenched brow at the mortars exploding all around. We were the only unit with a view of the mortars’ suspected origin. I had a choice to make. As a young corporal, it was my job to decide whether or not to unleash our firepower at the suspected source of the incoming mortars. Make the wrong choice, kill innocent civilians. Hesitate, watch Marine brothers die.

I made my decision: hold fire. I could not get a clear look at the area. Later, we learned the area had only farmers and schoolchildren.

Much to the chagrin of the Code Pink crowd, we Marines are not blood-thirsty warmongers bent on killing innocents. Anyone who experiences combat comes away with a deeper and more pure understanding of just how sacred and special human life truly is. You don't walk away from the battlefield with the same perspective you brought to it. And you don't hold the lives of your brothers—and of innocent civilians—in your hands and continue to see life in the same way.


Shills for Chavez

Shills for Chavez
By Douglas MacKinnon

"The more I see, the more I realize that almost no one really cares about right and wrong. They care about money and supporting anyone who opposes George W. Bush."

Over a coffee last week with a high-level official of our government, that was the comment made to me regarding the Hugo Chavez-Citgo-Joe Kennedy II propaganda campaign now running across our nation. In TV commercials and in full-page print advertising, former Rep. Joe Kennedy thanks "our good friends in Venezuela" for helping to heat America's poor.

Other than to accept blood money, the government official I spoke with was at a loss to understand why some in the American media would run ads by a thug who exploits and ignores the poor in his nation, creates fear in the region and is, as a major newspaper just described him, an ally to terrorists, drug traffickers and mass murderers.

Clearly, like Bolshevik revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, Venezuelan strongman Chavez has found his "useful idiots" in the guise of Mr. Kennedy; actors Sean Penn and Danny Glover; Democratic Reps. William Delahunt of Massachusetts and Jose Serrano of New York; and the sycophant he has installed to run Citgo here in the United States. All sing his praises, all do his bidding, and all shame themselves with their self-serving actions.

Those facilitating the Chavez-Citgo propaganda campaign — be it the above-mentioned or the likes of Major League Baseball, ESPN, the Indy Car series or numerous U.S. charities — need to ask themselves a question: Would they be doing the same thing for the governments of Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Idi Amin or even Adolf Hitler? Those who think this question is a stretch know next to nothing of the history of Hugo Chavez.


Saturday, February 09, 2008

Keith Olbermann's Special Apology: The Ultimate Remix!


I guess it only matters if you're Chelsea...

This Is What Democrat Rule Will Get You:


1). Cleaning Up Howard Dean's Big Mess: The Democratic National Committee's Debacle


2). Harry Reid and the Stimulus: Not the Majority Leader's Finest Hour


3). The Waxman Method: If You Don't Follow Henry Orders, He'll Try To Ruin You


4). Democrat Mayor To Marines: Leave Downtown


Efforts To Discredit Bush Distort the Truth and Hurt Our Country


Efforts To Discredit Bush Distort the Truth and Hurt Our Country
By Jeffry Gardner

To believe — as the Center for Public Integrity recently charged — that President Bush and members of his administration, including Colin Powell, a natural born hero of the left, lied more than 900 times to promote and prolong the Iraq war is to concede that each and every member of Congress, along with assorted members of the Clinton administration, were complicit in that lie. Every dog in this hunt believed the intelligence. Bush didn't get there alone. Not by a long shot.

We learned after Saddam Hussein's fall that votes by U.N. Security Council members Russia, France and Germany not to enforce U.N. Resolution 1441 were more about covering up their roles in illegally rearming Iraq than some higher purpose. Additionally, France was up to its neck in an "oil-for-food scandal" exposed only after Saddam's overthrow.

That much of the post-regime change war plan has been poor is absolutely true. But that's not what this is about. Nor is this about 16 words in one of the president's pre-war addresses that — despite what the Senate Intelligence Committee termed Joe Wilson's "misleading information" — were validated by David Kay and the Iraq Study Group, the British government, the Senate Intelligence Committee and, curiously enough, Wilson's own oral reports. Nope. This is about the big lie — the granddaddy of them all: Bush stole the election.

Fueled by George Soros' MoveOn.org and embraced by nearly every Democratic leader, this lie established a foundation for a chillingly corrosive disinformation campaign. Created almost before the votes in Florida were cast, Bush-stole-the-election served solely — as Rev. Jesse Jackson said proudly during the "hanging chad" debacle — to delegitimize Bush, discredit him, do whatever it takes but never accept him.

From the get-go there have been so many lies and half-truths from the left that no single "independent" group could begin to register them all. Today, there is never any mention of the U.S. Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling that the Florida Supreme Court's recount plan — the one Al Gore had pinned his hopes on — was unconstitutional. Still, Gore pressed on and established the divisive vote I suspect he longed for.

Fast forward to Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech. This is so regularly misquoted and twisted by Democratic leaders today that it should be deep-fried, salted and served with mustard. Take the alleged you're-for-us-or-you're-against-us phrase. Shortly after the war started, George Soros likened it to a Nazi slogan.

But here is what Bush actually said: "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." That came at the end of a lengthy description of the task at hand, the coming war against state-sponsored terrorism. And the beat goes on. Suffice it to say that this orchestrated campaign to delegitimize Bush is as impressive as it has been effective. It's also proved the most damaging to our country's well-being.


Friday, February 08, 2008

Code Stink: Berkeley City Council Edition


Semper Fi, Berkeley
By Sen. Jim DeMint

When you mention "Berkeley, California" to most conservatives, they picture a leftist community of graying hippies, radicals, and protesters. Activities in the last few weeks have only reinforced this image. The City Council of Berkeley last week voted to ask the U.S. Marine Corps to vacate their recruiting office in town, and that if they chose to stay they did so as "uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

During debate of the resolution, one council member called the Marines "the President's own gangsters" and "trained killers." Another said the Marines had given the country "horrible karma" and said they had a history of "death and destruction." In a document drafted to support the resolution against the Marines, the council stated: "Military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits."

After voting to insult the men and women who fight and bleed for their freedom, the City Council cast another ridiculous vote in favor of giving the radical protest group Code Pink a parking space directly in front of the Marine Corps recruiting station. They also voted to give Code Pink a sound permit for protests in front of the Marine Corps building. The City Council stated in the resolution that they "encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station" and to "applaud" Code Pink for working to "impede, passively or actively" the work of the Marines Corps in Berkeley.


This is disappointing, but in a republican form of government, it must be up to local voters to change their leadership. However, this particular case became the business of all Americans when they insulted our troops while coming to the federal government asking for special taxpayer-funded handouts. Over $2 million was secretly tucked away for Berkeley earmarks in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill, projects that were never voted on or debated. I do not believe a city that has turned its back on our country's finest deserves $2 million worth of pork-barrel projects. So, I will introduce legislation to revoke the funding.


Let me be clear, my bill does does not cut off all federal funds to the city of Berkeley, though I am sure most Americans would feel that is justified. My bill merely rescinds wasteful earmarks. Berkeley is free to compete with other towns and cities across America for merit-based federal grants.

Actions have consequences. When the Berkeley City Council decided to insult the Marines in a time of war, it was a $2 million decision. Especially in a time of war, we cannot just allow cities to play insulting games at our troops' expense while continuing to shower them with congressional favors.



Playing Politics With Tragedy

Playing Politics With Tragedy
By Mike Gallagher

I’ve never gone from sadness to rage in such a short period of time than this week when I watched a pandering, vile Democrat blame global warming for the rash of tornadoes that struck the South.

When over 50 people are killed by a horrible storm that spawned countless twisters, who could expect that anyone would be brazen and ugly enough to politicize this natural disaster? John Kerry reporting for duty.

I love Tennessee. The state is beautiful and the people are warm and gracious. When I first heard about the killer storm, my heart went out to those good and decent folks.

But then I made the mistake of turning on the television and watching Sen. John Kerry give his best scientific explanation of the cause of these multiple tornadoes. I realize that when he ran for president he couldn’t stop telling us what a fabled war hero he was, but I must have missed the part about his meteorology degree.

Before any of the bodies in the south were even buried, here’s what this Senate scoundrel had to say about this weeks devastation: “[I] don’t want to sort of leap into the larger meaning of, you know, inappropriately, but on the other hand, the weather service has told us we are going to have more and more intense storms,” Kerry said. “And insurance companies are beginning to look at this issue and understand this is related to the intensity of storms that is related to the warming of the earth.

And so it goes to global warming and larger issues that we’re not paying attention to. The fact is the hurricanes are more intensive, the storms are more intensive and the rainfall is more intense at certain places at certain times and the weather patterns have changed.”

What a ghoul.

The obsession that liberals have with global warming has gotten so out of hand that they sound like a bunch of mental patients in an asylum.



What an idiot Kerry is! I have blogfriends who live in Arkansas which had some pretty bad tornados out of that storm, too. They said the temperature DROPPED 30 degrees as it was a cold front that brought them.

Global warming, my foot!

Whose Side Are They On?

Whose Side Are They On?
By Alan Fraser

The American military will never lose a war. But demoralized and misinformed by the agenda media, the American people have been cutting and running for 35 years. How much longer can we do this and survive?

On the front page of the January 26th Wall Street Journal appeared: "The Waiting -- Just Four U.S. Soldiers are Missing in Iraq. For Their Parents, it's a Lonely Vigil." This is a depressing and heart-rending story about the lives of those families whose solider sons are missing in Iraq. It's a subject especially disturbing to military families.

In a time of war, this could be a good story to run if it were written to, let's say, provide a little balance to what otherwise might be an overwhelming supply of gung-ho-support-the-troops kind of stories. You know, a little sobering counterpoint to a plethora of overly flattering articles about the troops and the war. But do you think that's what's going on here? Of course not.

There is no balance because there are virtually no favorable stories being written about the troops. From the MSM to Hollywood, the media have an overwhelmingly negative view of our troops and they make that clear to us every day as they portray them as stupid, pathetic, often victims, often murderers, or against the war. And boy do they ever love stories about the infinitesimally small number who have turned against the war.

The effect of such an article is to demoralize. Have you ever noticed in a football game that when there is a man injured, down on the field, that all of the other players get away and stay away on the sideline? That's good coaching and it's universally part of the game. The players are taught to do this because if they were to hang around, staring down at the injured player, they'd get demoralized. The fight would drain out of them and some wouldn't want to finish the game.


For the better part of five years, we've listened to the steady drumbeat of bad news on Iraq. Today, with the progress of the surge, there's some truly good news to report and yet there's a virtual blackout on it. In our upside-down culture, it seems that failure has a hundred fathers but success is an orphan, and we're paying an enormous price. Already the overwhelmingly negative articles about the military and the war have had a profoundly depressing effect on our society's ability to raise an army. The more difficult it becomes to raise an army, the more difficult it will be to protect ourselves and the less successful our military can be.



I call it colluding with the enemy--that's what they're doing. John Kerry did it during the Viet Nam War; I'm reading about how he worked with the communists in Swett & Ziegler's book To Set the Record Straight. I recommend it to anyone who wants to know the truth about Senator 'F'n French' and his fellow anti-war activists.

Patriotism 101


Patriotism 101
By VerityINK

For all those d'RATS gleefully licking their chops in anticipation of a Democrat party win in '08, let me clue you in as to how a loss will be perceived by most of us on the Right. Oh, I know, your little schadenfreude-dipped hearts are hoping high dudgeon and low feelings will prevail. You hope that we will be destroyed--as utterly broken and helpless, demoralized and depressed, as you all were, and still are, about our wins in 2000 and 2004. You hope we'll be ruined. You hope we'll despair. You hope we'll crawl off into various corners clucking our tongues and saying 'gol-uh-alllllleeee, they mussa bin right all along', and 'they reely IS the bess people!' (because you'll think that's what a Democrat win will prove.)

We know better. We know that election trends run in cycles. We know that we might well fall victim to some of our own party's RINO weaknesses and scare off our own good base. We know it might just be your turn, and that the pendulum may swing your way for many reasons. Most especially do we know that there's a chance the real perverseness that is in many of you may prevail (and, the higher up, the worse it seems to get) and Hillary may be able to 'bundle' enough votes, Bammie may be able to tap into enough white guilt, and a Gore or Edwards, or other hanger-on, may be able to razzle-dazzle their way into the presidency/vice-presidency using various climate gimmicks, socialist policies, and outright lies that you'll choose to believe.

It could happen that way--and we know that. It already seems to bother you that we're relaxed about it. Oh, we know you'll focus on the most fervent rightwing pundits that will voice their upset; they'll be worried about America's safety--and with good reason. However, you'll be waiting for all the rest of us to crawl into all your newly-vacated psychiatric hospital beds on Bush Derangement Syndrome floors--and that just won't happen.

Why won't it happen? Well, for one thing, we're more grown-up than you are. We understand people, and we know that everything doesn't go our way all the time. We know that adults often take the easiest path--and that humans are very susceptible to all kinds of denial, defense mechanisms, and magical thinking. We know that those wrong thoughts often lead people to believe in the fiction of 'if we're nice, they'll be nice, too' cutesy-poo Dem diplomacy that could easily sway their votes. They might actually buy the delusion that WE did 9/11 to ourselves so intolerable is the idea that there are people out there who wish to kill us over whom we have absolutely no control. We know these fears could make them susceptible--and ripe for any plucking the Democrats might want to do. Thus, we've anticipated all your moves in advance.

The second reason a Dem win won't make us dissolve the way you all did in 2000 and 2004 is that we are stronger than you are. We believe WE are the prime movers and shakers in our own lives (and if we DO get help, it's from an authority much higher than anybody in the White House!) We know that we're responsible for the conditions under which we live--and we're not looking for any welfare payment, social program, set-aside, or affirmative action. We've already made our lives good--because WE are the ones most responsible FOR that--and who's in the White House won't have the over-reaching significance your identity politics, conspiracy theories, and vast arrogance gives it.

Politics will keep the place it's always held in our lives--and we won't be getting paid money to twist in the wind and air our nightly angst with Keith Olbermann or Anderson Cooper. We won't make seditious movies a la Michael Moore or go overseas and call Barack Obama a chimp. If Hillary wins, we won't be suggesting she get raped--the way you all did with Condoleeza Rice--or, if Chelsea is getting married, wish her bereft of kids and much unhappiness--your tokens to Jenna. We won't be holding the American flag upside down or burning it into ashes--and you'll never see the Viet Nam War Memorial defaced by a Republican while a Dem president's in office!

You'll, of course, say "with a good Demmie president at the helm we won't 'need' to do these things"! LOL! But that's not why they won't happen (and I think you know that.) The prolonged national temper tantrum you've been attempting since the 1960's won't happen because the same adults that were in the room then are in the room now, and we love and respect our country and we won't do anything to hurt it.

We know that, to the outside world, the President of the United States IS America; how we treat him is the way they will treat us. Other countries will look to see if we have enough integrity--enough honor--to respect ourselves and who we are and, if they see we have none, they won't accord us any themselves. This self respect is inimitable to our image in the world--more than any presidential act with which we agree or disagree--and it, to the exclusion of everything else, will shape how they feel about our country.

So, Demmies, Leftistas, you Americans-In-Name-Only, yes, yes... you take your win and you go ahead and feel really good about it; it is only your turn up at bat--and everybody gets one. Like parents taking their kids trick-or-treating, we will watch from the sidewalk as you ring the doorbell of your political will and we will see whether good or ill comes of it. We will be waiting with the iodine and band-aids for your inevitable fall-down-and-skinned-knee and, if the big kids get mean and steal your lunch money, you know who'll be here to make it all better: our love of country, our respect of the office of the president, our loyalty and integrity--and every last one of our brave Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Successful Launch!



Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Hillary’s Crocodile Tears in Connecticut

Hillary’s Crocodile Tears in Connecticut
By Jerry Zeifman

I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears.

My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.

Hillary as I knew her in 1974 At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham-who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House. During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.

After President Nixon's resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel-as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said, "That came from Yale." I said, "You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, "Yes." His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.



OK & TX U.S. Senators Introduce Semper Fi Act Of 2008


OK & TX U.S. Senators Introduce Semper Fi Act Of 2008

Today, U.S. Senators James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Oklahoma), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and David Vitter (R-Louisiana) introduced the Semper Fi Act of 2008. The bill would rescind over $2 million in hidden earmarks for Berkeley, California in the 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and transfer the funds to the Marine Corps. U.S. Congressman John Campbell (R-California) is introducing a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Last week, the City Council of Berkeley voted to oust Marine Corps recruiters from their downtown office, saying the Marines were "uninvited and unwelcome intruders." Berkeley officials also voted to give the radical protest group Code Pink space outside the recruitment office and urged them to "impede, passively or actively" the work of Marine Corps recruiters.


Senator Inhofe: "Unfortunately, those on the Berkeley city council do not seem to understand the sacrifice of the brave men and women of the United States Marine Corps. By interfering with military recruiting, the city of Berkeley is hampering our ability to protect this nation. While the city of Berkeley and the protestors are free to say whatever they like, free speech is not a protection from consequence."

Senator DeMint: "Berkeley needs to learn that their actions have consequences. Patriotic American taxpayers won't sit quietly while Berkeley insults our brave Marines and tries to run them out of town. Berkeley City Council members have shown complete ingratitude to our military and their families, and the city doesn't deserve a single dime of special pet project handouts."

Senator Cornyn: "The Berkeley City Council insulted our troops and offended people across the country. If the U.S. Marines are not good enough for Berkeley, neither are taxpayer dollars Congress would have sent there this year. That city closed its doors on the same individuals taking bullets on the front lines while fighting for the safety and freedom of families in Berkeley and throughout America."

Senator Vitter: "The actions of the City Council of Berkeley are in stark contrast to beliefs of the vast majority of Americans who recognize and honor the service and sacrifice of our U.S. Marines. This is simply unacceptable and those funds could be better utilized by the Marine Corps."

Dr. Coburn: "The actions by the city of Berkeley are deplorable and insulting to those who are serving and those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect the very freedoms that are being exercised to insult them. I know I stand with the majority of Americans in thanking our service men and women for their selfless service to our nation."

Senator Chambliss: "We need to send a strong message that our military personnel deserve our strongest support. Georgia is a proud military state, and my constituents will be out outraged to know that during a time of war, their taxpayers dollars have been used to reward folks who have insulted and disparaged those who defend this nation every day."



The GOP party has some heroes, after all! Congrats to these men for standing up for what is right. Now, let's get this bill passed!

Bartiromo Warns Bad Economy Talk 'Begets More Weakness'

Bartiromo Warns Bad Economy Talk 'Begets More Weakness'
By Jeff Poor

You reap what you sow.

Nothing could be truer when it comes to the American economy. According to
CNBC "Closing Bell" host Maria Bartiromo, if the media continue to push doom-and-gloom economy stories, they will make the economy worse.

"[T]he truth is, ["Today" co-anchor] Meredith [Vieira], it doesn't matter if we're in a recession," Bartiromo said on NBC's February 6 "Today." "We can talk ourselves into a recession, and that seems to be what we're doing right now and that certainly begets more weakness."

The media coverage has apparently affected voters. According to
the February 6 Washington Times, an exit survey from the "Super Tuesday" primaries showed 47 percent of Democratic voters and 40 percent of Republican voters said the economy was the most important issue in making their choice at the polls.



This sounds like a lot of Demmie/Lefty-loving MSM election sabotage. The Demmies are desperate to take the focus off of the successful surge in Iraq and place it on something around which they can manufacture a crisis. Anything to make people afraid, and make them feel like it's all Bush's fault, will do. This way, they get to prod the election their way--and they get to taint the Bush presidency--with one more stone!

People, you're letting yourself be used.

Happy Birthday, President Ronald W. Reagan!



Berkeley Vs. America, Again

Berkeley Vs. America, Again

The troop-bashers in Berkeley are at it once more. But this time, the rest of America lashed back. Message to the Left Coast: It's not the 1960s anymore.

On Jan. 29, the Berkeley city council passed several measures targeting the lone Marine recruitment office in town. The anti-war harridans at Code Pink have been picketing the center for months. Last fall, they defaced the building by slapping a sign that read "assasination" (sic) in the military office window. Instead of rising to defend the recruiters' property rights, the city council and mayor voted to sabotage them further. They granted Code Pink special parking privileges directly in front of the Marines' workplace to facilitate their protests -- and also offered them a free sound permit for six months.

In the home of the free speech movement, the peace and love mob abused the power of government to help drive the Marines out of the city. They proceeded with zoning changes to treat recruiting centers like porn shops. They encouraged residents to continue to impede the recruiters' work. Never mind federal law making it a crime to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. If that weren't blood-boiling enough, the Berkeleyites put the troops under further siege by voting to send a letter to the U.S. Marine Corps calling them "uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

Video of the council meeting showed city officials trashing the Marines as "the president's own gangsters" and "trained killers" who are known for "death and destruction and maiming." One of the council members complained that our men and women in uniform were responsible for "horrible karma." Mayor Tom Bates offered to "help" the Marines evacuate.

But, of course, they continue to argue shamelessly that they're not against the troops.