Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Political cronies getting Iraq contracts 

I just found this interesting tidbit. A $600 million dollar contract to repair electricity grids in Iraq was given to Perini Corporation. Funny how John Kerry and his liberal buddies always scream about Haliburton, yet never whine about this company.

That's because California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, has a nice stake in this company. Hmmmmm.

Yeah, but were rights violated? 

That is the first thought of those scumbags at the ACLU, CAIR, People for the American Way, etc, when they read this:

MI5 agents foil bomb plot

MI5 played a key role in foiling what the security forces believe could have been the most devastating bombing campaign in the UK, it emerged last night.
The domestic security service infiltrated the network of eight suspects who were arrested yesterday in one of the biggest anti-terrorist operations carried out on British soil. As many as 700 police took part in dawn raids, seizing the men and recovering half a tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser.

700 police officers? What kind of message does that send to Muslims everywhere? Talk about insensitivity!!

The suspects had been under surveillance by MI5 and Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch for several weeks. Those arrested were all born and brought up in Britain. Security sources played down suggestions of any direct link between the arrested men and al-Qaida.

Surveillance for several weeks? This is entrapment!! Without this illegal operation, these suspects would have just continued on with their peaceful existences.

Seriously, notice that these people were born and raised in Britian, yet hold no loyalty to her whatsoever? That is the result of multiculturalism. Believe that.

Monty Python Democrats 

Eric the Viking Pundit supplies the laugh of the day. Nice work Eric!!

I am too angry... 

...to comment too much on this. I'll be up all night if I do.

Iraqis Drag 4 U.S. Bodies Through Streets

These scumbags may be evil, but they are not dumb. They see people like Kerry, Kennedy, Shumer, etc on CNN, and it gives them a little hope that if they do something like this, the U.S. will cut and run. A few months ago, our fine soldiers were able to cut down on the attacks through some cracking down. It is time to crackdown even harder now.

April Fool's comes a day early 

This cannot be a serious new story:

Court Orders U.S. to Review Mexican Cases

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The world court ruled Wednesday that the United States violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row to receive diplomatic help, and ordered Washington to review their cases.

"The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said.

Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States.

Take a look at that. A Chinese judge commenting on our judicial system. (Why not. I guess. That same judge would get laughed at back home in China.) The liberal media is making this out to be some sort of important thing, yet read closely what the Chinese judge said. Basically, the judge said that the U.S. should follow its own laws.

As for "ordering" Washington to do soemthing, I don't seem to remember us surrendering our judicial system to the Hague. if you need a laugh, here is the list of "judges" on that kangaroo court:

President Shi Jiuyong (China)
Vice-President Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar)

Judges Gilbert Guillaume (France)
Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone)
Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation)
Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom)
Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela)
Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)
Francisco Rezek (Brazil)
Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan)
Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America)
Nabil Elaraby (Egypt)
Hisashi Owada (Japan)
Bruno Simma (Germany)
Peter Tomka (Slovakia)

I placed in bold the most hilarious ones, as if I would give a damn about what any of them think, especially the "judges" from those countries that have farcical legal systems

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Blogs for Bush 

I am a proud guest blogger on Blogs For Bush. Take a look.

From my hometown rag 

I was perusing that bird-cage liner, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and I found this interesting article:

Arab Americans turn to Kerry in 4 key states

Ribhi Mustafa is a swing voter who has already swung.

Yep, right off the bat they establish his "moderate" credentials.

Four years ago, he was frustrated with the slow pace of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and he cast his ballot for George W. Bush.

And, yep, another liberal media favorite, a disillusioned Bush voter.

"I figured it would be good to have some new blood - and it turned out to be worse," said Mustafa, 28, a registered Democrat from Northeast Philadelphia who works in his family's supermarket business. This year, he said, his choice will be Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.).

Mustafa's personal shift illustrates a problem for President Bush, who in 2000 condemned anti-Arab profiling in a nationally televised debate, and then went on to win a healthy plurality of the Arab American vote in four of the largest battleground states, including Pennsylvania.

A recent poll suggests Arab American voters in these states have soured on the President because of the administration's unwavering support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the invasion of Iraq, and the government's crackdown on Arab and Muslim immigrants in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

What a crock. The Arabs have turned against Bush because the Israel-Palestinian conflict isn't settled, and of the "crackdown crackdown on Arab and Muslim immigrants in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks." Yeah, right. (They seemed to have missed a word, right before immigrants. they should have placed illegal in front of it.) Here's my favorite part, buried in the later part of the article:

Bush still enjoys majority support among Christian Arabs, as well as the Iraqi and Chaldean communities, which are large and influential in Michigan.

Now that's a point that should be explored somewhere. The question needs to be asked. Why do Christian Arabs solidly support Bush, while Muslim Arabs are running to Kerry? The answers are obvious. First, some Muslims really supported Bush in 2000 becasue they did not want to vote for Joe Lieberman, because he is Jewish. Second, some Muslim Arabs are sympathetic to radicals. Don't act like I made this up out of thin air. The evidence is out there. The only issue is whether you decide to ignore it or not.

After 9/11, I called a longtime friend named Ash, who is Egyptian. I wanted to reassure him that I still liked him a ton, and what happened changed nothing. The first thing out of his mouth: "I'm Christian. Why do you think my family came here? Christians aren't welcome in Egypt anymore."

No one in the media will dare speculate on what I just said, lest they be branded a bigot.

Arabs are not systematically discriminated against in this country. In fact, just like my call to Ash, Americans went out of their way to confort Arabs and remind them they are welcome and respected here. And Arabs have every opportunity. Just take a look at this example, supplied by Lee from Right-Thinking From the Left Coast.

How Cute!!! 

This picture was not Photoshopped. It was taken directly from the Associated Press. Look at how cute Kerry looks with the flower zipper pull-up. Awwww.

Via Power Line

For Jake 

Here's the link that you complained about. What did you think, I made the story up?

Monday, March 29, 2004


I have been messing around on TypePad. Take a look and tell me what you think:

Tomfoolery of the Highest Order

Condi Rice gets shafted 

Richard Clarke is a damn hypocrite weasel, being exposed more and more by the hour for the fraud that he is. He and the lapdog liberal media are calling for Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly in front of that kangaroo commission. Well, for the same reasons Rice is not testifying publicly (she has already spent 4 hours behind closed doors with them), Clarke (on my 28th birthday, no less) cited privilege in refusing to testify in front of the The Y2K Committee.

Clarke's hypocrisy is blatant and obvious here. No reason to expand on that. But, why isn't the liberal media running with this? We all know the answer. It helps Bush. If the media were intellectually honest, they would investigate this, and report that Rice (and Clarke was too) is well within her rights not to testify. This is a well-established precedent. Where can this precedent be found? Why, in one of the liberals' all-time favorite Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)!!

Here are the relevant parts:

In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process. Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.

In more simpler terms, the President should be able to solicit honest advice for their advisors, without fear that what they say will be on full public display afterward. If this threat were apparent, it would place a "chilling effect" on the advice given to the President, who would not be able to make fully-informed decisions. And;

Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

Simply put, in only a criminal proceeding can the claim of privilege for Presidential communications be trumped, but even then, only when a judge reviews the material in camera. (In the privacy of the judge's chambers)

It is beyond disgraceful that the 9/11 Commission is allowing itself to be used like this. And the usual suspects are out in force:

"Three thousand people died on our shores and on their watch. There should not be the slightest question that any White House staff member asked by the commission to testify under oath and in public must do so," he said.

There is only 2 reasons that Democrats want Rice to testify publicly:

1 - To destroy a possible future political threat. Is there any doubt that if she ran for President, Republicans would rally around her?

2 - To get her to say something like, "We discussed the possibility of airplanes being hijacked in a briefing," so that the lapdog media can run with the "Bush Knew" meme again.

The difference between the previous administration and the Bush administration is in full view right now, for all to see. Not once have we heard, nor will we hear, something like "There is controlling legal authority that Rice does not have to testify."

President Bush and Condi Rice cannot win on this, simply because of the dishonesty in the media. If she testifies, they'll find something (regardless of the truth) and pound it to death. If she doesn't, the "what are they hiding?" meme will go on for months.

Say what? 

This is the man that the Democrats actually think will beat President Bush. Here's John Kerry, who recently discovered that he must attend church every Sunday, had this to say yesterday.

"Today we are told that, after three million lost jobs and so many lost hopes, America is now turning a corner. But those who say that, they're not standing on the corner of Highland Street, where two 15-year-old teenagers were hit in a drive-by shooting last week."

And Liberals have the nerve to call Bush dumb?

A great letter 

This is a letter printed on OpinionJournal.com today. It made my day:

I served in Iraq, and it sucked. The dust storms that sandblasted your skin raw weren't fun. The heat was unbearable. We placed a thermometer in the sun in August, and it registered 157 degrees. At the same time, a thermometer in the shade read 137. Of course, for the most part, it was a dry heat, except I was in the South, and in late August and September, the wind would shift bringing moist air from the Persian Gulf. How about 120-plus and 90% humidity to brighten your day? Oh and the critters--rats, snakes, scorpions and my favorite, the camel spider. They live on the desert floor and have venom that numbs the poor camels they jump up on. After numbing the area, they chow down on the still-alive camel. The locals told me that its normal to see camels walking through the desert and their guts fall out because camel spiders eat their intestinal walls. The camel spiders also don't discriminate--people, camels, it's all the same to them. Did I mention the critters of the microscopic variety? Explosive doesn't do justice to the intestinal issues I encountered. Of course, I almost forgot the AK-47-wielding locals or the imported locals with explosives and rocket-propelled grenades.
Yes sir, it truly sucked. Would I do it again? In a heartbeat! If you could meet the sincerely grateful Iraqis that I helped liberate, you'd understand.

To answer your question, do I care if the president makes a crack about WMDs? Not at all. Based on my experience, I'd be perfectly happy if the president's reason for going to war wasn't WMDs but rather that he was just having a bad day and wanted a piece of Saddam.

--K.B., Army

Keep the politicians out of it, and the United States military is unbeatable, simply because we have guys like this.

Sunday, March 28, 2004

Damn racists 

In an egregious, racist policy of racial profiling, John Ashcroft has ruled that Luxor Air can't fly in the United States anymore:

The United States has banned Egyptian airline Luxor Air from flying in the country after one of its planes took "a completely abnormal" flight path.

Those "religion of peace" Egyptians shouldn't be scrutinized simply because they are Muslims. I am completely outraged at the racist policies of the Bush administration and I plan to call the ACLU at once.

Uh, wait. I made a mistake. The article actually reads:

Luxor Air Banned From Flying in France

PARIS - France has banned Egyptian airline Luxor Air from flying in the country after one of its planes took "a completely abnormal" flight path at low altitude over a French city, the head of civil aviation said.

Luxor Air's flying rights in France were suspended during an investigation into a March 21 flight from Luxor , Egypt, to Nantes in western France, Michel Wachenheim, director-general of France's Civil Aviation Authority, said late Saturday.

The plane, an MD-83, made a 1.2-mile deviation as it came in for landing and overflew the urban center of Nantes at an altitude of 660 feet — a "very low" altitude and "completely abnormal trajectory with respect to its normal flight path," Wachenheim said.

France's Bureau of Accident Investigation has asked Egyptian authorities for information about the flight crew, and background on the plane and airline, which is a small privately owned company.

Wait a second. What about the civil liberties and privacy rights of the flight crew? I thought France was this sophisticated country who is teaching us all that by appeasing radical Islam, they will not be targets, and will not have to live in fear of being a target. Just because this plane flew low and off course, that doesn't mean France should be alarmed.

Saturday, March 27, 2004

This is brilliant 

From the Orange County Register, a terrific cartoon on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

The French aka Saddam's protectors 

Here's a stunner:

French Lawyer Says He Will Defend Saddam

PARIS (Reuters) - The French lawyer known for defending Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and guerrilla Carlos the Jackal said Saturday that Saddam Hussein's nephew had chosen him to represent the deposed Iraqi president.

Verges, who is also defending former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, said he had accepted the job of defending Saddam and suggested his strategy would focus on the role played by the United States and other countries in supporting the Iraqi leader in the 1980s.

"We know very well that the Anglo-Americans armed Saddam Hussein, that the chemical weapons were sold by the allies," Verges said in a telephone interview.

The circus is coming to Baghdad. I can hardly wait to see the Western press treat everything Saddam says like it is the gospel. They will believe every charge Saddam will make against Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair, you name it. After all, those guys are lying warmongers who desposed a democratically elected leader. Remember, Saddam did win his last election with 100% of the vote.

After this trial, I will challenge anyone to still say that we should have signed on to the International Criminal Court.

They should just send Monica over 

The love-fest with John Kerry continues. Get this, from an article in the New York Times:

Kerry Will Undergo Surgery for Tendon Tear in Shoulder

Ok, that's fine. I don't want the guy to be in pain or anything, I just don't want him as my President. But read this part:

KANSAS CITY, Mo., March 27 — Senator John Kerry plans to take about four days off the campaign trail next week to have minor surgery on his right shoulder. He aggravated a years-old injury while battling for the Democratic presidential nomination in Iowa in January.

What was he doing? Mud wrestling with Howard Dean? Re-enacting the old Frankie Goes to Hollywood video "Two Tribes?" You have to read a few paragraphs down to find out what "really" happened. He was injured while schlepping with the hoi polloi:

The tear apparently occurred aboard his campaign bus as it rattled through Iowa but is related to a shoulder injury he suffered while bicycling several years ago, Mr. Kerry said.

(chuckling...smirking...muted laughter)

The shoulder strain did not stop Mr. Kerry from a weeklong skiing and snowboarding vacation at his retreat in Ketchum, Idaho, that ended Wednesday, or from riding his racing bike in Boston a few weeks before.

It couldn't have happened while he was snowboarding now, could it? After all, "he doesn't fall." Just ask him.

Great cartoon 

Guess who wrote this line... 

"But there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism..."

Atrios? Oliver Willis? Kos? The Nation? No, it was...you guessed it, the New York "We'll fix Clinton's legacy article by article" Times.

Offend or die? They'll have to think about that one 

University Says Blood Drive Biased Against Gays

MONMOUTH, Ore. — The American Red Cross may soon be banned from holding blood drives on one university campus because the organization prohibits some gay men from donating blood.

"We're looking at the practices of the Red Cross — whether they are discriminatory, and if they are, how it relates back to our policy," said Gary Dukes, vice president of student affairs at Western Oregon University

This guy must be joking. (Here's his homepage if you feel the need to tell him he is nuts) Is that the price of political correctness these days, risking people's lives so as not to discriminate? Take a look at how the P.C. atmosphere infects students:

Some student government leaders say the question is homophobic and has no place on campus, even if that means less blood available to those who need it.

"There may be less blood in the blood supply, or we can continue to have a world full of hate and discrimination," said Shauna Bates, student senator at WOU.

What this dunce doesn't understand is that, in a perverse way, she is right. Better the blood supply be lessened rather than risk placing the blood of homosexuals in the pool. I am homophobic for pointing this out? You'll think so only if you deny reality. If this woman were being operated on, and she was asked, "Would you like the blood that is guaranteed not to have been taken from a homosexual?" does anything really think she would respond, "Oh, I don't care. It's all the same." Of course she wouldn't.

I have known 7 people personally in my life that were HIV-positive. 2 from college, 3 from the music industry when I worked in radio, 1 from another job, and one guy I grew up with. Take a guess what they all had in common. I'll give you a hint: They were homosexuals.

Denying that HIV and AIDS-tainted blood isn't a serious risk when taking blood donations from homosexuals is to deny reality. (i.e. Arthur Ashe)

Friday, March 26, 2004

Last post on Clarke 

Today is Saturday to me. But, to Richard Clarke it is Minute 15. He will be a footnote in history by Monday. Just remember this. Clarke said on 60 Minutes:

"There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda ever."

Well, that might be true, were it nor for these minor details:

- The 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden

And, (via Deroy Murdock)

On Wednesday, he told the September 11 Commission about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative indicted who federal prosecutors indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that rocked the World Trade Center, killed six, and injured 1,042 people on February 26, 1993.

"He was an Iraqi," Clarke observed. "Therefore, when the explosion took place, and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq." While Clarke believes Baghdad did not orchestrate that attack, he concedes that Hussein embraced this assassin.

"The Iraqi government," Clarke continued, "didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists."

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Clarke the lying sack 

Get this:

GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony

WASHINGTON - In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.

Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath — either in 2002 or this week — when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war on terror

Is this any doubt in your mind that if Clarke testified against Clinton, this classified testimony would have been on the front page of the New York Times yesterday?

Arlen Specter  

Arlen Specter, the Liberal senator from my birthplace, Pennsylvania, is a real scumbag. Since this will be his last term, if he is re-elected, the Democrats might as well count another vote for themselves. Yesterday, he voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (probably hoping it will get struck down by some liberal judge). But, that was only after he voted for Dianne Feinstein's amendment, which would have made the bill a dead-letter, since it would have stated there is only one victim when a pregnant woman is attacked.

If you are a Pennsylvania Republican, support Pat Toomey in his bid to unseat Specter in the April primary.

[Update: Specter is an even bigger scumbag than I thought. He is so nervous, he is asking Democrats to switch party registration in order to vote for him.]

Did you notice... 

...that at last night's DUD, the biggest response from the Democrats in attendance came not for John Kerry, but for Howard Dean?

The Four Stooges 

Looky here. We have the most impotent, do-nothing President of the 20th Century, the guy who was too busy getting his pimp on to take on terrorism, the sorest loser you'll ever see, and the future loser of the next Presidential election. Take a good look at these guys, Democrats. This is the best your party has to offer.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

More on that Newdow character 

In some articles, I saw Michael Newdow referred to as Dr. Rev Newdow and Rev Dr. Newdow. I thought, "Reverend?" so I checked on it some more. Here is what I found:

Mike Newdow is an average guy who actually started his first religious institution while in junior high school in New Jersey. He finished high school there, and then undertook some university work in assorted locations. In 1977, he became an ordained minister, and has since lived his life according to the tenets of the Universal Life Church, which basically state: "Do what's right." In 1997, he started his second religious institution, the First Amendmist Church of True Science (FACTS). Although that ministry holds a firmly atheistic view of the world, it strongly supports the ideals behind the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Huh? Read that again, and then ask yourself, "Who is trying to impose their religion on who?" (I mean, "his daughter."...yeah, ok) And, get this:

"One day I was just looking at the coins (that) is what brought this up. I saw 'In God We Trust' on my coins. I said, 'I don't trust in God,' what is this? And I recalled there was something in the Constitution that said you're not allowed to do thatand so I did some research. And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it."

I thought it was his daughter being injured here. The media is on this guy's side, so, as you would expect, he is getting a free pass here. It is a shame no one is exposing him for what he is: A real scumbag who is pushing his beliefs on us, not vice versa. A real wonderful "religion," "do what's right." (And, recalled "there was something in the Constitution that said you're not allowed to do that?" I thought this guy had a law degree from the University of Michigan?)

Read again the first two words of his "church's" name: First Amendmist

A real scumbag this guy is.

President Bush and comedy 

The other day, I stated that I thought Bush should keep up the comedy when attacking John Kerry, because humor works. Last night, at the Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner, Bush was trying to be funny, and frankly, he bombed. Whoever wrote that for him should be fired and Bush should know better. Making light of "Where's the WMD's" was not exactly a smart thing to do, and he has given the Democrats a lot of fodder. You just know that him doing this will be in John Kerry's next set of comeercials. Plus, the media will remind us of this ad nauseum.

However, the Machiavellian in me thinks that his campaign planned this to get the spotlight off of 9/11 Commission and the Democrats Unity Dinner (DUD) tonight. Maybe, just maybe, the TV tonight will be forced to spend time at Bush's poor humor rather than playing up the Democrats, which most of the networks really want to do.

If I cared about daily polls, I'd tell you he'll take a hit on this. But, it won't last anyway.

Of course, John Kerry's feelings are hurt. Someone get him a tissue.

This should not even be a debate 

Fetus Protection Bill Nears Passage

WASHINGTON - Congress stood ready Thursday to send President Bush legislation making it a separate offense to harm a fetus during a violent federal crime, an issue that has become tangled with the battle over abortion.

The Senate cleared the way for passing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act by defeating an amendment, backed by abortion rights lawmakers, that would have increased penalties but maintained that an attack on a pregnant victim was a single-victim crime.

A single victim crime? The abortion promoters (they have long since passed being defenders) make me sick. If a pregnant woman is killed, there is 2 victims, end of story.

The key obstacle was an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would have imposed the same tougher penalties outlined in the DeWine bill but classified attacks on a pregnant woman as a single-victim crime, avoiding the issue of fetal rights and the question of when a person becomes a person.

Feinstein said that by defining when life begins, the bill was "the first step in removing a woman's right to choice, particularly in the early months of a pregnancy before viability." She said it could also chill embryonic stem cell research.

The fealty to the abortionists is staggering. When Stephanie and I went to our first ultrasound, I'll never forget how I felt. We saw the shape of Emily's head, the outline of her, etc. But, when I saw her spine clear as day, I was floored. That was when I started crying. At that point in time, Emily (we didn't know she was Emily until she was born. We did not find out in advance if she was a boy or girl. What can I say? I am old-fashioned) Emily may have not been "viable" according to Feinstein and NARAL, but that did not make her any less alive to us.

I am tired of the abortion promoters. I ask you this: How many women do you think regret their abortions? Now, ask your self how many women do you think regret not having an abortion. If you want to see what I mean about the pains of abortion regret, then read this powerful blog.

Look, there's Mutt and Jeff 

Kerry said at the rally that he had "respect and, more importantly, admiration for the conversation with America that Howard Dean began and we will now continue.''

"We indeed looked for the differences, but I tell you something, that we had to look hard for the differences,'' Kerry said.

They write this for me. I don't even have to work to make the case that Kerry is a Socialist. He does it for me. Please, Monsieur, keep reminding people that you and Howard Dean are exactly alike.

From Calliope's hometown rag 

Get this, from the Houston Chronicle:

'Passion of Christ' moves man to confess killing 'suicide' victim

RICHMOND -- Detectives say the death of a 19-year-old woman originally ruled a suicide has turned into a murder case after a repentant man who'd watched The Passion of the Christ confessed to killing her because she was carrying his child.

Fort Bend County Sheriff's Detective Mike Kubricht said today that investigators thought Ashley Nicole Wilson had hanged herself in January. Earlier this month, however, 21-year-old Dan R. Leach of Rosenberg turned himself in after watching Mel Gibson's controversial movie about the last days of Christ and decided to seek redemption, Kubricht said.

The young woman's body was found by her mother Jan. 19 in her Richmond-area apartment. The Harris County Medical Examiner ruled her death a suicide caused by asphyxia due to external compression with a ligature.

Then, on March 7, Leach, who had known the victim for many years, walked into the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Department headquarters and confessed to killing her.

Look at that, he had already gotten away with it. If you saw this movie, you understand fully why this guy was motivated to confess. In my view, that is enough of a mitigating factor to give him a life sentence instead of the death penalty. (No matter what, I am a hard-ass on crime)

Just look for the follow-up story disparaging his confession. I'm sure that will be coming soon.

E-mail on the New York Times 

This is an e-mail I recieved this morning:

If you hate the New York Times so much, why do you keep writing about them? You sound like a guy who says he doesn't miss his ex-girlfriend, but talks about her all the time. If you hate it, stop [expletive deleted] reading it.

My answer to why I hate the Times can be found here.

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Why not a triple? 

One more post on the New York Times. Read this column by Nicholas Kristof:

Ethnic Cleansing, Again

ALONG THE SUDAN-CHAD BORDER — The most vicious ethnic cleansing you've never heard of is unfolding here in the southeastern fringes of the Sahara Desert. It's a campaign of murder, rape and pillage by Sudan's Arab rulers that has forced 700,000 black African Sudanese to flee their villages.

Countless thousands of black Sudanese have been murdered, and 600,000 victims of this ethnic cleansing have fled to other parts of Sudan and are suffering from malnutrition and disease. The 110,000 who have fled into Chad are better off because of the magnificent response of the Chadian peasants. Chadians are desperately poor themselves, but they share what little food and water is available with the Sudanese refugees.

Two things: One, if you were to replace "blacks" with "Jews" or "Christians," no one at the Times would care. Think I'm kidding? Where was all the reporting from the Sudan when they were killing off Christians and burning down churches? Two, where is the "unique legitimacy of the United Nations" to put a halt to this?

With that being said, I applaud Kristof for using the pages of the Times to inform us of what is going on there. I didn't know before I read that. But, Kristof made a omission, a rather important one: He uses the terms, "Arab rulers," Arab leaders," and "Arab raiders."

He doesn't call them what they are: Muslims

Linda Greenhouse 

She is the New York Times' Supreme Court reporter. I stopped read her a while ago, because I just could not stand her liberal bias any longer. Get this characterization of Michael Newdow's argument:

But no one who managed to get a seat in the courtroom is likely ever to forget his spell-binding performance.

That is easy to say, considering the limited number of seats in the courtroom and the lack of video available. Who, in reality, would be able to contradict her?

Dr. Newdow engaged in repartee that, while never disrespectful, bore a closer resemblance to dinner-table one-upsmanship than to formal courtroom discourse.


Dr. Newdow, 50 years old, often spoke very rapidly but never appeared to lose his footing during the 30 minutes the court gave him. He managed a trick that far more experienced lawyers rarely accomplish: to bring the argument to a symmetrical and seemingly unhurried ending just as the red light comes on.

Gee, I wonder who she wants to prevail? The only thing Greenhouse seemed to miss was saying that "you could feel the ghosts of Clarence Darrow and Henry Clay in the air."

If it ain't an epidemic of homelessness.. 

...then it's an epidemic of hunger in the United States under a Republican administration. Just ask the New York Times, who, since 2001, seemed to have rediscovered these social ills. To paraphrase the incomparable Mark Steyn, "You’d have to have a heart of stone not to be doubled up in laughter" after reading this article. Some excerpts:

Come payday, the tough choices begin for Roxie Jackson. Her salary as a physical therapist's assistant has sustained her family of five in the middle-class suburb of Bloomfield, N.J., since her husband lost his job two years ago and income from her second job, with Mary Kay, declined before she eventually left it. So each week, Ms. Jackson weighs which bills she must pay and which must wait. And one factor is ever-present in her budget deliberations: hunger.

Her husband lost his job two years ago? How? Why? And why hasn't he gotten another one? He has a family of five to feed. What kind of man is this loser? I work two jobs (even though I don't really have to) to make sure Stephanie can dedicate her life to Emily. There are jobs to be had, and it took all of one paragraph for me to lose any sympathy I might have had for this family.

On the surface, hunger may seem more severe and more intractable in the hearts of the largest cities. But experts say that more and more people who live in suburban and outlying areas are also having to make hard choices that sometimes leave them scrambling for their next meal.

Nationwide, the number of suburban households facing food shortages rose by roughly a quarter-million from 2001 to 2002.

Code for white, probable Bush voters, and it all got worse from 2001-2002, which is, coincidentally, right after Bush took office.

Charlene Nickle, 52, for example, has turned to the Human Needs Food Pantry in Montclair, N.J., where she lives, to help feed the three grandchildren she raises, who are 8, 10 and 14. Each week, she visits the pantry to pick up fresh fruits, vegetables and meats, when they are available, along with canned goods, rice, powdered milk and cereal.

Now, exactly whose fault is it that this woman's daughter is a loser who can't even care for her own children?

A few years ago, Maritza Rosa, was a single mother on welfare struggling to feed eight children. "I know firsthand how it is to have food stamps run out and have no place to go," she said. "It's either you pay a bill or you don't feed your kids." Now, Ms. Rosa works as the assistant director of the Father English Community Center Food Pantry in Paterson, N.J.

Read that again. Single mother with eight children? Where are the father/fathers? Why was this women continuing to have children if she was on welfare?

And here, the Times finally decides to use research from a conservative organization, but, as expected, only to imply that they are heartless and out-of-touch.

Experts agree that hunger in the United States is not typically severe to the point where people are suffering malnourishment, but some disagree about how serious the problem is. For example, a recent report issued by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy and research organization in Washington, concluded that nearly all hunger in the United States is short-term and episodic rather than continuous.

But for some suburban residents, the reality is different.

And, get this woman:

Patti Perry, 40, lives in Montclair despite the high cost because she wants her seven children to be in good schools.

Ms. Perry, who is raising her children on her own, was laid off from her job with a telecommunications company at the end of February but has since been rehired in a different position. She makes "a pretty decent salary," she said, but between bills and her monthly rent of $1,850 for a one-bedroom home that she has converted to four bedrooms, her paycheck never seems to go far enough.

Now it's a single mother with "only" seven children. Plus, no wonder she needs food. I'd have to go to the food bank if I had a monthly rent of $1,850.

Could the Times possibly find a bunch of more unsympathetic people? And, why are they not asking the important questions, like "How the hell did you allow yourself to get in this position?" Plus, if you are a regular reader of the Times, then you know their editorial stance is that traditional families are passe, and are not necessary. Yet look at the people affected by this "food insecurity." Single mothers, a Grandmother, and a Mom who, for all intents and purposes, is single, since she has a lazy bum prideless loser for a husband.

They really had to stretch to justify the premise of this crap, er, article.

Quagmire watch 

While Kosovo burns, Kofi Annan shows real leadership, which should stop the violence immediately:

In New York UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged all parties to halt the violence, "which jeopardises the stability of Kosovo and the security of all its people," his spokesperson said.

And this is the band of incompetent dopes that John Kerry wants to put in charge of Iraq?

Pledge case 

If you are as interested as I am in the outcome of the Pledge of Allegiance case, then read this and this, two posts from people who were present at the Supreme Court this morning. The part I found most interesting:

The emotional peak of the argument came during Newdow's argument. In response to his assertions that the Pledge's reference to "under God" divides, rather than unites, the country, the Chief asked by what vote Congress added the phrase in 1954. Newdow responded that it was unanimous, to which the Chief joked, "That doesn't sound very divisive," to which Newdow responded, "That's because no atheist can get elected to office in this country." Several members of the audience then broke out in applause, a serious breach of decorum at this Court, causing the Chief to say angrily that the courtroom would be cleared if there was any more clapping.

Note to that publicity whore Newdow: (Who I just learned today is behind two other lawsuits, to rid of Congress's chaplains. The other is aimed at the Rev. Franklin Graham's prayer to Jesus at President Bush's inauguration) There is a reason an atheist can't get elected to Congress: Because the United States of America is, and has been since its founding, a religious nation. Newdow's argument, like so many others, is breathtakingly Orwellian. They say that things like the Pledge are forced indoctrination of the majority views, yet what Newdow is trying to do the same exact thing: Force his preferred atheism on the rest of us.

Sadly, the voice of the Godless is a lot louder than the voice of the religious. I guess religious people like me are too busy working to go to the Supreme Court and whine like babies over nothing.

One more thing: Listen to this ominous opening statement by Newdow:

"Every school morning, government agents, funded by tax dollars require..."

Words mean things. Not "teachers," which sounds docile, but "agents," which sounds Gestapo-like.

To be a liberal today.. 

means that...

- You have to rip Bush for attacking Iraq on imperfect intelligence while simultaneously attacking Bush for not attacking Afghanistan on imperfect intelligence, which was by far less threatening than what we had on Iraq.

- You complain about Bush doing nothing to stop 9/11 but you know that you would have had a cow if he had every Arab in an American flight school was arrested based on the Phoenix FBI Memo.

- You think taxes are too low.

- You complain about the high price of gas while doing everything to prevent ANWAR drilling.

- You think the U.N. is a moral authority while ignoring their fraudulent "Oil for food" program.

- You think Iraq is a quagmire and Kosovo isn't.

- You think Aristide was legitimately elected and Bush wasn't.

More to follow sometime in the future. Think about these examples, and you undertsand how pathetic it is to be a liberal today.

Richard Clarke 

What sank faster? The Titanic after hitting the iceberg, Paul O'Neill's credibility after he was on 60 Minutes, or Ricard Clarke's after he was on 60 Minutes. The liberal media has willfully missed this, but Clarke contradicted himself: Here's what he said on 60 Minutes:

"Frankly," Clarke told Stahl, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9-11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Here's what he said in 2002:

Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration...

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda

Funny, when he is selling a book or trying to score himself some partisan points, he has forgotten many of the things he said before. I'll be reading the liberal bloggers tonight to see how they spin this.

And, remember, he told 60 Minutes that there was no al-Qaeda-Iraq connection, which was a direct contradiction of what he said in 1999.

Liberals are upset at the so-called "Republican attack machine." Funny how merely pointing out that what he is saying today is the opposite of what he said before is an "attack."

Wictory Wednesday 

John Kerry's campaign has already raised a record-breaking $15 million over the Internet this month alone! And they're currently raising a million dollars a day. In fact, Kerry may very well raise a record $100 million before he accepts his party's nomination at the end of July.

We have to face up to the fact that the Bush campaign is already being outspent on the airwaves by shadowy liberal groups with hundreds of millions of dollars from limousine liberals like George Soros. Add Kerry's resources and we can expect a formidable barrage of anti-Bush ads on TV for the next several months.

Only you can help fight back against this assault. You have the power to even out the odds and give the Bush campaign the resources it needs to prevent an anti-war protester from becoming president.

Or maybe you'd prefer that President Kerry raise your taxes by a trillion dollars. He has already pledged to veto any attempt by Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date.

Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.

If you've already donated and volunteered for the Bush campaign, then talk to your friends and enlist them in this battle for America's very soul.

Laugh of the Day 

From the home of Eric "What Liberal Media?" Alterman, MSNBC:

The report revealed that in a previously undisclosed secret diplomatic mission, Saudi Arabia won a commitment from the Taliban to expel bin Laden in 1998. But a clash between the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and Saudi officials scuttled the arrangement, and Bush did not follow up.

Gee, what was Governor Bush thinking? Instapundit said it best: Why didn't he send the Texas Rangers to finish off Bin Laden?

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

No outrage, as expected 

Funny that John Kerry has a new ad showing himself in Vietnam. Where are all the people complaining that Kerry is using 58,000 dead for political purposes? The ad sucks, by the way.

The Pledge of Allegiance case 

Today, the Supreme Court will hear Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. (A good summary of the case can be found here) Publicity whore Michael Newdow, who sued the United States Congress, inter alia, alleging that the Pledge of Allegiance was offensive to his delicate feelings, uh, I mean violated his daughter's constitutional rights and that the pledge violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Of course, he was able to get those scumbags at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to agree with him, led by the most far-left worthless judge in this country, Stephen Reinhardt, who just happens to be married to Romona Ripson, the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. (The ACLU and the Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State have filed an amicus brief backing Newdow and the Ninth Circuit decision)

As you would expect, this selfish bastard is the hero of the liberal media. Time magazine made him Person of the Week. Get this:

We should all thank Newdow for giving us a reason to hope that one day, in the not-too-distant future, we will return to the America of September 10, 2001. To return to those days when we had nothing better to do than bicker over really critical issues like which politician is the most patriotic, or who has the biggest flag on the block. Thanks to Newdow's lawsuit charging the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional (due to that "under God" phrase), we've become reacquainted with that comforting place where flag-waving carries no sorrowful undertones, only simple pride or defiance.

This must be a joke. You can just feel the liberal disdain for patriotism and Americans who love their country. You just know this writer was disgusted with the outpouring of national unity after September 11th. Newdow is not one to be praised. He is a selfish weasel using his daughter as a prop to try and force his atheism on the rest of us, aided and abetted by like-minded liberal judges.

Newdow's ex-wife, who has primary custody of their daughter, feels differently. She and her daughter are church going Christians, while he is an avowed atheist. This is all about him and his vanity. What do you expect from a guy who has both a law degree and a medical degree? He even says as much:

Newdow, in an interview with Fox News, acknowledged that his daughter had been voluntarily saying the Pledge of Allegiance in her second- grade class in the Elk Grove (Calif.) school district. "This is more about me than her," he told Fox. "I'd like to keep her out of this."

To the Associated Press, Newdow asserted, "It's my parental right to keep the government off my child."

Yeah, but to get standing, he lied and said his daughter was injured. He is going to be arguing the case himself. I was flipping through the channels today and happened to see him on the Abrams Report. He was pathetic. If he argues in front of the Supreme Court like he conducted that interview, they will run all over him. After seeing how weak and unsure he was, I am even more upset that Scalia has recused himself from the case. Scalia would have mauled him.

Scalia made a huge mistake by speaking publicly against the decision, and made the right decision to recuse himself. (His integrity then was used against him in the Cheney case) Many people expect that, without Scalia, the decision will end up 4-4, thus keeping the Ninth Circuit ruling in place. However, I am not so sure. I would keep an eye on Justice Breyer, who may surprise many people and rule in favor of the Pledge. It is said that the Supreme Court follows the election returns, and I have think they may take notice of Congress' reaction to the Ninth Circuit decision as well.

If I had to make a prediction, the Court will avoid the Establishment Clause question by ruling that Newdow has no standing. If the Supreme Court rules the plegde unconstitutional, every vestige of Christianity in this country will be attacked, the "In God We Trust" on money, even the Supreme Court's opening call, "God save the United States and this honorable court." This assault in Christianity must be stopped right here and now.

The ACLU fights for free speech - that they agree with 

Daniel Pipes, a controversial figure to the left, recently spoke at American University. There was an organized disruption of his speech, led by Matt Bowles, who is National Field Organizer at the American Civil Liberties Union.

As Pipes took the podium at approximately 8:15 p.m., almost a third of the crowd of 150 took out black pieces of cloth and, in unison, wrapped the cloth around their mouths as a sort of "gag." This was apparently meant as a form of symbolic and silent protest of Pipes's ideas.
Ten minutes into the lecture, and again in unison, the protesters stood up, turned and knelt in their chairs to face the crowd behind them. Ten minutes later, the protesters took out signs that denounced "Campus Watch," an initiative begun by Pipes that monitors and acts as a watchdog against Middle Eastern Studies in North America and attempts to improve them.

Ahhh. The good ol' heckler's veto. Get this:

The phrase "heckler's veto" occurs in passing in the Supreme Court decision that declared the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional. Reno v. ACLU, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 2349 (1997) (The statute "would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a 'heckler's veto,' upon any opponent of indecent speech who might simply log on and inform the would-be discoursers that his 17-year-old child ... would be present.")

Note that, to a lawyer familiar with the First Amendment law, the phrase "heckler's veto" means something different than the plain English interpretation of the words suggests. In First Amendment law, a heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the reaction of the heckler. Under the First Amendment, this kind of heckler's veto is unconstitutional.

So, according to the ACLU, the Hecklers veto is unconstitutional when it comes to keeping porn from children, but not when it involves rational discussion that does not conform with the ACLU's pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, pro-terroris, anti-American, and anti-Israel stances. (Yes, I know the difference between government involvement and private speech, so save your e-mails. I am not interested in the legal niceties, I am interested in exposing ACLU hypocrisy)

Read the whole thing, especially how the ACLU tries to say this action was taken by Bowles as a private citizen, not as an ACLU member. (Talk about a distinction without a difference) Interesting that since, Bowles has been named Terrorism and Civil Liberties coordinator. Think about that title for a second. If you want to know about how the ACLU only cares about the civil rights of terrorists, (and homosexuals) and not about my right as a heterosexual male to no be killed, read this. I think your blood will boil just like mine did.

What liberal media? 

The liberal media has a lot invested in making sure that people continue to believe that Iraq has nothing to do with al-Qaeda, that Osama hated Saddam, and would never do business with him. Since I would rather wipe my ass with $20 then spend it on Clarke's book, I only know what is in it from what I have read. This is the first time I read about this, a chapter of the book that the liberal media seems to have not gotten to yet:

Clarke: Iraq Teamed up with Bin Laden to Produce WMDs

The media are fascinated with the parts of former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke's book that trash President Bush as being out to lunch on the al Qaeda threat before 9/11.

But reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.

In his book, Clarke describes how the Clinton CIA determined in 1996 that Sudan's Shifa chemical plant, which was allegedly bankrolled by bin Laden, was producing the chemical EMPTA.

If Clarke is so credible, why aren't they reporting this? You already know the answer.

More gay marriage in New Mexico 

In Sandoval County, which is next to the one I live in (4 days a week) New Mexico, the County Clerk Victoria Dunlap has decided that she shall make policy and interpret the law how she sees fit. While eating some Raisin Bran Crunch this morning, I read this in the print edition of the Albuquerque Journal:

Dunlap said Monday evening she is tired of waiting on lawyers and lawmakers to clarify New Mexico marriage law.

What arrogance!! (Sadly, this woman is an elected official, so firing her or defunding her job is not an option.) Thankfully, a judge put a top to this nonsense, but read this, about how this woman has decidied that she is the ultimate interpreter of law:

Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap said she decided to resume the practice of issuing such licenses after reviewing state law governing marriage and deciding same-sex marriage is not precluded.

"It's not in the law. There is nothing in the law that prohibits it," she said.

This woman ought to be arrested for her flagrant violation of the law. Think of this analogy: Imagine if someone is out on bail pending appeal, and a prosecutor decides the convict should start his jail term now because he is tired of waiting for the appeals court to decide, and his own research has found that the appeal is without merit anyway. Just imagine the outrage that would follow.

How pathetic is the DNC? 

Watch this flash video and you will see for yourself.

Picture of the day 

Take a look at the sign in the background: "Ex-French Citizen Proud U.S. Citizen"

Monday, March 22, 2004

Welfare rolls lowered, New York Times upset 

Here's a usual New York Times neutral headline:

Despite the Sluggish Economy, Welfare Rolls Actually Shrank

WASHINGTON, March 21 — In a trend that has surprised many experts, the federal welfare rolls have declined over the last three years, even as unemployment, poverty and the number of food stamp recipients have surged in a weak economy.

Of course this has "surprised many experts." The so-called "experts" that the Times looks to are all Bush-bashing doomsayers. (especially Paul Krugman) They let their ideology cloud what they see right before them.

This part only adds to the obvious Clinton legacy massaging that The Times has been passing on its readers for some time now:

In fact, in the last three years, the number of families on welfare has declined slightly, to two million, which is less than half the number receiving public assistance when President Bill Clinton signed the welfare law in August 1996.

Gee, forgotten is the part where Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, but signed it the third time when Dick Morris told him he would lose the 1996 election if he didn't sign it. Welfare reform was part of the GOP's Contract with America, led by Newt Gingrich.

Mark H. Greenberg, a lawyer at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a research and advocacy group, said, "One of the great mysteries of social policy in the last few years is why welfare caseloads have stayed essentially flat or declined in much of the country, despite the economic downturn."

And this is one of the so-called experts, from "an organization of program staff whose work is concentrated on family policy and access to civil legal assistance for low-income families" who have dedicated their efforts to this issue? The perpetual victimhood espoused by groups like this causes them to talk about solutions constantly, yet willfully fail to see them when they happen. In other words, the more they get what they are striving for, the less relevant they become. As such, there can never be any real progress.

This has got to be killing the Democrats, who need to breed government dependency to keep themselves in office. Get some of this denial:

But Shawn Fremstad, a policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research and advocacy group, said, "Falling caseloads amid rising poverty should be a cause for concern."

Wendell E. Primus, a welfare official in the Clinton administration who resigned to protest signing of the 1996 law, amplified that concern: "It's an indictment of the welfare law, the welfare system, that it has not been more responsive to economic conditions."

Read that again. To them, this only means that there isn't enough welfare being handed out right now!! And, they are so convinced that our economy is in the toilet, they refuse to see what is right before there eyes, that people may actually not be on welfare because they are working. People are taking personal repsonsiblity and aren't are poor as Democrats need them to be in this election year. Oh, the humanity!!

Axis of Slander 

Joe Wilson, Rand Beers, and Richard Clarke. Mark Kilmer has the story.

Where's the outrage? 

"Liberating Afghanistan was a failure!!! It has taken 2 months to write a Constitution!! Bush has failed." You heard all of that right up until Afghanistan finished its new Constitution.

"Bush has failed in Iraq!! People are arguing over the Constitution!! It'll never happen." - You heard all of that right until Iraq ratified it's new Constitution.

With all due respect to Bob Dole (who unlike Kerry, had the decency to resign his Senate seat to run for President), where is the outrage at this?

June target set for European constitution

How long have them haggling over this thing now? A year or so?

More on Richard Clarke 

Just like Paul O'Neill a few weeks ago, the media has a new hero, as we have all seen the past 2 days. A few things of note on Clarke. Read this article from February of last year, Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation. The money quote:

In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict.

Then, I read this in The Weekly Standard. Money quote:

IN HIS INTERVIEW with Stahl, Clarke goes to great lengths to suggest that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. At one point in the interview, Clarke makes a stunning declaration. "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

Leave aside the fact that Clarke was a key player in the decision to strike the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998. That strike came twenty days after al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton administration officials repeatedly cited Iraqi support for Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation and al Shifa in their defense of the targeting.

Disregard, too, the fact that when the Clinton Justice Department blamed bin Laden for those attacks, the indictment specifically cited an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda, under which the Iraqis would help al Qaeda with "weapons development" in exchange for a promise from bin Laden that he wouldn't work against the Iraqi regime.

Now Clarke is alleged to be some kind of terrorism czar, right? Then he (along with a lot of other people), needs to explain the assertion that Iraq and al-Qaeda had nothing to do with each other, when this connection is clearly stated in the indictment of Osama bin Laden, obtained by Janet Reno and the Justice Department in 1998:

al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically involving weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

Ask yourself why the media parrots the "there was no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq" meme, as well as the scandalous tone they use every time they talk about Bush wanting to find out if Iraq was involved in 9/11, when there is an indictment that clearly states there was an agreement between them. (More evidence of that connection here)

Then, after that, I read on Power Line that Clarke teaches a class at Harvard with Rand Beers, who, since lasy May, has been National Security/Homeland Security Issue Coordinator for...John Kerry!!

Funny how the liberal media seem to have been unable to earth this fact. Watch this guy fall apart and disappear as fast as Paul O'Neill did.

Required reading 

If you don't read Thomas Sowell religiously, you are cheating yourself. He is without a doubt one of the top 10 columnists today. His latest column is his usual excellence. An important excerpt:

What an irony that these two countries [France and Germany], with a track record of monumental foreign policy disasters, would be the ones to preen themselves on their superior wisdom in international affairs while impeding the American response to the terrorists' war. And what a pathetic thing that there are some Americans willing to accept French and German presumptions and condescension.

Read it.

Via Calliope 

Our Texas-based friend Calliope (Cynthia - I actually thought until now that Calliope was a guy! Silly me for assuming that) wanted me to make sure that this did not go unnoticed:

I see this crap and I am tempted to ignore it, since it is so outrageously beyond the pale. Free speech is a wonderful thing, and because of that, we have to put up with this. (Funny how the person holding this sign was less than anxiosu to have their own face exposed in the picture) When I lived in and around Philly, I used to go to NYC all the time. I haven't been there since September 11th, 2001, and, frankly, part of me does not want to, because I will be upset to see that empty space in the skyline. The dope holding this sign did not make it, someone else did. I would love to know who is behind it. Sadly, the compliant liberal media will never truly look into it, lest they hurt "Arab sensibilities." You just know a pro-Jihadist group is behind it somewhere, somehow.

(Via Drumwaster's Rants)

This made my day 

Via Cox and Forkum, who deserve to be syndicated in 200 newspapers. Let's hope they get the break they deserve soon.

My NCAA pool 

Well, some much for that. I had Mississippi State taking the whole thing. Oh well, Go St. Joe's!!!

NHL Officiating 

I blatantly jacked this image from Grapevine's Ramblings.

Somehow on this play, Donald Brashear of the Flyers got a double minor for clipping Teppo Numminen of the Dallas Stars. This depsite obvious visual evidence that it was Richard Matvichuk's stick that caught Numminen.

Unlike the Grapevine Sooner, as a lifelong Flyers fan, I did not appreciate that gift of 4 power play minutes to the Dallas Stars. However, this picture, in a nutshell, provides more proof of what I have said for years, that NHL officiating is about one step above pro wrestling.

The only decent referees/linesmen I have ever seen were Bill McCreary, Paul Stewart (a former goon for the Quebec Nordiques), and (80% of the time) Kerry Fraser, and Stephane Provost.

Other than those guys, the rest have to go. They are all inconsistent and erratic. Don Koharski definitely needs to "have another doughnut." Thankfully, that blind bat Leon Stickle has been retired for a while now. Mick McGeough lives up to his name every single game. (What he is, 6 foot 10, 6 foot 11?) If Terry Gregson were an NBA official, he would have been fired long ago. (He is always booed at the Wachovia Center when he is announced as the game's referee) Same for Don Van Massenhoven. Swede Knox needs to retire. Dan Marouelli needs to join him. Kevin Collins, that lanky prick, is possibly the second-worst linesman (behind Stickle) in NHL history. He never lets the players take care of business, and always forces minor incidents to escalate because the pussy players know he is going to protect them. And don't even get me started on Dave Jackson.

Nothing pisses me off more than the lack of obstruction penalties called. Thanks to such lousy officiating, the New Jersey Devils and their imitators have successfully turned back the clock on the NHL 100 years. Gary Bettman and Colin Campbell always say there is going to be a crackdown, and it usually lasts until the first week of December. I blame the officiating first and foremost for the decline in play in the NHL.

Sunday, March 21, 2004

Kerry on C-SPAN 

I watched John Kerry's appearance in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1971 and I was repulsed. In his first few sentences, Kerry's hypocrisy and BS (much like what we see today) was on full display. He said something close to this, "I'm sorry, I didn't get much sleep last night because of the injunction." He was referring to a Supreme Court ruling that stopped people from camping out on the Mall in Washington. What a piece of work!! He wasn't sleeping in the Mall with his fellow protesters, he was staying in a Georgetown mansion!

Watching him talk about all of the atrocities committed by American soldiers was disgusting. While I am sure they happened, just not on the scale he alleged, his open and shameless back-stabbing and anti-Americanism should outrage everyone. He droned on about how blacks were discriminated against, of course, never mentioning how his organization, VVAW, were ideological bedfellows of the Black Panthers.

2 things bothered me most: Him saying that it did not matter to the peasants of South Vietnam whether or not they live under the control of Communists, and his complaining about how Vietnam veterans were treated awfully upon their return, their high unemployment rates, etc. What the hell did he expect? When people like HIM were all over the place trashing Vietnam Vets for all kinds of atrocities, did he think that they would return to a ticker-tape parade?

Think of the hypocrisy of Kerry's statements like this: It would be like someone being pissed off at their wife for not inviting his brother to their son's 5th birthday party after he told her his brother was a pedophile.

After what this man has done throughout his career, I refuse to believe that the majority of this country will find him worthy of the Presidency. His blame-America first for everything was astonishing, nothing different than what he does today. He had no hatred for Communism then, and has no hatred for terrorism now.

This man is not worthy of the Presidency. I hope a lot of people saw that speech tonight, for either a reminder or for a history lesson. (I was born about 3 months after he gave that speech)

Hamas Founder Killed 

Israeli Air Strike Kills Hamas Founder

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Israeli helicopters fired missiles at Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin as he left a mosque near his house at daybreak Monday, residents said, and witnesses said he was killed.

Good riddance. I am here listening to Drudge radio, and the AP top of the hour news said that this "will probably spark another cycle of violence," as if Israel was wrong for taking this guy out. Oh well, I shouldn't be surprised at that attitude.

[Update: It seems the Palestinians are really pissed off at Ariel Sharon and want him dead:

Hamas leaders vowed Monday to "cut off" the head of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, after their spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed in a missile strike by Israeli helicopter gunships in Gaza City.

"Sharon has opened the gates of hell and nothing will stop us from cutting off his head," leaders of the radical Islamic group vowed.

"Words cannot describe the emotion of anger and hate inside our hearts," said Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Yassin in Gaza. He said that "the enemy should expect a response that will turn the ground under his feet to hell ... All of Palestine will turn into a volcano that will burn up the enemies."

Ok, and exactly how is this any different than the usual bile spewed by these scum?

Arlen Specter 

I grew in Philly, and I know all about that RINO Arlen Specter, who is a conservative only 1 of each 6 years of his term, the election year. He submarined Robert Bork in 1987, less than a year after he was re-elected, but was an important Clarence Thomas backer in 1991, a year before he was for re-election, for example. He also voted for school vouchers when he knew President "innocent under Scottish law" Clinton would veto it, but voted against them when he knew Bush would sign it.

Because I despise Specter, I am supporting Pat Toomey in his bid to unseat Specter for the Republican nomination. Obviously, Specter is nervous, or he wouldn't go out there and be a Republican like he did today:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top U.S. security expert is harshly critical of the Bush administration for failing to act on terror threats before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but a Republican senator said on Sunday the blame reaches back to former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

If Specter wins re-election again, this will be his last term, and no doubt he will be a Democrat. And, which worries me most, if he wins, he takes over the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let's hope Pennsylvania Republicans send Specter to retirement 6 years earlier than he planned.

[Update: The left-wing "white students looking for an internship need not apply" Philadelphia Daily News supports Specter. That is all I need as proof that Specter needs to go]

Line of the day 

From President Bush:

"Senator Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, for NAFTA, for the No Child Left Behind Act, and for the use of force in Iraq," the president said. "Now he opposes the Patriot Act, NAFTA, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the liberation of Iraq.

"My opponent clearly feels strongly about each of these issues," he added. "So strongly that one position is never just enough."

Bush could turn his campaign into a stand-up routine. And he should, because it will work.

Part of my life is in the rubble 

This is Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia, which was imploded this morning: (You can view some of the video here)

This is a sad day for me. Yes, The Vet was a dump, but it was my dump. I used to walk there as a kid to see the Phillies all the time, going up to the window and buying the $1 general admission ticket. (To get money to go to the games, I would stand outside the Pathmark or Acme supermarket to ask old ladies if they needed help with their bags for tips) Also, I sat in the 700 level watching countless Eagles games. But, my greatest memory of the Vet was on August 15, 1983, when I got to play there for the city championship in baseball for the 10-12 year old division. (We lost)

I will miss the Vet more than I could ever explain. Thank you to Steve Carlton, Pete Rose, Larry Bowa, Manny Trillo, Garry Maddox, Bake McBride, Bob Boone, Tug McGraw, Greg Luzinski, Lenny Dykstra, Darren Daulton, Curt Shilling, Jim Eisenreich, Milt Thompson, Mitch Williams, Dick Vermeil, Ron Jaworski, Wilbert Montgomery (my all-time favorite Eagle), Harold Carmichael, Mike Quick, Randall Cunningham, Duce Staley, Bill Bergey, Wes Hopkins, Buddy Ryan, Andre Waters, Reggie White, Clyde Simmons, Jerome Brown, Seth Joyner, Brian Dawkins, Donovan McNabb, Chuck Fusina, and Kelvin Bryant, among countless others, for many great memories.

Pick a leftist cause, any cause 

The next time you see a protest on TV or read about it in your local rag, and the "objective" reporters act as if the protesters are regular people, like your friends and neighbors, who have legitimate gripes, remember this photo:

Just show up and pick a cause. (I would have picked up the "Hope Begins With Kucinich" poster in the middle)

Saturday, March 20, 2004

More fishwrap tomfoolery 

Hundreds in S.F. protest war on anniversary

How many hundreds were there? Why, 400!! This is typical San Francisco welfare-state mentality:

"I'm here today because I am troubled that the United States is spending $80 billion to occupy a country that should be sovereign," said Sunaina Maira, —a professor of Asian American Studies at UC Davis who joined a group linking arms before the building. "We should be spending money for social services here."

A liberal professor? No way!!

Stephanie and her Mom had a yard sale this morning here in Albuquerque. 112 people stopped by in just over 3 1/2 hours. If they had stayed out there a bit longer, there may have been more people look at the clothes that don't fit Emily anymore than the number of people who protested in San Francisco today.

[Update: read this post at Little Green Footballs]

Nixon on Kerry 

Yesterday, I was enjoying the 95 degree day in Phoenix, and I heard a clip on the Rusty Humphries Show of Richard Nixon calling John Kerry a "phony" and an "opportunist." Here's the transcript:

April 28, 1971, 4:33 p.m. President Richard M. Nixon takes a call from his counsel, Charles Colson.

"This fellow Kerry that they had on last week," Colson tells the president, referring to a television appearance by John F. Kerry, a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"Yeah," Nixon responds.

"He turns out to be really quite a phony," Colson says.

"Well, he is sort of a phony, isn't he?" Nixon says.

Yes, Colson says in a gossiping vein, telling the president that Kerry stayed at the home of a Georgetown socialite while other protesters slept on the mall.

"He was in Vietnam a total of four months," Colson says "He's politically ambitious and just looking for an issue."


"He came back a hawk and became a dove when he saw the political opportunities," Colson says.

"Sure," Nixon responds. "Well, anyway, keep the faith."

There was more to this. Nixon talked about he Kerry was eating at the best restaurants too.

Does anyone have this audio clip or know a link where it can be found? It is hilarious to hear Nixon talk about the Kerry of 30 years ago, because it sounds just like the Kerry of today. Please e-mail or leave a comment on where it can be found.

Like Deja Vu all over again 

Notice something? Everyone that is coming out with an anti-Bush book, the media are more than happy to provide mounds and mounds of free publicity? Yet, when a pro-Bush book comes out, there is no 60 Minutes interview to be seen?

A few months ago, Paul O'Neill was the man of the hour. By the end of the week, he was exposed as nothing more than a pathetic man with an ax to grind. Now, Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism coordinator, has a book out telling everyone what a dolt Bush is and how he tried to warn Bush about al-Qaeda, but was ignored.

Ex-Aide Says Bush Doing 'Terrible Job'

The media wants you to think that this is some Bush insider that is being a heroic whistle-blower. But, actually, Richard A. Clarke is a career government official who was from May 1998, (who was President then?) the first National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism.

Now, after spending years getting a government salary, Clarke has his chance to cash in. Get this part:

Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Clarke said the president asked him directly to find whether Iraq was involved in the suicide hijackings.

"Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this,'" said Clarke, who told the president that U.S. intelligence agencies had never found a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.

"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection,' and in a very intimidating way," Clarke said.

You gotta love liberal logic. Because Bush demanded to find out of there was a connection, he must have wanted him to invent and, and tried to scare him into doing so. What, did he Bush expect to say, "Hey Rich, check to see if anyone else in involved. Make sure you investigate everyone from Arabs, to Somoans, to Norweigans, because we don't want to be seen as doing racial-profiling. Get back to me with a report by, say, March or April, ok?"

Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in from the State Department in 1992 to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.

From the State Department, the world's lawyer to America, to the Clinton administration, who did next to nothing about terrorism, and we are supposed to act as if this guy is some sort of soothsayer, who knew better than anyone else about al-Qaeda? Yeah, OK.

Take a minute and think about September 11th. At the time, I was 30 years old studying for my degree in Political Science at Arizona State University. That morning, while watching two TVs at once with my buddy Chris, I speculated that it could only be 1 of 5 possibilities: Iraq, al-Qaeda, Libya, North Korea, or China. I dismissed China, who as a rational actor, would not pull this off because that would be the end of them. North Korea I only dismissed as it was discovered that Arabs were behind it. I never discounted Iraq or Libya, even after it was determined that al-Qaeda was behind it. (Iraq had a huge hand in the 1993 WTC blombing, a story that has been buried for years. See this also.) President Bush and Secretary of Defense would have been totally irresponsible to NOT demand that we find out if Iraq was involved. I cannot believe that both the liberals and the media (the same thing msotly anyway) are acting as if Bush looking at Iraq is some sort of scandal. Saddam has supported terrorism all over the world. Do they actually expect me to believe that Saddam supported just about every terrorist organization going except the most successful one in the world? Oh, please.

Saddam must still be laughing at all the free lawyers he is getting in the Western press. He'll parrot all of this at his trial, and the media will eat it up. You watch. There is a segment of this country that would vote for Saddam if he were running against Bush in November. Believe that.

Here's my favorite part: Clarke will discuss in his book about how he and the Clinton administration briefed the incoming Bush administration about the urgency of dealing with al-Qaeda and bin Laden. Think about that: Clinton had 8 years to do something. If they knew the urgency of dealing with terrorism, why didn't they do something? (Talk about passing the buck) Clarke will discuss how the USS Cole investigation was coming together, etc. This in reality should show the worthlessness of the law enforcement approach to terrorism.

Andrew Sullivan... 

...has lost it. Why doesn't he just come out and support Kerry? After all, he is an openly-gay, HIV-positive commentator. If he isn't afraid to hide that, then why is he hiding his hopes that John Kerry wins.

I used to read Sullivan every day. I read him once a week at best now, because Sullivan has become what a despise: Someone who is so worried about "gay rights," nothing else matters to him. Not terrorism, not taxes, nothing. It is all about homosexual politics to him. I used to read him daily because I actually believed he wasn't like every other homosexual out there. I was wrong. Read this post to understand what I mean:

MCCAIN ON KERRY: Here's a question worth asking: whatever John Kerry's record, could he afford in office to be weak on terror? Wouldn't he be obliged to continue Bush's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and even, as he has already promised, actually increase troop levels in those countries? I don't think it's out of the question. John McCain knows Kerry and says he doesn't believe he'd be "weak on defense." Sometimes, a Democrat has to be tougher than a Republican in this area - if only to credentialize himself. I can certainly conceive of Richard Holbrooke being a tougher secretary of state than Colin Powell. I'm not yet convinced and want to hear much more from Kerry. But I'm persuadable. Four more years of religious-right social policy and Nixonian fiscal policy is not something I really want to support.

As you read that, you come to realize that Sullivan is no different than any other liberal trying to convince himself to support Kerry. What in Kerry's history makes Sullivan think that Kerry, once in office, would be any different than he has been in the last 30 years, a one-world socialist who will never put America's interests first if it means having Europe or the liberal interests groups not like him? And, Richard Holbrooke is just another internationalist who would show nothing more than fealty to the United Nations.

Sullivan now thinks that Bush is some religious zealot because he publicly stated his support for a Constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage, or banning gay marriage, whichever way you choose to look at it. The only difference between Bush and about 85% of the politicians in this country is that Bush had the guts to come out and be honest about his opposition to gay marriage. Even some of the most dedicated liberals in this country (i.e.Dianne Feinstein) won't even support gay marriage. There is a reason that gay marriage is not legal anywhere in the country, and that is because only a small minority who want it. And no one should be forced to accept it because a few unelected judges said that we must. If this country is run by some religious-right cabal, then I would love to here Sullivan explain why Christians today are more discriminated against than ever. I'd argue that Christians are more discriminated today than homosexuals, especially in the court system.

Andrew Sullivan is a left-wing militant homosexual. I realize that now. And I feel like I've been had.

This settles it 

Yasser Arafat Says Gibson Film Not Anti-Semitic

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat watched Mel Gibsons's controversial "Passion of the Christ" at a private screening on Saturday and said it was not anti-Semitic, officials said.

Who would know better than the world's foremost anti-Semite?


Yesterday, there were the beloved Cinderella team in the country. Today, there are a second-rate bunch of tournament choke artists.

Raise your hand if you had 10th-seeded Nevada going to the Sweet Sixteen. I thought not.

That damn John Ashcroft 

Not only is John Ashcroft trampling on the rights of woman, immigrants, minorities, homosexuals, and, well, everyone, with his Gestapo-like tactics. Now, reporters out to expose him for the evil potentate that he is are feeling his wrath:

Reporter following trail of corruption arrested

Oh, wait. Maureen Dowd got a hold of my keyboard. This is the actual headline:

Reporter following trail of corruption in EU arrested

Police arrested a leading investigative journalist yesterday on the orders of the European Union, seizing his computers, address books and archive of files in a move that stunned Euro-MPs.

Hans-Martin Tillack, the Brussels correspondent for Germany's Stern magazine, said he was held for 10 hours without access to a lawyer by the Belgian police after his office and home were raided by six officers.

"They asked me to tell them who my sources were. I replied that was something I would never do. Now they have all my sensitive files, so I suppose they'll find out anyway," he said last night.

"The police said I was lucky I wasn't in Burma or central Africa, where journalists get the real treatment," he added.

Mr Tillack said the raid was triggered by a complaint from the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF. He was accused of paying money to obtain a leaked OLAF dossier two years ago, which he denies.

Can you imagine if that went on here? The people would be outraged!! But, this is the current state of liberalism, ramapant corruption and intimidation of those who dissent. And to think, liberals in this country think that those Euro-trash are more sophisticated and morally superior to us Neanderthal Americans. To think, George W. Bush is villified for not bowing to those criminals. Unlike those blame-America first dopes amongst us, Bush sees those Euro-criminals for what they are, not what he wanst them to be. Get this part:

OLAF was created to replace the old fraud office UCLAF, which was accused of covering up abuses by the disgraced Santer Commission. Many UCLAF staff were transferred to OLAF.

Read that again. UCLAF was corrupt, yet they kept most of the people and just changed their name. (Talk about repainthing a '7 Datsun and calling it a new car. It sounds like a Democrat poverty program that failed. Just pass more laws and spend more money)

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Who Links Here # Robots.txt file created by http://www.webtoolcentral.com # For domain: http://www.djslybri.blogspot.com # All robots will spider the domain User-agent: * Disallow: