Friday, April 25, 2008

John Murtha is Sorry

John Murtha is Sorry
By Kate O'Malley

Representative John Murtha is one sorry man, and by sorry, I do not mean apologetic. His efforts to smear the military in the court of public opinion, the Marines in particular, has been elaborate, elongated and disgraceful. It is hard to fathom that this man was ever a member of a group that he seems to hold in such contempt. His distaste has such a powerful hold on him that, when asked on Nightline on January 2, 2006 if he would join today’s military, the Vietnam Veteran and Marine firmly answered, “No.” One can only assume the feeling is mutual.

Murtha’s character assassination of the Haditha Marines, long before the facts were available, and his efforts turn the public opinion against them will go down in American history as one of the most egregious acts of hate and slander against the United States military since…well, the last time anyone from Code Pink opened her mouth.


The Lust in Jimmy Carter's Heart

The Lust in Jimmy Carter's Heart
By Peggy Shapiro

Jimmy Carter's recent negotiations with the terrorist group Hamas have been called a bad idea, ill-conceived, counterproductive, self-aggrandizing, and naïve. However, what if the meeting was not at all naïve, but a well-conceived execution of an unstated plan? What would a former U.S. president do if he really lusted in his heart for the complete destruction of the Jewish state?

First, he would deny it. He could not declare, as Hamas and other terrorist organizations do, his desire to see Israel obliterated, for fear of undermining his credibility with all but the lunatic fringe in the U.S. and Europe. Instead, in a soft-spoken drawl, he assumes the mantle of peace-maker and advocate for human rights. After all, isn't he the man who received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at bringing together Israel and Egypt? If you look closely, you can almost see his halo.

The next step would be to vilify Israel and thus prepare the world for her deserved annihilation.

Bush Heckler Arrested After Punching Wheelchair-Bound Girl

Bush Heckler Arrested After Punching Wheelchair-Bound Girl

Obama knew a 'Typical White Woman'... Is this a 'Typical Leftist?'

A man heckling First Lady Laura Bush and daughter Jenna outside the 92nd Street Y was arrested after he punched a wheelchair-bound girl whose parents had told him to shut up, authorities said Wednesday.

German Talis, 22, was shouting obscenities at the Bushes, who were leaving the building Tuesday, when he crossed paths with Wendy and John Lovetro and their daughter Maureen, 18, who has cerebral palsy.

They had been in the audience to hear the Bushes talk about their children's book, "Read All About It."

"He began yelling about Iraq and Iran at Jenna Bush. She was waving at the crowd. I told the guy, 'What are you doing? Shut up. This is about a child and books,' " said John Lovetro. "He was unperturbed. I said, 'Get out of here! You're being a moron!' "

The next thing he knew, Talis was allegedly punching Maureen, a fan of the first lady since meeting her in 2004.,2933,352498,00.html

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Why Worry about Deaf Babies?

Why Worry about Deaf Babies?
By Paul Shlichta

England is currently deciding whether or not to legalize the use of embryo selection to produce deaf babies to accommodate deaf couples who want their children to share their soundless world. When Thomas Lifson reported this in AT, he expressed shock that such things could be permitted. I was shocked too---until I realized that this, and much worse, is the logical consequence of our legalization of abortion.

Rightly or wrongly, our legal system regards death as the greatest possible injury that one person can inflict on another. Any injury that is not likely to cause death, however degrading or disfiguring to the victim, is considered a lesser crime and carries a lighter penalty. Therefore, if any class of human beings can be legally killed, it logically follows that they can also be injured or mutilated, however horribly, without penalty to the perpetrator*. This was once the case with African slaves and is now the case with unborn babies.

By upholding Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court has declared any abuse to fetuses or embryos to be, in the parlance of English common law, Outlawed, i.e. beyond the power of legal intervention. The legalization of abortion, at the discretion of the 'mother' carrying the fetus, logically entails her right to do anything she likes with it, such as selling it---or having it manipulated or mutilated it in any way she sees fit. And if there is any logical consistency to the law, Justice Roberts and his colleagues must ignore such practices as being beyond their jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, there are markets for such mutilation.


Time Bomb

Time Bomb

We never cease to be amazed by the inability of the left to feel shame and its lack of reverence for America and those who defend its freedoms, including the right to be stupid.

The cover of the April 21 issue of Time, taking the famous Joe Rosenthal photo of Marines planting our flag on the blood-soaked island of Iwo Jima and replacing our flag with a tree, qualifies for obscenity of the year.

TIME for a history lesson and some perspective.

It echoes the greenie theme first advanced by Al Gore in his book "Earth In The Balance" that the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat in the history of mankind. Gore and Bill Clinton have both said that global warming is ultimately a greater threat than terrorism.

That, admitted Time managing editor Richard Stengel, was the thinking behind the cover story. "One of the things we do in this story," he said last week on MSNBC, "is we say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing for World War II to combat global warming and climate change."

This trivializing of the sacrifice of American blood and treasure to defend freedom ignores the fact that in World War II we faced a real enemy with a terrible agenda. The bombs that fell on Pearl Harbor were quite real, not the output of some badly fed computer model.

"Global warming may or may not be a significant threat to the United States," Tim Holbert, a spokesman for the American Veterans Center, told the Business and Media Institute (BMI): "The Japanese Empire on February 1945, however, certainly was, and this photo trivializes the most recognizable moment of one of the bloodiest battles in U.S. history."

It was not that long ago that the media, including Time, was singing a different tune and waging a different war. An article in its June 24, 1974, issue entitled "Another Ice Age?" told of how, "when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been gradually cooler for the past three decades."

Time spoke then of a "global climatic upheaval" and "climatological Cassandras who are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Reputable scientists and satellite and other observations have noted another cooling period under way since 1998. Declining solar activity in the current cycle correlates with other cool periods in Earth's history. It ties in perfectly with climate history that shows the warming and cooling of Earth is a natural and cyclical process.

A man who knows a little about fighting totalitarianism, Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, wrote in the Financial Times last year:

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."

Lt. John Keith Wells, leader of the platoon that raised the flags on Mt. Suribachi, told BMI: "That global warming is the biggest joke I've ever known." He knows a real enemy and a real threat when he sees one.

Post-Sept. 11 'Comedies' Coming Soon

Post-Sept. 11 'Comedies' Coming Soon
By Jeffrey Ressner

The conflict in Iraq may go on for years, but it appears the end is nigh for Hollywood’s ponderous, heavy-handed treatment of the war on terror. That’s because most new movies about the subject this season are lowbrow and cringe-inducing comedies.

Over the next few weeks, theaters will be screening far-out fare such as an Osama bin Laden documentary by the maker of “Super Size Me”; an absurdist slam against merchants of war featuring John Cusack; a zombie soldier flick with XXX star Jenna Jameson; a stoner movie about Guantanamo Bay; and a Sept. 11 parody — yes, parody — made by Uwe Boll, a little-known filmmaker often ridiculed as the worst director in Hollywood since Ed Wood.

Just how off-the-wall is the genre getting? Over the past six months, filmgoers have been turned off by overearnest snoozers (“Lions for Lambs,” “A Mighty Heart”), low-budget losers (“Redacted”) and far worse. With the arrival of a half-dozen comedies, however, the post-Sept. 11 movie has quite possibly reached a new low.


Thursday, April 17, 2008

Hillary Hires On A Fake

Hillary Hires On A Fake
By Geoff Earle

A man who slams Barack Obama for offending hardworking Pennsylvanians in Hillary Rodham Clinton's attack ad is actually a life-long Jersey resident, it was revealed yesterday.

Clyde Thomas is passed off in the ad as one of five Pennsylvanians who are supposedly fuming about Obama's controversial comments that "bitter" small-town folks turn to religion and guns because of economic hardships.

What the ad doesn't say is that just two months ago, Thomas lived in Somerset, NJ - about 30 miles outside Newark. Thomas, 46, has lived there for decades, the Chicago Tribune reported yesterday.

While Thomas was born in Scranton, he lived and worked in Jersey for most of his life, and even voted in the Feb. 5 New Jersey primary. He recently moved to Bethlehem, Pa., where he has volunteered for the Clinton campaign.

The campaign didn't respond yesterday to questions about how a New Jersey voter ended up in its Pennsylvania ad.

Yale Senior 'Induced Abortions On Herself' For Art Project

Yale Senior 'Induced Abortions On Herself' For Art Project
By Martine Powers

Art major Aliza Shvarts 08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself as often as possible while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for shock value.

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse" Shvarts said. Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone.


This is the product of 40 years of liberal/leftist nonsense thinking. Someone please tell this girl that mercifully few classes at our higher institutions are supposed to result in the label of 'murderer'. I don't give a damn who it 'scandalizes'; I'm thinking of the lives she created purposely to kill.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008


FEC Investigation Urged Over Elton John, Hillary Clinton

FEC Investigation Urged Over Elton John, Hillary Clinton

A Washington-based public-interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption has sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission seeking an investigation into the apparent violation of U.S. election laws when pop star Elton John appeared at a fundraiser for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

The letter from Judicial Watch notes that federal law prohibits any contributions, including contributions of talents and time, by a foreign national to any federal, state or local election campaign.

News reports after the fundraiser mostly discussed Elton John's condemnation of the "misogynistic attitudes" of Americans and his belief that Clinton is the most qualified person to be president. Those reports also estimated the event at Radio City Music Hall in New York raised about $2.5 million.

"Recent news reports suggest that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President have accepted an in-kind contribution from a foreign national, Sir Elton John, in contravention of federal election laws," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a letter, dated Monday, to the FEC.


Tuesday, April 15, 2008

For Obama and McCain, the Bitter and the Sweet

For Obama and McCain, the Bitter and the Sweet
By Dana Milbank

So much for the liberal media. John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.

At a luncheon for the editors hosted by the Associated Press, AP Chairman Dean Singleton quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"

"I think that was Osama bin Laden," the candidate answered. "If I did that, I'm so sorry!" Singleton said. "This," Obama told the editors, is "part of the exercise that I've been going through over the last 15 months." Bitter, are we?

The past few days have left a bad taste in the mouth of the Democratic front-runner. In his worst gaffe of the campaign, he asserted (in San Francisco!) that Middle Americans have turned to God and guns and against immigrants because they are "bitter" about their economic lot.

That let Hillary Clinton and McCain portray Obama as a member of the effete elite, alongside John Kerry (Turnbull & Asser shirts) and John Edwards ($400 haircuts). Regular gal Clinton (Wellesley '69, Yale Law '73, family income $109 million since her husband left the White House) even made the point by tossing back a shot of Crown Royal at a bar in Indiana on Saturday night.

To shed the elitist label and regain his common-man credentials, Obama picked an inauspicious venue -- the annual gathering of the media elite, the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The result is likely to make the Democrat even more bitter. On the same day, the two media darlings of the presidential election cycle came to address their base -- and McCain easily bested his likely opponent.

McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat." McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

Sidoti passed him a cup. "A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar," she said.
The dueling appearances by McCain and Obama nicely captured the current dynamic in the presidential cycle. McCain, his nomination secure, had the luxury to joke and pander. Obama, wounded by the Democrats' internecine fighting, was defensive and somber.

Singleton, Obama's moderator, pointed out that a new poll showed the Democrat had lost the 10-point lead over McCain that he had in February. "The fact that our contest is still going on means that John McCain comes in here, and he's feeling pretty good," Obama answered. "He can be a little more deliberate and pace himself. And that probably explains the close in the polls."

McCain was indeed in high spirits as he entered the ballroom and invited the editors' "questions, comments or insults." Reading from a teleprompter, McCain said he was among friends. "I made a decision to be as accessible to the press as the press would prefer me to be, and perhaps even more than they would prefer." Accepting the doughnuts, McCain had a gift for the editors, too -- his support for a law shielding reporters from identifying their sources.

This left everybody in a good mood for the criticism of Obama that McCain tacked on the end of his speech. Americans don't "turn to their religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment," he said. The candidate then took a seat with the two AP reporters and crossed his legs casually for the questions. Asked about his advanced age, he pretended to nod off in his chair. "Watch me campaign," he challenged. "Come on the bus again, my friends, all of you."
McCain got a standing ovation -- an honor Obama did not receive when his turn came two hours later.

The room and crowd were larger for Obama. The atmosphere was colder (this time, editors had to pass through metal detectors) and more formal (wine on each table and flowers on the dais). And the candidate was uncharacteristically flat.

"I know that I've kept a lot of you guys busy this weekend with the comments I made last week. Some of you might even be a little bitter about that," he joked, before plodding his way through an earnest apology ("I regret some of the words I chose"), an angry countercharge ("If I had to carry the banner for eight years of George Bush's failures, I'd be looking for something else to talk about, too") and a recitation of his commoner bona fides ("My mother had to use food stamps at one point").

But the combination failed to change the subject. The first question: "Can a Democrat talk about guns, God and immigration without getting in trouble?" "I actually think it's possible," said the candidate. Recent experience, however, argues otherwise. And Obama couldn't hide his pique -- particularly when the moderator asked if Clinton should "step aside."

"I have tried to figure out how to show restraint," he said, to avoid harming the ultimate nominee. "Senator Clinton may not feel that she can afford to be as constrained. But I'm sure that Senator Clinton feels like she's doing me a great favor, because she's been deploying most of the arguments that the Republican Party will be using against me in November."

Not that he's bitter about it.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Jimmy Carter's Personal State Department

Jimmy Carter's Personal State Department
By Doug Patton

As I have written in the past, it is testimony to the mettle of the American Republic that it can, from time to time, suffer fools at its helm. It has endured the drunkenness of Ulysses S. Grant, the socialism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the constitutional violations of Richard M. Nixon and the alley-cat morality of Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy and William J. Clinton.

We have managed to survive even the naivete of James E. Carter, the peanut farmer turned politician who proved "The Peter Principle" by rising to his own special level of ineptitude and remaining there from 1977 to 1981.

Jimmy Carter's White House tenure was disastrous enough, but his increasingly radical actions over the last quarter century have gone far beyond incompetence. Some believe they border on sedition. How else to describe a failed and rejected former president who can't stop criticizing his own country and her allies while defending and promoting the jihadist scum of the earth.

Carter's post-White House years began well. Some of his activities were even inspiring. Seeing him build Habitat for Humanity homes was certainly preferable to watching him embarrass himself repeatedly as president ("I asked my daughter Amy what she thought our biggest problem was, and she said, 'Daddy, I think it is nuclear proliferation...'").

But then, like Jesse Jackson before him, Carter decided to create his own little personal State Department, jetting off on private foreign policy missions, meeting with foreign ministers, dictators and potentates. He cares not that his actions are at best unappreciated by today's leaders, or that his efforts have never accomplished anything of value for his country. In fact, more often than not, the former president's embarrassing antics have created barriers to the delicate diplomacy of our currently elected authorities, while simultaneously emboldening America's enemies.


Friday, April 11, 2008

State Department: Carter Meeting With Terrorists Not 'in the Interest of Peace'

State Department: Carter Meeting With Terrorists Not 'in the Interest of Peace'
By Joseph Abrams

Former President Jimmy Carter's upcoming meeting with senior officials of the Palestinian terror group Hamas is not "in the interest of peace," according to State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

FOX News confirmed on Thursday that Carter will travel to Syria next week for an unprecedented meeting with the senior leadership of Hamas. The State Department has designated Hamas a "foreign terrorist organization," a stance McCormack reiterated.

The State Department had "counseled the former president about having such a meeting," he said. "U.S. policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization; we don't believe its in the interest of our policy or in the interest of peace to have such a meeting."

Carter originally was slated to travel throughout the Mideast with a group of statesmen and philanthropists including Kofi Annan, the former secretary-general of the United Nations, but Carter now will be traveling without the group.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Annan on Tuesday, according to the State Department, which would not confirm whether the Syria trip was discussed in the conversation; however, Annan pulled out of the trip after the call. A spokesman for Annan in Geneva could not be reached for comment. first reported Tuesday on an item in the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat that said Carter was preparing an unprecedented meeting with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of Hamas who lives in Damascus.

McCormack said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, "That’s not something that we could possibly conceive of."


Thursday, April 10, 2008

What I Heard At the Petraeus-Crocker Hearings

What I Heard At the Petraeus-Crocker Hearings
By John Cornyn

Seeing the Mission Through.

America's top military commander and chief diplomat in Iraq reported Tuesday that we are making significant progress there. They added that we cannot afford to squander our gains by losing our resolve. But was anybody really listening?

Just this morning, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said the following on the Senate floor: "Is the war in Iraq making America safer? By all accounts, the answer…is `no.'

"Senator Reid's statement stands in direct contradiction to Amb. Crocker's testimony on Tuesday. "Al-Qaeda is our mortal and strategic enemy. So to the extent that al-Qaeda's capacities have been lessened in Iraq and they have been significantly lessened, I do believe that makes America safer."

Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker said the advances in security are fragile, and we must be patient in securing them.

Two-thirds of the 18 benchmarks set for Iraq reportedly have been met — a high standard even for the U.S. Congress. The counterinsurgency strategy has yielded positive results, and both civilian and military casualties in Iraq are down. Critics are rapidly losing topics to complain about.

Yet some of my colleagues persist in taking a short-term approach, and viewing the glass as half empty. This dreary pessimism is coming from the same people who declared the surge a failure a year ago — as it was just beginning — and claimed "the war is lost."

The political pressure from far-left fringe groups like is extremely important in Democratic politics. So some Democrats try to justify their calls for withdrawal with no real regard for the consequences. Sen. Barack Obama, for example, wondered aloud at the hearing why we can't just leave Iraq in a "messy, sloppy status quo."

There are two problems with this approach. It forsakes our only real option in the war on terror — winning. And it demonstrates a fundamental disregard for what happens next — what we face in the region and the world if we don't win that war.

We all want to bring our troops home — there is no disagreement over that goal. The question is whether they will return after defeating the threat, or whether they'll return to an America that is less safe and more vulnerable to another terrorist attack.

If we give up too soon, according to Petraeus and Crocker, Iraq would become a breeding ground for terrorists, much like Afghanistan before 9/11. Last month, Osama bin Laden declared Iraq would be a "perfect" base for al-Qaeda. But thanks to our volunteer military, we now have al Qaeda on the run, as Gen. Petraeus declared: "We have our teeth into the jugular, and we need to keep it there."

Yes, the cost in blood and treasure is high. But the cost would be far greater should America again face another terrorist assault on our civilian population. This is a difficult mission. But as we maintain and fortify the gains we have made, Tuesday's hearing was an opportunity to bring our broader goals into clearer focus.

Questions from the other side of the aisle about the Iraqi government's work toward meeting the benchmarks were noticeably absent from the hearings. Instead, the air was filled with rhetoric about the financial costs and a blind need for withdrawal. Perhaps there is no longer suspension of disbelief in progress.

Too many people have stopped listening, and have determined that Iraq must be a failure for the United States, no matter the long-term costs. They insist on taking a short-term view, dismissing radical Islamic terrorism as an irritant instead of a deadly threat.

As we digest the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker and mark the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime five years ago today, we must remember that freedom is never free. We owe to the American people, and to our troops serving on the front lines — especially those who have made the supreme sacrifice — the political courage to see this mission through.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

66 Years Ago: The Tragedy of Bataan, a Forgotten Battle

Bataan Death March, April 1942

66 Years Ago: The Tragedy of Bataan, a Forgotten Battle
By Lester Tenney

A Carlsbad veteran remembers America's greatest military defeat.

On April 9, 1942, Gen. Douglas MacArthur's Armed Forces in the Far East was forced to surrender Bataan to the Japanese, this in spite of his orders of April 3 demanding that no surrender be considered and, if ultimately necessary, to “charge the enemy. Make one last stand.” He likened the situation to Gen. George Custer's last stand at Little Bighorn in 1876, except MacArthur was not there for the onslaught that followed.

On that memorable day 66 years ago on Bataan, 12,000 American service men and women, along with 57,500 Filipino troops, were ordered by Major Gen. Edward King, the commander of all fighting forces on Bataan, to surrender to the Japanese Imperial Army. This was the largest military defeat in the history of the United States, yet it has gone largely unnoticed and forgotten all these years.

Yes, the date has been all but lost. Few remember it or the circumstances that led to the defeat of a once-proud army – except the survivors of this catastrophic event.

Let's retrace a few of the events of that period.


Hillary's 'Fraudulent' Watergate Brief Confirmed

Hillary's 'Fraudulent' Watergate Brief Confirmed WND

Clinton was fired for allegedly colluding with Kennedys to protect JFK legacy.

Details of Hillary Clinton's firing from the House Judiciary Committee staff for unethical behavior as she helped prepare articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon have been confirmed by the panel's chief Republican counsel.

Franklin Polk backed up major claims by Jerry Zeifman, the general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee who supervised Clinton's work on the Watergate investigation in 1974, reported columnist Dan Calabrese in a column republished by WND.

Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, called Clinton a "liar" and "an unethical, dishonest lawyer." He contends Clinton was collaborating with allies of the Kennedys to block revelation of Kennedy-administration activities that made Watergate "look like a day at the beach." Her brief, Zeifman said, was so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Polk confirmed Clinton wrote a brief arguing Nixon should not be granted legal counsel due to a lack of precedent. But Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970.

Moreover, Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed.Polk confirmed the Clinton memo ignored the Douglas case, but he could not confirm or dispel the claim that Hillary removed the files.

Looking back on the case amid Clinton's fierce battle with Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, Calabrese sees a picture emerging "of a very ambitious young lawyer who was eager to please her political patrons, and was willing to mislead and undermine established committee staff and senior committee members in order to do so."

The columnist, editor in chief of the North Star Writers Group, noted Zeifman has been "trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him."

Zeifman said Clinton, then 27, was hired to work on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who also was Sen. Ted Kennedy's chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick case.

When the Watergate probe concluded, Zeifman said, he fired Clinton from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. She was one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career, Calabrese pointed out.

Zeifman told the columnist he fired Clinton because she was a liar.

"She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer," Zeifman said. "She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."


Tuesday, April 08, 2008

A Special Birthday!


Monday, April 07, 2008

Dialogue On Race Could Begin On Hallowed Ground

Dialogue On Race Could Begin On Hallowed Ground
By John Kass

The wounds inflicted on Barack Obama by the hateful speech of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are serious and profound. Why else would ministers gather at Obama's church in Chicago—Trinity United Church of Christ—to hold a news conference demanding a "sacred" national dialogue on race?

"The intersection of politics, religion and race has heightened our awareness of how easy it is for our conversations about race to become anything but sacred," Rev. John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said last week. "That's why we are calling for sacred conversations, and for the respect of sacred places to begin right here and now." In other words, listen up you reporters: Back off. (snip)

Actually, we don't talk about race. Instead, we talk about talking about race, which is easy. TV does it best. Slap an angry Wright up on the screen and a reasonable Obama, and then go find some tape of an angry white guy and you're home for supper. But if we really talked about race, we'd really talk about unfair racial preferences in college and graduate school admissions, in hiring and on tax-subsidized public contracts. We'd talk about the horrendous drop-out rate in big city high school systems run by political bosses who, year after year after year, use minority school children as cash cows to cement their power.

It's been so corrosive for so long, black resentment over white bigotry and white resentment over racial preferences (which is, in effect, institutionalized racism); and the abandonment of minority schools, generation after generation dropping out, left behind. We can't talk about it. It gets too loud and too angry too fast.But I know a quiet place, where you can think about race and sacrifice. It's not an angry place now. It's sacred...


Another Clinton Win!!!

MI Dem Speaker Employs State Paid Thugs to Stop Recall

MI Dem Speaker Employs State Paid Thugs to Stop Recall
USA Warner Todd Huston, Featured Writer

Here is a story that details how far Democrats will go to destroy the people's ability to be heard in government. It also shows Democrat's penchant to abuse their power, their blatant waste of government funds, and the incestuous relationship that the anti-democratic process unions have with Democrats.

Up in Michigan, the thieves in the Democrat Party voted in a gigantic tax increase. Michigan has been mired in a one state recession for quite a while and Governor Jennifer Granholm's only solution has been to raise taxes to pay for government "shortfalls" -- and by "shortfall" you can read government waste. Well, after years of this localized recession in Michigan, the state legislature finally okayed this massive tax increase meant to "save" the state from its financial ills. (snip)

It is a typical Democrat Party mess of overspending, high, punitive taxes, lost business and a big hurt put on the average citizen.

So, what is the recourse that the people of Michigan have to address these wasteful politicians? The recall. Michigan has a recall law whereby citizens can petition 8,000 citizens to recall any politician under the Governor that they have decided no longer serves them. And a recall effort has been launched against Democrat Speaker of the Michigan House, Andy Dillon. (snip)

What could be more democratic, more quintessentially American than a recall effort? Apparently the Democratic Party and Speaker Andy Dillon are not so interested in the democratic process.

Dillon has begun an illegal practice sending state workers and related supporters in unions all across the country to gang up on these citizen petition carriers and try to block people from being able to get to the petitions to sign them. These "petition blockers" often outnumber the petition carriers four, sometimes seven to one.

These petition blockers scream at citizen petition signers, calling them names, and hover menacingly over them making them feel threatened and uncomfortable. They also are assigned to follow the petition carriers to their homes and harass them there.

Remember, these petition blockers are paid state workers. One wonders why the people of Michigan are paying their taxes to have state workers loll about these citizen petition carriers on the state's payroll? Don't these state workers have jobs they are supposed to be doing for the state? After all, state workers are not paid to act as thugs for the Speaker of the House...or any other politician for that matter.

Speaker Dillon's office was queried by a Michigan TV station why state workers were acting as political operatives on the job. Greg Bird, Speaker Dillon's Press Secretary told WDIV that any state worker that was acting as petition blockers "was using vacation time." But when the TV station asked for records to prove the claim, the Speaker's office never supplied the proof.


How 'Community Organizers' (like Obama) Created the Subprime Crisis

How 'Community Organizers' (like Obama) Created the Subprime Crisis
By Jerry Bowyer

I wrote to you previously (Meet Barry Obama, 'Fair Housing' Lawyer) about the Community Reinvestment Act, a law which compels banks to make home loans in minority neighborhoods to people who were poor credit risks.

Although the CRA is well known in the financial industry, political pundits and reporters often know very little about finance and so have missed this extremely important aspect of the story. Ignorance of economics doesn't help much either. The political class seems blissfully unaware of the concept of unintended consequences which is the idea that laws which are designed to make our lives better often make our lives worse.

On a recent edition of Kudlow and Company, I debated Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders on precisely this point. He seemed not only to disagree with my point that if congress compels banks to make Subprime loans, then they share responsibility for the crisis that results when the borrowers default; he seemed not to understand it. For him once we identify the target group as bankers, nothing else matters - they're bad and he's good, no more reasoning is necessary.

It's not just Congress that's responsible. Yes, they forged the weapons, but some army needed to wield them. That's where guys like Barry Obama came in to the picture. When Barry (who was gradually changing his name to Barack around this time) graduated from Columbia, he took a brief stint as a researcher writing for a corporate consulting firm.

According to his memoirs he thought of himself as 'a spy' who was dropped 'behind enemy lines'. Shortly thereafter, he left the enemy territory of corporate America and moved to a job about which he could feel proud - he went to work for the New York branch of the Public Interest Research Group. PIRG is one of those left of center activist groups who, among other things, uses the legitimate concept of 'fair housing' to force banks into making bad loans. PIRG has actively lobbied for a stronger (yes, you guessed it) Community Reinvestment Act.


Sunday, April 06, 2008



I had to drive out to central PA this past week, and on my way home I wanted to find a spot to stretch out and walk the dog a little. I passed a sign for Indian lake, which I'd heard of, so I decided to turn around and check it out to see if maybe I'd like to bring a fishing rod out there one day.

Well, driving about took me past another sign, the Flight 93 Memorial. I had to go, of course, never having been.

My chest was tight as I pulled in, and I'm not ashamed to say a few tears trickled down my face. It's hard to imagine the horror that touched that serene place, so far from anything the terrorists wanted to destroy. Such a great victory, with no living survivors. I wonder if those monsters died with the notion that they'd failed. I hope so.

I am certain that the heroes on that flight knew with incredible clarity the nature of the enemy, a clarity whose dimming in recent years was as likely a source of my sadness as the tragic loss of life.

It's a powerful place. Not much to see, but so much to feel.


Many brave men headline here this morning: Todd Beamer (and all his fellow patriots on board) and our Paul, who is a firefighter, and one of the bravest men we all know. They have come together this morning to remind us of what of what we should be thankful for--and what they have honored and preserved for us--the true spirit of America, and our beloved Capitol building:


Saturday, April 05, 2008

Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells


Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells
By Deborah Sontag

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February. (snip)

The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. (snip)

Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.

“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.” Indeed, saying that the story haunted her, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly offered it as a dire example of a broken health care system. (snip)

Since Ms. Bachtel’s baby died at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O’Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O’Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said. (snip)

“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.”


Rest assured... if Hillary DID get to be our president in 2008, she'd be the most truthful president we've ever had. How? Because she's already used up all the lies...

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Air America Host Suspended for Obscenity-Laced Rant Against Clinton, Ferraro


Air America Host Suspended for Obscenity-Laced Rant Against Clinton, Ferraro

Air America radio has suspended talk show host Randi Rhodes for what has been described as an appalling rant against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro.

Rhodes used obscene language in her choice remarks during a March 22 appearance in San Francisco, sponsored by an Air America affiliate station. In a statement issued on the liberal radio network’s Web site, Air America chairman Charlie Kireker said that kind of salty talk has no place in the political dialogue.

“Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our hosts,” reads the statement by Kireker, issued on Thursday.

Calls to Air America for comment were not immediately returned.

During what was an apparent stand-up routine, Rhodes attacked Ferraro, the former vice presidential candidate, for saying that Clinton rival Barack Obama has benefited in the Democratic presidential race because he is black.”Geraldine Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag. Who knew?” Rhodes said to laughter. “What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is, she’s such a f*****g whore.”

A few minutes later, Rhodes said”Hillary is a big f*****g whore too.” She then suggested Clinton was trying to force her way into the Democratic nomination by manipulating pledged delegates. “Oh, f**k you, okay, f**k you,” she said.

Ferraro said Rhodes should be fired.


Obama's Dime Store 'Mein Kampf'

Obama's Dime Store 'Mein Kampf'

If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."

Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf." Nearly every page – save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life – is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a "black party." Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead "made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor." But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because "they kept smiling a lot." And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South ... they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!

So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game. In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: "You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties ... being the only black guys and all." And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend's perfectly lovely remark was: "A part of me wanted to punch him right there."

Listen, I don't want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" line. Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by "the white man's rules." (One rule he missed was: "Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.")

Obama's gaseous disquisition on the "white man's rules" leads to this charming crescendo: "Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."

For those of you in the "When is Obama gonna play the 'N-word' card?" pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!

When his mother expresses concern about Obama's high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother's hand and told her not to worry. This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved – such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign. But moreover – he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: "Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning." Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate? The man is stark bonkersville.

He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's "easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you." Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.

In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness": "I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate." By contrast, Malcolm X's autobiography "spoke" to Obama. One line in particular "stayed with me," he says. "He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."

Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright – Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.

Haditha: The Collapse of a Liberal Fiction

Haditha: The Collapse of a Liberal Fiction
By Michael Reagan

You'd hardly know it if you relied on the mainstream media, but the government's case against the Haditha Marines took another body blow last Friday that may be the beginning of the end for this whole sorry attempt to severely punish eight heroic United States Marines for doing what they are trained to do.

In a surprise development on the day Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum's court martial was scheduled to begin, all charges against him were dropped without explanation. Tatum, facing charges of reckless endangerment and aggravated assault that could have sent him to prison for 18 years, was the fifth Marine -- and the second of three enlisted men -- to be exonerated, leaving only one enlisted Marine still facing court martial.


Full details of the incident on November 19, 2005 were supplied in great detail to the entire command structure the very night of the engagement, and the incident was regarded for what it was -- a tragic result of an enemy ambush. No further action was required or taken.
Months later, however, Time magazine published a story reporting that the Marines had gone on a rampage, wantonly killing innocent civilians to avenge the death of their fellow Marine killed in the IED explosion.

Using Time magazine's fallacious account of the civilian deaths, Pennsylvania's Democratic Rep. John Murtha went on a rampage of his own, telling every media outlet that would listen that the Marines had committed "cold-blooded murder." He first claimed that his information came from a briefing from the Marine Corps Commandant, but when that claim was disproved he admitted that his source was Time magazine.


Democrats Have Kept Racism Alive


Democrats Have Kept Racism Alive
By Nina May

There was a big problem with Barack’s mea culpa speech in Philadelphia, defending his racist pastor, Jeremiah White. He failed to mention that over 300,000 white Americans gave their lives to end slavery. He didn’t mention that in 1854, abolitionists left the Democratic Party and founded the Republican Party specifically for the purpose of ending slavery and giving equal rights to all those who had been in bondage. And when he does mention the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution, he totally got it wrong, the way most Americans do.

News flash . . . it was the abolitionists who insisted on it so that the slave holding states could not have their slaves counting as constituents so they could get more pro-slavery representation in congress. This is one of the most powerful battles fought by whites, to end slavery, which has been mischaracterized as being racist.

He needs to read the history of this battle for equality and realize that the party he embraces today was the party that voted against the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, while the Republicans supported them unanimously. He needs to acknowledge that the two dozen civil rights bills that were passed by the Republicans were overturned by the Democrats when they regained control of the House, Senate and White House at the end of the 19th Century.

It was at this time that the Democratic Party instituted Jim Crow laws. It was not whites that did this against blacks, it was bigoted, racist Democrats who would choose to divide a nation rather than give freedom to those they considered inferior. Had blacks been voting equally in both political parties, there never would have been literacy tests, poll taxes or other restrictions to voting. But because all blacks at this time identified with the party of Lincoln and were actually the ones starting Republican parties in southern states, and running and getting elected as Republicans, the Democrats knew that to kill a Black person was killing a Republican.

If he watched the award-winning documentary, Emancipation Revelation Revolution (, he would learn that the first Black Democrat, Barbara Jordan, was elected in the south in 1972, 100 years after Black Republicans had been running and winning for years. And it took a federal law to force redistricting in Texas to get her elected. He would be reminded that almost all the southern governors fighting integration, standing in school house doors, firing water canons at innocent people were all Democrats. And if his parents really were a part of the civil rights movement, he would realize that without whites fighting side by side to overturn laws that had been put in place by his very own party, it may have been another generation before the civil rights movement could happen.

It was not white versus black; it was racists, bigoted Democrats against blacks and whites who disagreed with them. If he saw our movie he would be reminded of three young white men who worked with CORE who were murdered, just for doing the right thing. He would see the incredible sacrifices that white men, such as Senator Charles Sumner endured for the cause of liberty for oppressed slaves. He was attacked on the Senate floor by pro-slavery Democratic congressman, Preston Brooks, who stormed the Senate side of the Capitol and tried to beat Sumner to death with his cane because he dared to introduce yet another piece of anti-slavery legislation. Brooks received hundreds of canes from adoring fans, while Senator Sumner struggled for three years to survive. When he did, the first thing he did when he returned to the Senate was to re-introduce a bill that would abolish slavery.

This man was a white Republican. Preston Brooks was a white Democrat. Race had nothing to do with their individual passion to destroy or preserve slavery. It was a passion born of moral values and an understanding of good and evil. That is the discussion today that pastors are supposed to be having and preaching and encouraging their flock to understand. Rev. Wright did not get the memo and gets an “F” in Black history.

For Obama and his pastor to preach the “audacity of despair and racism” is an affront to all the people who have given their lives through the years to see racism destroyed. But that death blow has always been deflected by the Democratic Party that has had a vested interest in class and race warfare to keep their power base motivated and returning to the polls. Barack says, “I have asserted a firm conviction that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds,” yet he sits week after week listening to sermons that say just the opposite. But those days are gone as we rip off the tacky, thin veneer of elitism and bigotry that has propelled them to power.

It is ironic that in his speech he challenges the listener by saying, “We can’t accept politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism,” when he belongs to the very party that has always done that, to the point where the new liberal plantation has erected philosophical barriers around all blacks, condemning those who dare to challenge the liberal status quo and escape this manipulation and intimidation. They are called Aunt Jamima, like Condi Rice, or house Negroes like Colin Powell, or forced to endure high tech lynchings like Clarence Thomas. They have Oreo Cookies thrown at them like Michael Steele and are accused of acting white if they identify themselves as Republicans or conservatives.

That is “the racist spectacle we are not allowed to talk about.” When Blacks have to whisper at polling booths that they are Republican, for fear of reprisal from their liberal neighbors, then Barack really doesn’t get the real conflict that is alive and well in this country, and why should he? He belongs to the party of the overseer of the philosophical plantation that intimidates and marginalizes Blacks that dare support conservative values or Republican ideas.

So, if Barack was honest about his desire to “heal the nation,” he needs to learn American Black history, and take his pastor aside and tell him about it and challenge him to be more Christ-like when he preaches. If he knew real American Black history, he would not belong to the party of segregationists and bigots and would not have allowed himself to be sucked into that dark undertow of racial politics that has already robbed our nation of too many amazing blessings.