Tomfoolery of the Highest Order

This doesn't seem like a difficult choice:

A schoolteacher has been suspended in Zimbabwe for allegedly giving pupils the choice of being caned or suckling her breasts.

The woman faces a disciplinary hearing after one of the pupils reported the 'punishment' to his parents, reports the Herald.

The boy claimed he was asked to choose between suckling the teacher's breasts or receiving 100 strokes of the cane for being noisy.

The boy chose to suckle the teacher's breasts, as did 14 others, according to the newspaper.

I would have made the same choice too, unless the teacher looked like this:

First, get this:

Saddam Lawyer Says Trial Mockery of Justice

AMMAN, Jordan (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein will not get a fair trial and his captors have already decided his fate, the deposed Iraqi president's defense lawyer said Wednesday.

"This is a mockery of justice. We are facing clear legal violations. ... The allegations that this is going to be a fair trial is baseless," said Mohammad Rashdan, one of a 20-member legal team appointed by Saddam's wife to represent him...

"Any trial of the president is illegal and unjust and it follows from the aggression that took place against Iraq. The trial is a farce and the guilty verdict had been issued even before the trial has begun," he added.

If he thinks this is a mockery now, wait until the trial starts. I fully expect the media to willingly become Saddam's P.R. firm. Let's not kid anyone. This trial will not be about Saddam, the people he gassed, tortured, raped, and murdered. It will be all about President Bush.

"They are afraid of a bringing out the truth because a fair trial would be an indictment of (President) Bush. He has to first prove whether his entry into Iraq was legal or not," Rashdan said.

The saddest part is that he is close to the truth. The media will use Saddam's trial to indict Bush. Every last thing that comes from Saddam's mouth will be treated as the gospel, and Bush will be put on the defensive every single day. This will turn out to be the biggest circus in history, you watch.

By the way, coming to the United States District Court for the District of Northern California: Saddam's habeas petition. Remember I said that.

John Yoo, perhaps the most-hated law professor at Berkeley (which is a definite plus for me), has this assessment of the Court's decisions earlier this week.

The Supreme Court Goes to War

Will Baude is an intern at The New Republic Online, and has a lot to learn if he wants to get a job in the media. While he does have the Scalia is a "reactionary" line down pat, he must realize that he has no future with conclusions like this:

Unless he is simply a very bad yes-man, Clarence Thomas is a more independent voice than most people give him credit for.

For the sake of his future, Baude needs to start writing that Justice Thomas is a "house negro," "Uncle Tom," "affirmative action hire," "arch-conservative," and "tool of the religious right."

Seriously, his article, Brothers in Law? is an intellectually honest, well-thought out piece that would never get printed in the so-called mainstream media. And that is a shame.

Justice Thomas is a highly undervalued and appreciated justice, a victim of the real racists, liberals. Liberals always talk about how they are the only ones who want to help blacks. Yet, they are the first to smear any black who dares to "stray off the plantation." (See Rice, C., Powell, C., and Connelly, W. for more examples.)

I applaud intern Will Baude's work, and expect to see more great work from him in the future, as long as he finds the proper outlet.

Our pal Tom Friedman is taking a month off, and we are deprived of brilliance. (Come to think of it, things will be no different) In his place, the New York Times will run columns by Barbara Ehrenreich!! The press release says:

Barbara Ehrenreich, an award-winning author, will pen a column for The New York Times Op-Ed page as a guest columnist for one month beginning July 1. Her column will appear on Thursdays and Sundays in place of Thomas L. Friedman's column while he is on sabbatical to finish a book about geopolitics. Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, made the announcement today.

"We're very excited that Barbara agreed to spend next month on our pages," Ms. Collins said. "She's a brilliant social critic, historian and political commentator."

She is none of the above. Ehrenreich is a full-blown, hardcore Socialist. After I graduated from Arizona State, I stcuk around to pursue a second degree in Criminal Justice. I had no intention of finsihing that second degree, I only wanted to take some extra classes to prepare myself better for law school. I didn't want to start law school last year because Emily was on the way, so I used the downtime to improve myself. During that time, I took a course in Justice Theory, taught by Dr. Deb Henderson. Dr. Henderson was a full-blown leftist, who made us watch parts of some show Michael Moore used to host, and she made us read "Nickel and Dimed" by Ehrenreich. (Despite all that, I thought the world of Dr. Henderson. She was a terrific professor and a nice person.)

Nickel and Dimed was one of the dumbest books I ever read. Enrenreich took a minimun wage job and worked with some "poor" people who were suffering all kinds of hardships because they worked long hours for low pay. During a discussion of the book, after I had to endure 20 minutes of hearing my liberal classmates preach the liberal dogma, I hit them all with this line:

"I have zero sympathy for these people. It is hard to feel sorry for their inability to have anything when at the same time they have plenty of money for beer and pot."

That was the moment I became an outcast to half the class, and there were about 90 people in it.

The University of North Carolina forced incoming freshman last year to read the same drivel. I was watching Hannity and Colmes one night, and they had on a conservative student. Colmes said to the student:

"She's not a Socialist. She's a social democrat."

The kid said nothing in response. I yelled at the TV, to the kid, "You dope. You should have said, 'That's a distinction without a difference!'"

Ehrenreich is a joke, and I will have some fun fisking her crap in the next month. And, the way they are going, if you slapped "Worker's World daily" at the top of the New York Times, I'd never notice the difference.

No wonder the Hollywood liberals like John Kerry. They think the government is the solution to all of their problems.

Filmmakers Want U.S. to Protect Their Jobs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. cinematographers and other film industry workers have asked the Bush administration to take action against Canadian, Australian and other government filmmaking subsidies that they say have lured away tens of thousands of jobs.
"We have been harmed by runaway production of films, videos and television shows that are being made in foreign countries because of ... unfair trade practices," the Film and Television Action Committee said in comments filed this week with the Commerce Department's Unfair Trade Practices Task Force.

The Bush administration created the new task force as part of an initiative aimed at helping the U.S. manufacturing sector, which has lost nearly 3 million jobs since 2000. The panel is supposed to actively root out "unfair" foreign trade practices to keep jobs in the United States.

"We are asking that the Unfair Trade Practices Task Force address these (foreign film) subsidies as one of its first priorities," FTAC said. "The elaborate subsidy programs of Canada and other countries constitute extensive unfair trade practices that have damaged domestic interests in the amount of billions of dollars."

Awww. Poor babies. Perhaps they should complain instead to the movie heads who take their movie productions to foreign locales. This is the free market at work here. For example, having movies filmed in New Zealand is good for New Zealand because movies like Lord of the Rings have helped New Zealand's tourism industry. And, the exchange rates and local prices make it much cheaper for movie houses to film abroad. Who can blame people for choosing this route?

The free market always wins. This isn't a Socialist country. If Hollywood is being hurt financially, well boo-f'n-hoo. Perhaps they should take steps to keep jobs here in America. Next time, for example, they can pay Vin Diesel $10 million instead of $20 million for his latest bomb.

[Hat tip: Schpeen]

This is the note that Condi Rice passed to Bush the other day:



And Allah Pundit has the note that Terry McAullife passed to John Kerry:

You must see this collection of Michael Moore cartoons. Brilliant. My favorite:

Because they are making sure that when Israel bombs Iran's nuclear reactor right before it becomes operational, or when the U.S. is banging heads with Iran over nukes, the NY Times can take good ol' peaceful Iran's side without having this show up in their archives.

Iran nuclear spill cover-up feared

Western intelligence officials believe Iran's Revolutionary Guards tried to cover up a nuclear accident triggered when weapons-grade uranium was being shipped from North Korea.

The accident allegedly caused Tehran's new international airport to be sealed off by Revolutionary Guard commanders within hours of its official opening on May 9.

This can't be true. Iran is a peaceful country, full of artists, farmers, and thoughtful intellectuals, with civil rights and equality for all.

[Update: Link fixed]

Hey, want to criticize a candidate a week before that candidate stands for election? Don't you dare do it. You'll violate the law.

But, you say you want to disseminate porn, and come on to children online. No problem!! It's your First Amendment right.

High Court Upholds Block of Web Porn Law

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court blocked a law meant to shield Web-surfing children from dirty pictures and online come-ons, ruling Tuesday that the law also would cramp the free speech rights of adults to see and buy what they want on the Internet.

Technology such as filtering software may better protect children from unsavory material than such laws, the court said in a 5-4 ruling.

"Filters are less restrictive" and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source."

The ruling in Ashcroft v. ACLU was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday. The year's marquee cases involving presidential power to deal with terror suspects were announced Monday, and for the most part represented a setback for the Bush administration.

Hey, why no call for Justice Ginsburg to recused herself? She was only a lead attorney for those scumbags for nearly a decade. She has never ruled against them, and never will.

More tomfoolery from the politically correct British:

NO NURSERY FOR ENGLISH-SPEAKING BABY

A BOY of three had a full-time nursery place taken away partly because he speaks English and has a garden, says his mum.

Christopher Townsend was due to start in September but he no longer qualifies for a place under the council-run school's new admissions policy.

Mum Nicki, 39, said yesterday: "I was told he did not fit the criteria as he had English as his first language and that he came from a home with a garden."

Nicki, an occupational therapist, has lived in the catchment area for the nursery in Bristol for five years.

She said: "It is unfair that children who have lived here all their life are being penalised."

Christopher was originally offered a free full-time place at St Werburgh's Park nursery.

Now, soak this part in:

But the school is fast-tracking children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Children of asylum seekers, travellers and refugees, also fall into the criteria for priority admission.

Basically, they are saying, "Have you been a contributing member of British society for years? Well, too F'n bad. Those people who just got here are more important."

Unbelievable. Speaking English in England is now a negative. This slavish devotion to multiculturalism will be the death of England. Here's the mindset they are dealing with:

Acting head Liz Jenkins said yesterday: "The policy does include factors like not having a garden and having English as an additional language but they are not the sole criteria."

I'd love to hear the other things they use to keep out children.

Here's the headline in the Teabag telegraph:

Attack Iran, US chief ordered British

America's military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has disclosed.

Big difference between ordering someone to prepare and ordering someone to actually do it, isn't there? There is an old saying, "If you want peace, prepare for war." The way Iran has been interfering in Iraq (and they have, don't let anyone kid you) it would have been highly irresponsible to not prepare for the possibility of the conflict extending to Iran.

How typical of the America-hating press. Not only do that leave off a word that changes the entire meaning, they seem to overlook one important fact: If American wanted to expand the conflict to go after Iran, they would have done it already.

An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels.

Yeah, and Iran would have lost.

The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran.

Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions.

What's wrong with that? Should Sanchez just let Iran do what they wanted, and allow them to interfere with the conflict without reprisal? No question, he did the right thing.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers, making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.

Big deal. A Stealth Bomber or 2 could have sliced those numbers to next to thing in a day or so.

The incident is reminiscent of the exchange during the Kosovo conflict between the American general, Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander Europe, and Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the British commander.

When Gen Clark told Gen Jackson to send British troops into Pristina airport to prevent Russian troops from taking control Gen Jackson refused. He was reported to have said: "I am not going to start World War Three for you."

Uh, no it isn't. Wesley Clark wanted British troops to stop our allies, for nothing more than vanity, a huge difference. The Russians were part of the operation, not interfering with it.

This is just another example of today's British journalism, strained, biased, and ultimately worthless.

...because the Palestinians are getting better at killing Jews. Take a look at this astonishing headline:

Palestinian rockets are inaccurate, but they're hard to stop and getting better

That headline sounds like a morale-booster doesn't it?

The USA Today has no clue:

Rulings on prisoners would make Founders proud

The decisions uphold a legal tradition that stemmed from a backlash against British colonial rule. The Founding Fathers had seen the injustices that occur when authorities can throw people into jail indefinitely. In the Europe they and their forebears had left, such practices had been routine.

So they wrote it into the Constitution. It is called habeas corpus, the right to have an independent judge review whether a prisoner is being held without justification. The idea, which originally dates back to reforms of brutish abuses during the Middle Ages, was to prevent endless imprisonment without trial and to deter torture.

That might have been true of regular or innocent people, hustled off their farms for no apparent reason. I am quite sure they weren't too worried about the "civil rights" of the enemy in wartime, But the (warning: politically incorrect term coming; avert your eyes if easily offended) Founding Fathers would have just killed everyone of those combatants or held them as POWs, in some of the most horrific conditions imagineable, until they felt like letting them go. The Founders would never have let the enemy take us to one of our courts. If anything, they would have given them a fair trial and hung them (or had them shot) at sunset. If General Washington had found someone like Yaser Hamdi, and American citizen, fighting for the enemy, he'd have had him shot immediately as a traitor.

Speaking of Hamdi, the government should have charged him with treason the minute he asserted his American citizenship. Of course, his lawyer would have then countered that he actually expatriated himself by his actions and was not an American citizen. Who knows if the government would have met the evidentiary standard of two witnesses to the same overt act, but the point would have been made. Treason seems to be a dead letter now.

I am starting law school in 6 weeks, and I have been told that I will be a failure as an attorney with this attitude. I always counter, "Not really, since I'll be on the side of the prosecuters." If not caring about some scumbag on the battlefield, who doesn't have the decency to wear the uniform of an official army, means that I'll be a failure as an attorney, then I'll be a failure. My people come first, and always will.

I just love the end of his latest Telegraph piece:

I can understand the point of being Michael Moore: there's a lot of money in it. What's harder to figure out is the point of being a devoted follower of Michael Moore. Apparently, the sophisticated, cynical intellectual class is so naïve it'll fall for any old hooey peddled by a preening opportunist burlesque act. If the Saudis were smart, they'd have bought him up years ago, established his anti-Saudi credentials, and then used him to promote the defeat of their nemesis Bush.

Hmm. Maybe they don't need to. Stick him in a headdress and he looks like King Fahd's brother. All I'm saying is connect the dots.

Read the whole thing.

I didn't make that headline up. I didn't have to. She said it for me:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Yep, once again, it's the government's money, not yours. Just ask them.

...those gutless worms have cowered to the ACLU.

Fourth Street Live eases dress code restrictions

Bowing to criticisms from local activists and the American Civil Liberties Union, developers of the Fourth Street Live entertainment complex have decided to allow patrons to wear athletic jerseys.

Perhaps the ACLU should be forced to win in Court a little more often. That would be a nice change. Instead, gutless people bow down to them, allowing the ACLU to concentrate on neddlessly breaking even more balls elsewhere.

Here's a shocker:

No Retirements As Supreme Court Ends Term

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court wrapped up its nine-month term on Tuesday — on time — with praise for the administration's retiring solicitor general and no retirement announcements of its own.

The court traditionally ends its term before July 1, and the justices managed to do that despite dealing with major issues late in the year, including President Bush's war on terror.

In past years, justices who planned to retire announced their intentions at the close of a term. A retirement had been considered unlikely this year, however. All but one of the justices is past 60. The oldest, Justice John Paul Stevens, is 84. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist turns 80 this fall.

Of course there were no retirements, this is a Presidential election year. There hasn't been an election year retirement in a long, long time.

There is a great book about the politics of retiring from the Supreme Court, called "Deciding to Leave" by Professor Artemus Ward. Anyone who has read just a portion of that book will know why no justice will ever willingly leave during an election year.

Brendan sends this along:

Spy: More attacks due - and you can blame W

The premise of this book pisses me off to no end. And of course, the gutless coward refuses to put his name behind his words. The terrorists don't like our policies? Too fucking bad. I strongly disagree with China's human rights policies. Does that entitle me to slam planes into their buildings? Will this author make excuses for me if I do? I'm sorry, but this vile tome comes dangerously close to an "it's all our fault" philosophy that prompted principled leftists like Chris Hitchens to flee his former friends.

Once again, the AP has Bush being "slammed."

High Court Slams Bush on Terror Suspects

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the war on terrorism does not give the government a "blank check" to hold a U.S. citizen and foreign-born terror suspects in legal limbo, a forceful denunciation of Bush administration tactics since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Don't you just love the AP? If the Court doesn't agree with Bush, then they are "slamming" him. Oh, please. Everyone is slamming Bush, according to the AP, and everyone else for that matter. The entire liberal media must employ the same headline writer, and that guy must have "Slams Bush" saved on his F12 key or something. For example, we have:

Chirac slams Bush for interfering in Turkey's EU bid

CIA insider slams Bush antiterror policies

Kerry slams Bush foreign policy to woo Latino voters

Ronald Reagan's son slams Bush over Iraq, stem cell research

Vietnam veteran slams Bush administration

WASHINGTON CLERIC SLAMS BUSH `CHRISTIANITY'

NAACP Slams Bush Administration Policies

Gore slams Bush's environmental policies

German president slams Bush's justifications

US Nobel Laureate Slams Bush Gov't as "Worst" in American History

Albright slams Bush on French radio

Lieberman Slams Bush on Environment, Promises Change

'J.R. Ewing' slams Bush as 'sad figure'

NARAL Slams Bush in TV Ads

Nader Slams Bush and Post-911 Corporate Opportunism

Michael Moore Slams Bush In Texas

North Korea slams Bush stance

Kennedy slams Bush policy on Iraq

In SF, Gephardt Slams Bush Admin

Gulf War POW Slams Bush

Clinton climate change czar slams Bush

Castro Slams Bush Administration

Richard Gere slams Bush on Iraq policy

Hamas slams Bush's call to cut off its funding as ‘offensive'

Rosie weds longtime girlfriend, slams Bush

I could go on and on, but why bother? Perhaps you can now judge if you have made it or not simply by seeing if there is a headline that says "[insert your name here] slams Bush."

You can find some "Slams Kerry" examples here, but they are not nearly as numerous, and the list of "slammers" is not nearly as wide-ranging.

Jeff from Rants from a Young Mind sent along an article that he knew would get my goat real good.

Protesters allege bias in dress code for Louisville, Ky., nightclub district

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- The ACLU has joined protests against a ban on sports jerseys, sleeveless shirts and backwards baseball caps in Louisville's new nightclub district, saying the dress code is biased against blacks and poor people.

The city has given the developer of the month-old Fourth Street Live power to enforce its dress code three nights a week during special events along the block-long stretch restaurants, bars and shops.

"No other clubs have these kind of restrictions," said the Rev. Louis Coleman, who led about a dozen protesters in the district Monday. "When you look at the team shirts, the names on those shirts ... it's an urban thing, it's an inner-city thing being restricted."

Coleman and his protesters met with representatives of developer Cordish Co. on Monday and offered a compromise that would reverse much of the existing code, except sagging pants, bare midriffs and "gang-related clothing."

The ACLU is using the city approval as the reason to try and dictate with private undustry. The solution to this problem, if it is even a problem, is supplied by the Reverend Coleman himself, right in the article:

Unless a settlement is reached, Coleman said, anyone offended by the dress code should take their "green dollars" elsewhere.

You see, it's simple. If you want to the club to change their policies, show them that their policies cost them money. If it is enough money, they will change them. There is no civil right to go to a nightclub, and the ACLU should go scratch.

"If the city is going to turn over a public street to a private entity, they need to make sure it remains open to the public," said American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky executive director Beth Wilson, who wore a ball cap backwards during the protest.

Get lost. I worked for many years in nightclubs, and it is the punks like the ones that these clubs want to ban that can (and often do) destroy a place. And these punks are black, white, hispanic, you name it.

Perfect example. I worked part-time at Maui Nightclub in Philadelphia for nearly 7 years. My best friend was the resident DJ there for even longer. That place is no longer open. What killed it? Punks like these. Tons of fights and problems. Then, one night, someone pulled out a gun and killed someone, and the city closed the place down. These type of punks destroy rverything in their wake. I don't blame anyone for wanting to keep them out.

As for the ACLU, this isn't about civil rights, it is about them and money. They want to "get a settlement" and then recover huge legal fees, like they always do. Lousiville needs to tell pull a Cheney on them, and tell them to go F themselves.

Hey, pro-abortion zealots, explain this away to me. I'd love to hear it.

A new type of ultrasound scan has produced the vivid pictures of a 12 week-old foetus "walking" in the womb.

12 weeks, and an ultrasound can see all that. Explain to me how that isn't a life. Please.

...could you find a headline like this:

For Young Gays on the Streets, Survival Comes Before Pride

And, look at the picture, which screams at you, "Blacks are affected most." Homeless gay blacks. It's a Times' trifecta!!!

My favorite line of the movie:

"Go find some real work." - President Bush, to Michael Moore

I wanted to document a few things on that fat slob's crapfest. I could drone on for hours, but many others have documented the major nonsense of the movie. A few examples of what I haven't seen elsewhere (and I've read a lot):

- The woman who lost her son in Iraq was a very sympathetic person. Who doesn't feel for a mother who has lost her son? I cannot be the only person who caught this, but I think others have and are afraid to mention it for fear of seeming insensitive. (I myself have wavered over writing this, and I only get 150 hits a day.) The woman who lost her son said that when she was told, "she dropped the phone." I thought I heard that wrong, but a moment later she said she was all alone and had "no one to hold her up." I was outraged. The United States military informs next of kin directly, without exception, no matter where they are. For example, they went deep into the mountains in Mexico to inform a lost soldier's mother directly. I am not calling the woman a liar, but I am sure that Moore intended to leave the impression that our military is completely insensitive.

- The uniformed Marine who said he would not return to Iraq if ordered. His first name: Abdul. Hmmmm.

- The complete liberal hypocrisy: "Bush knew" that al-Qaeda was training pilots in America from the Phoenix FBI memo. (It actually said "Arabs" but hey, let's not get techincal here) Yet, liberals are the same people who would have screamed "racial profiling" in a second. And, Moore impugned the entire Saudi people over bin Laden, even showing a beheading (ironic in light over current events and Moore's portrayal of the "peaceful Iraq.") to get across the point that Saudis are bad people. I thought the liberal talking point in relation to the Muslim terrorists is that you can't impugn an entire people or religion over the actions of a few. Which is it?

- I cannot be the only one who thought this while watching the montage of children playing, etc, of a "peaceful, happy-go-lucky Iraq before Bush bombed them needlessly." When Moore showed the clip of the wedding scene, I thought, "Gee, I wonder if Uday or Qusay crashed that wedding, saying that they get to have the bride first or we'll kill everyone."

- The audio clips of soldiers griping. I've seen and heard most of them before. Like when Rumsfeld said about the "lootings" that the networks kept showing "the same guy carrying the same vase," I thought, "There's nothing new here." Big f'n deal.

- The scene where our troops raided an Iraqi home on Christmas Eve, complete with the Christmas music. You have to be a complete moron (or Moore's base, the same thing actually) to accept what Moore is implying. Iraqis are Muslims, and don't celebrate Christmas. If any Iraqis do, they surely do it in private and secret, fearful of those "tolerant" Muslims. This scene pissed me off more than any other, by far.

- Memo to blacks: When are you going to stand up and say "NO MORE!!" to liberal condecension? They treat you like the blacks on Amos and Andy or The Three Stooges, only now they say, "How do you know a voter was purged? Look at their color." And, people like Moore run out the line that because you are poor and stupid, you join the military. Because of that, it is mostly you blacks that are suffering and dying. How can you stand for this?

- Anyone else notice that Moore asked a woman, the one who put her flag out every morning) what she thought of Vietnam-era anti-war protestors and her answer was about today's anti-war protestors? Slick editing there.

- Why didn't Moore show any actual footage of the planes hitting the towers, the actual ruins, or any of the people jumping from 100 stories up? You know the answer. It would have hurt his premise. (I just love how the critics are covering this by praising the "artistic quality" of the audio over a black screen, and forgetting to mention he stole the idea off of a Mexican filmmaker.) We are supposed to forget all of that, and just know that 9/11 was the result of Bush's falling poll numbers. Moore didn't have the balls to say Bush was behind it, but the implication was clear.

- If Saddam saw this movie, he wouldn't believe his luck. He would be like many of the scum in the Arab world, stunned at how Americans like Moore are a P.R. machine for them, one they could never dream of pulling off themselves.

- I never knew Ashcroft was such a good singer. I enjoyed that part a ton.

- The last scene, where Bush messed up a story, was hilarious. But, so what? I was a DJ for a long time, and spoke in front of a lot of people, and I lost my train of thought a ton of times. I often compounded the mistake by trying to talk with mind blank. It is a tough thing to recover from.

- What was the deal about the Oregon state troopers? That is a local issue. What does Moore want us to think, that al-Qaeda might land a submarine off the Oregon coast? Bush has surprisingly good poll numbers in Oregon. I am convinced that had a lot to do with this nonsensical scene.

I think the law of unintended consequences will apply to this movie. I think a lot of people, who are smarter than Moore and his liberal ilk think they are, will be quite offended by this crapfest. I am sure our soldiers, past or present, will be as pissed off as I was. Americans aren't dumb in general as Moore thinks they are. They will, like me, not like Saddam being made into a poor, innocent victim of Bush.

Just remember this. For all his jawboning about people making $$ of 9/1 and the Iraq War, Moore will cash in more than almost anyone. He is a fucking asshole scumbag who I would punch in the face if I ever got the chance, consequences be damned.

F 911 shows a clip of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam in 1983. Rumsfeld at the time was a member of the private sector, was sent to several Middle East capitals as an envoy by President Reagan. (Remember, Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense for a time under Ford, and has the distinction of being both the youngest and oldest Sec of Def ever to serve.) The question is:

Why is this Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam so nefarious? In other words, how exactly are we supposed to interpret this picture?

And I met William Hung at the Beverly Hilton. I'll show the you picture in a few days. To be honest, I really didn't know who he was until I was told. only then, I realized that I read about him before on Professor Yin's Blog.

Here's an analysis that the Moore-loving media won't talk about. Farenheit 911 made less money on Saturday than it did on Friday. Saturday is always the biggest movie day of the week. Always. This weekend, out of all the top movies, only 1 did less business on Saturday than it did in Friday. Yep, F 911.

On Friday, while I was relaxing and making acquaintance with the porcelain god in my room at the Beverly Hilton, I was reading the complimentary copy of USA Today, and came across this laugher:

What should encourage Moore is the box-office performance of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Protests that the film was anti-Semitic sparked so much publicity that it has earned $370 million in North America.

Yeah, it was controversy that got all that box office for The Passion of the Christ. The subject matter had nothing to do with it. (Of course, USA Today gives F 911 3 1/2 stars, while it gave The Passion only 3 stars.)

I believe my original prediction will come true. It will do all its' business in the first week, and that will be that.

I had a great weekend in Los Angeles, despite the outrageous traffic. First, I went to the Ronald Reagan library in Simi Valley to pay my respects to a great man. Luckily, we got there early because, as we were leaving, people were coming in droves. That place is like a "shining city on a hill." What a beautiful library and memorial!!!

Then, I made my first visit to Dodger Stadium and enjoyed it immmensely. As an added bonus, I saw Vlad Guerrero hit a sweet jack and Garrett Anderson hit two of them. Since I have them both on my fantasy team, I was quite pleased.

And, last night, I met up with Lee from Right-Thinking From The Left Coast and Moore Watch. What a terrific guy to talk to and just hang out with. It was an honor to meet the man behind my favorite blog. We tried to see Farenheit 911 together, but it was sold out. (C'mon, if you know Lee, who better to see that crapfest with than him?) Instead, we decided to see Shrek 2, which was terrific. Well worth the $13.75. (I never paid more than $8.75 to see a movie before.

I have plenty of pictures and video of the journey, which I will share with you next weekend, after I get back to Albuquerque.

A bomb goes off in Turkey. Who do you think was behind it? I think it was Muslim terrorists, but I am just a blogging dope.

Istanbul Governor Muammer Guler told reporters the bomber in the commercial capital of Istanbul was an unidentified woman carrying the device in her lap when it exploded on board a bus outside a hospital in the mainly residential Fatih district.

"The bus was not the target. The bomb was being carried from one place to another ... We suspect a Marxist-Leninist group."

Sure it was. It would be silly to think otherwise.

I am off to Los Angeles, to spend the night at the Beverly Hills Hilton. (No, I ain't footing the bill. If I were, I'd be at the Motel 6 in Compton) Tomorrow, I am going to pay my respects to Ronald Reagan at his library in Simi Valley in the morning, and then attend the Dodgers-Angels game at Dodger Stadium tomorrow afternoon.

I am bringing both my digital camera and my digital video camera, and will post a video in the next week or so.

Ok, make your prediction on the domestic box office that Farenheit 911 will do.

My prediction: It will do $16 million this weekend, and no more than $35 million overall. This movie is Air America on celluloid.

Take a look at this image of British sailors being paraded about on camera by the Iranians.



Isn't this a violation of the Geneva Convention? Sure it is. But I guess that doesn't apply to scumbag mullahs.

I wish I had the audio clip of John Kerry whining about how he crossed the country to vote on a bill only to have the vote delayed. All of a sudden, Kerry wants to actually show up for work, and is mad that he wasn't catered to. I am quite sure we'll hear Kerry cry about this for months, to cover the fact that he isn't really a working member of the Senate right now.

Keep your eye on the Viking Pundit's Kerry Vote Watch. The last tally:

Different week – same story. The Senate was unusually productive last week, holding 19 roll call votes on judicial nominees and defense legislation. Kerry missed them all, even though he was in Washington for a period when the Senate was in session.

Days worked this session: 3
Missed vote percentage: 116/130 = 89%

He must have, because we heard about him 24/7. Now, that he has been smacked down, he has become Claude Raines.

Army unit claims victory over sheik

The Army's powerful 1st Armored Division is proclaiming victory over Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr's marauding militia that just a month ago seemed on the verge of conquering southern Iraq.
The Germany-based division defeated the militia with a mix of American firepower and money paid to informants. Officers today say "Operation Iron Saber" will go down in military history books as one of the most important battles in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

Great work by our fine military. They could have bombed Sadr and his thugs and their entire city into rubble within 5 minutes. Instead, because we are the most humane and decent people to ever grace this planet, our fine soldiers surgically ended the trouble Sadr and his thugs were causing.

This deserves much more attention than it is getting.

...the BBC or the Weekly World News? If you need a great laugh, then read this article about the law in America under George Bush. It is so ridiculous, I won't bother to fisk it. But, here are the biggest howlers of the column:

- It is full of books, and if anyone messes with books, they get Jacky's wrath.

"An FBI agent would not be welcome here," she says, standing in the lobby of the cavernous library in Berkeley, California. She is its director.

The Berkeley City Council, in time-honoured fashion for this counter-culture community, has decided not to obey George W Bush's Patriot Act should the FBI try to impose it here.

- For Jacky that would be breaking her librarian's code of practice.

"All of this is secret," she says. "All the courts operate in secret.

"The subpoenas are done in secret and any librarian who is approached is not allowed to talk about it under penalty of going to jail."

- The Patriot Act is an example.

"This is much more dangerous than the other periods," says Robert Schechtman, a 35-year-old student of German studies, who was instrumental in passing the University's resolution against the law.

"One of the early things Hitler did was to create a separate court system that was responsible only to him.

"And with the Patriot Act and the military tribunals we have a separate legal system in the United States which completely goes around the checks and balances that our system of government was founded on."

And here is the laugher of the month, from an attorney no less:

- "I don't know what's happening to this country," said Ihab Tabir, a Brooklyn immigration lawyer who is originally from Jordan.

"If you say anything against what is happening in Iraq for example, you can be arrested.

"You can't speak openly on the street anymore. I tell you, everyone is afraid."

Hard to believe that a serious editor would allow any of this propaganda to be published. Then again, it's the BBC, who hates the evil Americans, and loves the oppressed jihadists.

...and blacks are affected the worst. Just ask Reuters. Is there any anti-Bush spin that they won't find? This article is a joke. Read this astonishing headline:

Rising U.S. Homeownership Brings Woes - Study

And just what are these woes? Blacks actually have to pay for them!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A rise in U.S. urban minority homeownership has been accompanied by an even greater surge in the number of people straining to pay for their homes, the Fannie Mae Foundation said on Wednesday.

"Hundreds of thousands of urban minorities are struggling to sustain homeownership," the study said.

Homeowners stretching to pay for their homes are at greater risk of foreclosure and of spoiling their chances of borrowing in the future, according to the study, "A Tale of Two Cities: Growing Affordability Problems Amidst Rising Homeownership for Urban Minorities."

Memo to Reuters: Everyone who isn't real wealthy is struggling to pay their mortgage. So what? The biggest problem isn't interest rates or mortgage principles, it is the oppressive property taxes charged by local governments. For example, in New Jersey, my parents pay $4900 a year in property taxes on a 58 year-old house worth about $125,000. That's $400.00+ a month, before they pay a dime on their principle and interest. But, again I say, so what? It is better to own than to rent. Of course, Democrats don't feel that way.

The study, by Fannie Mae Foundation researcher Patrick Simmons, comes as Democrats criticize Bush administration housing policies, saying they have emphasized homeownership gains while letting rental subsidy programs wither. Administration officials cite minority homeownership gains over the past four years as a central accomplishment of recent housing policies.

Think about that. Democrats are upset because home ownership means more independence from government. Rental subsidies mean continued dependence on government programs to survive. As usual, this is all about ways to discredit Bush. First, minorities are suffering under Bush. If you are smart enough to laugh at that instead of buying it hook, line, and sinker, they'll offer you this:

But Democratic lawmakers say the increases are due to low mortgage interest rates, not administration efforts.

So, their logic is this: Bush is most hurting minorities, but the one's who have been helped weren't helped by Bush, but by low interest rates. (As if Bush's policies don't have a huge effect on interest rates)

Simple words, if you can't afford it, don't buy it. It is no one's fault but your own.

...this Photoshop is why I love the Allah Pundit.

I have been to South Korea, and I know how anti-American they are. I am sure they will blame this man's beheading on Bush.

I can say only this: If South Korea becomes even more gutless than they already are and ends their support of us in Iraq, then we had better take every last troop we have in South Korea out of there. You must understand the South Korean mentality. They think that Bush is a bigger evil than that Brillo-pad head Kim Jong-Il, the man who has murdered millions of Koreans. I will be keeping my eye on them, even though I already know how they will respond.

The BBC, funded by teabag-taxpayers, is once again taking the side of the enemy.

UK sailors 'admit Iran incursion'

Iranian television has broadcast statements by detained British sailors apparently admitting entering Iranian territorial waters illegally.
Two of the eight sailors being held said they crossed the border from Iraq by accident, according to an Arabic translation played over their words.

Did it ever cross the BBC's mind that the sailors are being coerced? How could they possibly report these statements as if they have any merit?

22 years ago, a few British soldiers being humiliated on TV, 7,000 miles away, in an area that possessed zero interest for the Biritsh, was enough to cause a war. Today, the British take something much more important lying down. Why?

My theory is that they are afriad. Afraid that the Muslims living in Britain might do something to them if Britian gets tough on Iran, the same people that they have allowed to overrun their country in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Get this:

An Iranian military spokesman said the sailors' fate had not been decided.

There have been a series of conflicting reports about whether the men will be put on trial or freed.

F The Iranians. The British should be deciding their fate, and should have done so already, with a simple declaration: Give them back now or this is war.

If you are a British reader of this blog, ((I knew of at least 3) tell me how you can stand for this humiliation from a few scumbag Mullahs?

Didn't Paul Krugman just say last week that John Ashcroft is the worst Attorney General in history? Read this passage closely:

We can't tell directly whether Mr. Ashcroft's post 9/11 policies are protecting the United States from terrorist attacks. But a number of pieces of evidence suggest otherwise.

First, there's the absence of any major successful prosecutions. The one set of convictions that seemed fairly significant — that of the "Detroit 3" — appears to be collapsing over accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. (The lead prosecutor has filed a whistle-blower suit against Mr. Ashcroft, accusing him of botching the case. The Justice Department, in turn, has opened investigations against the prosecutor. Payback? I report, you decide.)

Then there is the lack of any major captures. Somewhere, the anthrax terrorist is laughing. But the Justice Department, you'll be happy to know, is trying to determine whether it can file bioterrorism charges against a Buffalo art professor whose work includes harmless bacteria in petri dishes.

Perhaps most telling is the way Mr. Ashcroft responds to criticism of his performance. His first move is always to withhold the evidence. Then he tries to change the subject by making a dramatic announcement of a terrorist threat.

Now this week, Krugman says that Ashcroft is scum because he didn't announce an arrest of a Texas man plotting a cyanide bomb attack. Well, which is it, Paul? Is Ashcroft doing nothing, doing too much, or what?

Krugman basically says that because it was a right-wing terorist, Ashcroft tried to bury the story, and reminds us all of something that he thinks we didn't know already:

The discovery of the Texas cyanide bomb should have served as a wake-up call: 9/11 has focused our attention on the threat from Islamic radicals, but murderous right-wing fanatics are still out there.

What Krugman is trying to do is nothing more than moral equivalence. Simply put, right-wing terrorists are no different than radical Muslims, and are an equal threat to us all. Oh, please. Muslims terrorist incidents outnumber all others 500 to 1, minimum.

Someone forget to tell Krugman that the Democrat talking point, "Ashcroft is evil," faded out a while back, because it became obvious that it wasn't working outside of far-left circles.

Oh well, at least Krugman is a better columnist than he is an economist.

I received this question via e-mail from Ben S.:

I am a strong supporter of Bush, and I am very angered and saddened to see so much opposition to him from Americans and other countries. I want him to win this election very much and cringe to even imagine Kerry as our president. What makes you so sure and confident that Bush will win this fall?

My response:

I am confident that he will win due to history and my knowledge of the American people. No matter what the press says, people aren't dumb. They know what happened on 9/11, they know Saddam was an evil bastard who had to go, they know the economy isn't as bad as they are told, (not even close) and they see that Abu Gharib is nothing compared to our people getting beheaded and burned up an dragged through the streets.

Here is the perfect historical analogy: We all know how Nixon was hated, and how unpopular Vietnam was, right? The press tells us all the time how it was. When it came time to vote, Nixon won 49 states to 1. If he was that hated and Vietnam was that unpopular, why did the liberal anti-war candidate get trounced?

While Kerry will win more than 1 state, he will not win nearly enough to defeat Bush. Really, who knows what he really stands for? Even Kerry supporters know that he is a waffler and is a pandering opportunist who doesn't think past today. (But, the sad thing is, they don't give a damn and will vote for him no matter what)

Bush will win because enough Americans know that he is for America first, and conveys a postive attitude. The so-called elite may laughed at his being a Christian, but most of America sure doesn't. They share his values, and they know Kerry doesn't.

Bush will win, don't you worry. Like many other things, the only people who will shocked by this will be the left-wing media, insular liberals, and blind America-haters. You watch.

Get this:

Third Parties on Right Could Be Problem for Bush

Yeah, OK. More wishful thinking for the Bush-haters.

In yet another constitutional abomination, a few unelected federal judges have decided that they make all the rules, and if Congress tries to alter them, they'll just say Congress is violating the Constitution.

Judge: Federal Sentencing Unconstitutional

BOSTON - In a scathing criticism of the system used to punish federal crimes, a judge on Monday called the government's sentencing guidelines unconstitutional, saying they unfairly limit the authority of judges.

Are these judges we are talking about or op-ed columnists?

In a series of drug cases, U.S. District Judge William Young said the guidelines put too much power in the hands of prosecutors and give judges too little discretion in sentencing.

Young's criticisms mirror those of many judges and defense attorneys who have complained for years about the sentencing guidelines, which became effective in 1987.

The guidelines, aimed at preventing disparities in sentencing, set up a grid system for sentencing defendants according to factors such as their criminal background, the seriousness of the crime, defendants' acceptance of responsibility and level of cooperation with authorities.

Many judges have expressed frustration that they have little ability to use their own judgment in sentencing and are instead bound by the categories established in the guidelines.

Judges don't like being told what to do, and it upsets them to no end that they can't give out probation and short sentences at Club Fed when they feel like it. Boo-f'n-hoo. Judges' duties are to apply the law, not make it. Congress is charged with making the law, and setting punishments for violation of the law. Sentencing Guidelines do not violate the Separation of Powers nor do they interfere with Judiciary. I didn't make that last sentence up. The Supreme Court already said so, in MISTRETTA v. UNITED STATES, 488 U.S. 361 (1989)

In his ruling, Young said he believes the sentences handed down to five defendants were too harsh and violated their constitutional right to due process. Young asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out the sentences and send the cases back for new sentencing hearings.

Simply breathtaking. The Due Process Clause is violated when judges can't do whatever they damn well please. Judges are getting more ridiculous by the week.

I am quite sure that judges have a legitimate complaint, that in some cases they are forced to give out harsh sentences that are unwarranted, given the unique circumstances of the case. However, if this is a problem, it is a problem for Congress and Congress alone to rectify.

...and this rises to the level of "Tomfoolery of the Highest Order." Our friends at the Detroit Press supply us with this laugher:

Headline:

Poll suggests slim majority of Michiganders favors anti-affirmative action proposal

In the body of the story:

But a January poll suggests a slim majority of Michigan voters support a ban on affirmative action in admissions and state hiring. A Detroit News poll conducted Jan. 7-12 of 400 registered voters found 64 percent of respondents favored a ban on affirmative action; 23 percent were opposed.

64-23 is a "slim majority?" OK, whatever they say.

Hat tip to (who else?) Oh, That Liberal Media

That fat, smelly wanker Michael Moore, in his latest tomfoolery, has now threatened to sue anyone who dares try to expose him for the fraud that he is. Our friend Lee, who runs both Right-Thinking and Moore Watch, may eventually be a target of Moore. Knowing Lee, I don't think that will stop him at all.

Someone needs to teach those mullahs a little history. After all, nonsense like this is how the Falklands War started.

Iran seizes three British navy boats, eight crew on Iraq border

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran seized three British naval patrol boats and detained eight sailors after they entered the Islamic republic's territorial waters on the Iraqi border, officials said.

"This morning, three British boats with eight people on board entered Iranian territorial waters. The Iranian navy, in accordance with their duties, seized these boats and arrested the crew," spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement.

"They are currently being interrogated and an investigation is underway," he added. Official sources said the small patrol boats were armed with heavy machine-guns, and identified the detained Britons as "Royal Navy commandos".

Back in 1982, about 10 or so British soldiers were shown on TV back in the U.K. tied and bound up on the ground. The British people were pissed, and soon they were at war with Argentina. Iran had better tread lightly, or they may face some serious problems from the Britisg. And, if it came to it, I would gladly support helping our loyal friends take care of business.

Let's not kid anyone. Iran pulled this as a test run to see how much they can mess with the coalition and get away with it. Forget diplomacy. The British should tell them return our boats and men immediately, or it will be considered an act of war. They will upset the gutless liberals, but, too f'n bad, because an ultimatium will make sure this doesn;t happen again.

...to run a positive story out of Baghdad.

It's a Dirty Job, but They Do It, Secretly, in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 18 — It was an engineering success on the order of stringing the first cables for the Brooklyn Bridge or coaxing the first glimmer of starlight through some giant telescope to unravel the structure of the universe.

But when it occurred late last month, the achievement remained cloaked in absolute secrecy, marked only by a quiet celebration among participants who may remain forever unknown to history.

Raw sewage was treated in Baghdad.

The stream of treated water that eventually found its way into the Tigris River was hardly more than a trickle, roughly 20 million gallons a day from a city that produces raw sewage at something like 10 times that rate or more. But the accomplishment is all but epoch-making in a city where the sewage plants are in such disrepair that for the last 10 to 15 years, every drop of that muck was poured untreated into the river, fouling everything from boat landings to drinking water systems downstream.

Successes like this one were just what Congress envisioned when it appropriated billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, hoping the improvements would convince Iraqis of America's good will.

Nice work out of our people. A damn shame we don't se more stories like this, because there are plenty more where this came from.

Bill Clinton was less than truthful? No way. France would kiss the ass of murderous thugocracies before that would ever happen:

Rather: (9/11) Commission member Bob Kerrey, former Democratic senator, someone you know well, said that you, President Clinton, let pass opportunities to arrest or kill the al Qaeda leadership. Is that true?

Clinton: I don't believe that is true. There was a story, which was factually innaccurate, that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. And as far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that.

No evidence of that? The reports that Clinton had an opportunity to arrest bin Laden must be a part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Listen to VRWC caherter member Bill Clinton at work in this audio clip, where Clinton himself claims he had an offer for bin Laden, but declined because "we had no basis on which to hold him."

There is no possible way that France would do the bidding of Middle East thugs in order to secure lucrative contracts. No way. They have never, and would never do anything like this:

Paris arrests 'used to seal Iran deals'

France has been accused of agreeing to a crackdown on exiled opponents of Iran in return for lucrative commercial contracts.

Lawyers for France's human rights league, speaking on the anniversary of a huge police raid on the National Council of Resistance of Iran near Paris, pointed out "troubling coincidences" in the timing of the operation and a series of deals with Teheran.

In March last year, the regime signed a large contract with the French telecommunications group Alcatel for a telephone network.

In April last year Teheran offered the petrol giant TotalFina a £660 million gas fields contract. At the same time, a contract was signed with Renault to produce 500,000 cars over four years, the lawyers said.

Then, in June, police arrested 164 members of the Iranian opposition and placed 17 under investigation for having links with or funding terrorism. The authorities said they were looking for a link with a mortar attack on the office of the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, in Teheran in 2000.

France, once again, selling their soul to pay for the high costs of social welfare.

Courtesy of our liberal friend Oliver Willis:

[T]he fall of the Berlin wall and communism was not solely the product of Ronald Reagan. He helped push, but nothing would have happened if the people of Europe didn't want it. At the same time, Reagan and the right were so blinded in their quest against anti-communism that they ended up funding the same people who grew up to become Al Qaeda.

Astonishing. So, according to Ollie's "logic," Reagan only was minimally involved in the end of the Berlin Wall, because, at some point in time that just coincidentally happened around the time that Reagan demanded that Gorbachev tear down the wall, the people of Europe decided that, after 28 years, they were no longer happy with the wall being there, and Gorby happily obliged the word of the masses, as the Soviets always did. In other words, Reagan was, once again, lucky.

There is a part of a book, "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life," by Peter Robinson (who wrote the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech that deals with this. Robinson was having dinner with some locals and he mentioned that he heard that many people have become accustomed to the wall being there. He recieved a terse response that stuck with him. A man said something close to this: "My sister lives on the other side of the wall, about 15 miles away, and I haven't seen her in 20 years. How can you possibly think I am used to that wall?"

Oliver Willis has gone off the deep end, and I no longer read him. It is a shame, because he used to write some decent, albeit liberal, things.

One other thing. The only time the words "Reagan" and "lucky" should ever be used in the same sentence is when this is written. "We were damn lucky to have Reagan as President."

I hope all of you Dads had a great day today. I sure did. First, we went over to the Sandia Casino to enjoy their $5.50 breakfast buffet. (Luckily, we got there before the long lines.) Then, I came home to a bunch of gifts from Emily, and we had lots of laughs and fun. While Emily was born in December, I consider this my 2nd Father's Day, since we celebrated both Mother's and Father's Day when Stephanie was pregnant because Emily was alive to us the day we found out she was on the way. That's right, we didn't need to consult the Supreme Court, the New York Times, or NARAL to find out when our baby could be considered alive. We knew she was at conception.

Thank God for Emily, and being a Dad is the greatest thing that ever happened to me. If you are interested, our San Diego vacation web page is under construction, but you can see the progress by clicking here.

When James Buchanan made his inagural speech in 1857, he was discussing the pending Dred Scott decision from the Supreme Court when he said this:

To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be[.]

What he failed to mention was that he already knew what they were going to decide, because his buddy Roger B. Taney already told him. Today, the New York Times has a lengthy article on how the Bush administration has "overstate[d][the] value of Guantánamo Detainees." Since this is the last week of the Court's term, and their decision in the case pertaining to the Guantanamo Bay detainess will be announced this week, I think the New York Times already knows the decision, thanks to a leak. However, this newspaper is so nefarious, I can't decide if they are giving the Court advance help for the negative reaction they would get if they ordered the detainees must have access to U.S. courts, or to pre-emptively delegitimize the Court's decision to keep the detainess out of U.S, Courts.

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, June 19 — For nearly two and a half years, American officials have maintained that locked within the steel-mesh cells of the military prison here are some of the world's most dangerous terrorists — "the worst of a very bad lot," Vice President Dick Cheney has called them.

The officials say information gleaned from the detainees has exposed terrorist cells, thwarted planned attacks and revealed vital intelligence about Al Qaeda. The secrets they hold and the threats they pose justify holding them indefinitely without charge, Bush administration officials have said.

But as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legal status of the 595 men imprisoned here, an examination by The New York Times has found that government and military officials have repeatedly exaggerated both the danger the detainees posed and the intelligence they have provided.

In interviews, dozens of high-level military, intelligence and law-enforcement officials in the United States, Europe and the Middle East said that contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials, none of the detainees at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda. They said only a relative handful — some put the number at about a dozen, others more than two dozen — were sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings.

To that I say, "So f'n what?" These "poor and innocent" people are lucky to be alive, as they could have easily been killed on the battlefield and forgotten about. I am sure there are a few people caught up innocently (but not more than a few), but, too bad. 3,000 innocent Americans were killed on September 11th, 2001 in a plot hatched in Afghanistan, and I don't care one whit if we hold those people for 10 years. (When I graduate law school in 3 years, the ACLU will not be hiring me. Somehow, I'll find the courage to carry on) We are at war. This isn't a stateside drug sting we're talking about. This next part is what I call "sneaky bastardism," typical of the New York Times.

While some Guantánamo intelligence has aided terrorism investigations, none of of it has enabled intelligence or law-enforcement services to foil imminent attacks, the officials said. Compared with the higher-profile Qaeda operatives held elsewhere by the C.I.A., the Guantánamo detainees have provided only a trickle of intelligence with current value, the officials said. Because nearly all of that intelligence is classified, most of the officials would discuss it only on the condition of anonymity.

Of course they are not helping to foil "imminent attacks." They don't know about them and can't take part in them, and what they are offering has no "current value" because they are currently out of the terrorist loop. Why is that? BECAUSE THEY ARE LOCKED UP!!

You have to read all the way to the end of this article to find this part:

In interviews, the officials said at least five prisoners released from Guantánamo since early 2003 had rejoined the Taliban and resumed attacks on American and Afghan government forces. Although two American officials said only one of the former detainees had turned out to be an important figure, Afghan officials said all five men were in fact commanders with close contacts to the Taliban leadership.

"They are fighting again and killing people," said Khan Muhammad, the senior military commander in southern Afghanistan...

Other detainees who are known to have been released and then taken up arms are Mullah Shakur and two men known only as Sabitullah and Rahmatullah. A senior security official, Abdullah Laghmani, described all five men as commanders with close ties to the outlawed Taliban leadership.

Afghan officials blamed the United States for the return of the five men to the Taliban's ranks, saying neither American military officials nor the Kabul police, who briefly process the detainees when they are sent home, consult them about the detainees they free.

"There are lots of people who were innocent, and they are capturing them, just on anyone's information," said Dr. Laghmani, the chief of the National Security Directorate in Kandahar. "And then they are releasing guilty people."

The answer to why many of these people are not being released is found right there. The Times starts the article by criticizing the U.S. for holding scum, and then ends it by criticizing them for releasing scum that should never have been let go. That last quote is just another case of the Times old "quote someone who agrees with us" trick. We can't do anything right: We let the guilty go, and keep the innocent in.

Once again, the old Gray Bitch shows her true colors.

It seems that the AP has updated this story to be a bit more honest.

U.S. Attacks al-Zarqawi Hideout; 16 Dead

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military stepped up its campaign against militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, launching an airstrike Saturday that pulverized a suspected hideout in Fallujah. At least 16 people were killed and several houses in the residential neighborhood were wrecked.

But, as expected, they thrown in this laugher:

Residents, however, accused the United States of striking twice — the second time after rescuers moved into the site trying to pull out victims.

You have to be galactically stupid to believe that has any remote chance of being true.

Andrew Sullivan has for a long time now, with some justification, screamed about the abuse scandal. However, he isn't fooling me one bit. His hatred for the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the abuse, it is the church's stance on homosexuality. His latest comments:

I've long believed that this scandal goes right to the heart of the current hierarchy in Rome.

Andrew is likely right by saying this. But, I wonder why Sullivan never discusses the one indisputable fact in the whole scandal: That the perpetrators are all deviant homosexuals? That angle always seems to get left out.

Jamie and "His Deuce"

My cousin Jamie just sent this picture of him standing outside of an Iraq-run store at the base he is stationed at in Mosul. An Arab running a 7-11? I'm sure it feels just like home.

Even Howard Fineman of Newsweek, one of Kerry's biggest media boosters, knows that they best thing for Kerry to do is stay invisible, because the more people hear him, the more they don't like him. of course, Fineman can't come out and say that, so he acts like Kerry should just let Bush self-destruct.

Best Advice for Kerry: Be Invisible

June 16 - I’ve figured out what Sen. John Kerry needs to do to win the White House this November: wrap himself in Harry Potter’s Invisibility Cloak. If the Massachusetts senator can only stay out of sight for long enough, George W. Bush’s presidency may sink into the sands of Iraq.

Wishful thinking cloaked as strategy advice. Fat chance Bush will self-destruct, no matter how much people like Fineman hope for it. (They surely won't pray to God, since they think religiousness is a joke) Fineman goes back to the Carter of 1980 line like Business Week was running a few weeks back. There are no gas lines, double-digit unemployment, 20% interest rates, a hostage crisis that the President did next to nothing about, or a gutless leader at the helm blaming the American people for everything. (plus, notice how the "Reagan was lucky" meme gets snuck in there too)

As I see it, nothing much is going to matter in this campaign besides the TV debates—particularly the first one. If Kerry is going to win, the historical analogy to look at is 1980. The American people had had it up to here with Jimmy Carter. They were ready—desperate—for an alternative. They weren’t paying all that much attention to the former governor of California.

In the first debate, they finally looked at Ronald Reagan and decided that, while he certainly wasn’t perfect, he was safe enough—and that was all they needed. Carter’s brilliant polltaker, Pat Caddell, always said that the decision to debate Reagan cost his boss the election. Bush has no choice in the matter, I don’t think. He has to debate. Indeed, there will be three of them.

Liberals like Fineman might be fed up with Bush, but the American people in general surely aren't. Of course they want Kerry to shut up, to keep him from saying dumb things like this, via David Brooks:

Sometimes in the unscripted moments of a campaign, when the handlers are away, a candidate shows his true nature. Earlier this month, Andres Oppenheimer of The Miami Herald asked John Kerry what he thought of something called the Varela Project. Kerry said it was "counterproductive." It's necessary to try other approaches, he added.

The Varela Project happens to be one of the most inspiring democracy movements in the world today. It is being led by a Cuban dissident named Oswaldo Payá, who has spent his life trying to topple Castro's regime. Payá realized early on that the dictatorship would never be overthrown by a direct Bay of Pigs-style military assault, but it could be undermined by a peaceful grass-roots movement of Christian democrats, modeling themselves on Martin Luther King Jr.

No matter how much the media tries to shine up Kerry, more than enough voters will see Kerry for what he is. A zero.

Hurry and and click on AP article this before they change it:

U.S. Missiles Kill 16 Fallujah Residents

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. military plane fired missiles Saturday into a residential neighborhood in Fallujah, killing at least 16 people and leveling houses in the restive Sunni Muslim city, police and residents said.

Gee, if I didn't know the AP as well as I did, I'd think our fine forces were blowing up poor, innocent people sitting in their houses watching Arab Idol or something. Ahh, but you have to read down to find out what we were doing, contained in one small sentence:

It was not clear what the target was, but U.S. officials have said Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be hiding in the city.

That is all there is. The rest of the article is full of distractors. No sensible person could possibly believe that our military wantonly fired on a neighborhood. Why does the AP think that any reasonale person would? Sure, the America-haters here and abroad believe it, and would think it even if the AP didn't slant the news this way. But, does the AP actually think that they are changing one reasonable mind?

Considering that most people, if not all, have already made up their mind on John Kerry, this might be true.

G.O.P. Offensive Puts Small Dent in Kerry's Image

WASHINGTON, June 19 — When John Kerry effectively nailed down the Democratic presidential nomination on March 2, the White House was waiting. With relentless precision, it began a 90-day campaign to weaken Mr. Kerry's candidacy, a blast that included record spending on television advertisements and attacks on Mr. Kerry's credentials and ideology led by President Bush himself.

The Republican spring offensive — unusual in its early timing, its toughness and the decision of Mr. Bush to personally engage his opponent so far before November — effectively ends on Sunday, as the Bush campaign suspends its broadcast television advertising until next month.

Three months and $85 million after Mr. Bush began, pollsters and independent analysts said that while Mr. Bush had raised doubts about Mr. Kerry, he had not scored as much damage as some Democrats had feared — or some Republicans had anticipated — with this unusually expensive and early assault, particularly given the size of the investment and the use of Mr. Bush.

Bush's ads haven't changed my image of Kerry one bit. I think think he is the flip-flopping, conviction-less, one-world Socialist liberal I always thought he was.

This article is nothing more than a morale-booster for those liberal Democrats who, in their heart of hearts, know that they have nominated a dud of a candidate.

Want to see a Democrat take the side of Enron? Just wait until this happens:

Sources: Enron's Lay May Be Indicted Soon

HOUSTON - Kenneth Lay, Enron Corp.'s founder and former chairman, could be indicted on charges stemming from its 2001 collapse by the end of June, sources close to the case told The Associated Press on Saturday.

After all their screaming about Ken Lay and Enron, as soon as this indictment comes down, the Democrats will scream about it being nothing but a political tactic.

Funny, isn't it, that Democrats have blamed Bush for all of Enron's crap, yet it all happened under Clinton's watch, and it ended under Bush's? It is purely amazing how Democrats and liberals are able to completely forget history. I wish I could do that. There are plenty of things I'd like to forget about forever.

...accoridng to this dumb teabag reporting from Los Angeles. Get this:

Latest horror could destroy President of divided nation

Is this the horror that will finally undo George Bush's presidency? First Nicholas Berg, now Paul Johnson: in two months and in two different countries, two US civilians have been kidnapped and beheaded by their al-Qa'ida-affiliated captors, becoming not only pawns in a deadly geopolitical game but also symbols of the complicated feelings of revulsion unleashed by the Bush administration's "war on terror".

It is hard not to think back to earlier acts of defiance against the might of the United States and wonder if we are not seeing a parallel erosion of presidential authority: the steady drip-drip of casualty figures from Vietnam that proved the undoing of Lyndon Johnson's presidency in 1968, or the corrosive effect of the Iran hostage crisis on Jimmy Carter 12 years later.

This teabag needs to get out of Los Angeles and away from the crowd that he runs with. Is there no length these leftists would go to discredit Bush? He is doing nothing more than wishful thinking. Bush isn't micromanaging everything from the oval office, refusing to win, like LBJ, and Bush surely isn't sitting on his ass like Carter did when there were 52 hostages being held for 444 days. Plus, there is no "steady drip-drip of casualty figures" from Iraq that are remotely close to those from Vietnam. We lost 58,000 people in Vietnam. To equal that in Iraq, at current rates, we'd have to be there for 967 months, or 80 1/2 years.

Yesterday, a Washington Post article was headlined: "Is al-Qa'ida winning in Saudi Arabia?" It was just such questions about America's enemies that led President Johnson to his "Cronkite moment" in 1968 - his realisation that he could no longer count on the support of the country's favourite television news anchor, Walter Cronkite, and that he had therefore lost the sympathy of the electorate as a whole.

One small problem with that. Cronkite single-handedly turned the Tet Offensive into a victory for the North Vietnamese, when it reality it was a devestating loss for them. Lucky for us, there is no single person today with that type of media power, and even with the combined strength of the broadcast networs, WaPo, the NY Times, LA Times, et al, they can't destroy American morale like Cronkite did.

Sorry, Mr. Bad-Tooth Teabag, but your article is a miserable failure, not our efforts.

It seems that President Bush isn't pandering to the militant homosexuals, and they are whining again.

Bush: No to 'Gay Pride Month'
President refuses to issue June proclamation

Homosexual activists are fuming over President Bush's refusal to declare June "Gay Pride Month."

Nevertheless, without official support, several groups of federal workers are still planning activities.

Leonard Hirsch, president of Federal GLOBE — the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Federal Employee’s organization — told the Washington Blade, a homosexual weekly, that events are scheduled at the departments of Transportation, State, Interior and the USDA, while other agencies have said they will not sanction events without White House approval.

"We have continued to be boxed in a Catch-22 because agencies are saying that they can't provide support or statements unless the White House puts forth a proclamation," he said. "And of course the White House has not."

That is what it has come to: If you don't give special treatment to homosexuals, you are a bigot. Acceptance and tolerance just ain't enough anymore.

...because there is no way an Islamic theocracy would ever be dishonest.

Images Show Iran May Be Hiding Nuke Plan

NEW YORK — Satellite photos of two locations in Iran show the nation may be continuing to pursue and hide a program to produce nuclear weapons, images obtained exclusively by Fox News show.

One site at Natanz appears to show a hidden uranium enrichment plant, possibly surrounded by defense fortifications capable of thwarting an attack. The other site, Arak, is a heavy water facility used to make plutonium.

The two sites together could be capable of building atomic bombs. "You have to conclude this is not part of an energy program, this is part of a weapons program," John Pike, the founder of Globalsecurity.org , told Fox News.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog is investigating the photos. The U.S. intelligence community also has the images.

That's reassuring. Maybe by 2012, long after Tehran has nukes, the U.N. will pretend to address the issue.

On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency censured Iran for past cover-ups in its nuclear program in a resolution that warned Tehran to be more forthcoming.

Iranian officials have said that if the United Nations were to pursue a resolution like that agreed upon Thursday, Tehran would continue with their enrichment program.


Look at that. Iran is already preparing the "they forced us to do it" response. Let's hope Israel takes care of this problem like they did in 1981 when they bombed Osirak in Iraq. Sure, the Arab world will be outraged, but, how could anyone tell the difference anyway?

Look at this: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion ruling in favor of the ACLU, who is trying to sue Arizona over their school choice system.

Funny how no one ever mentions that she was one of the ACLU's top lawyers for 8 years or so, and has never ruled against them. Why is there never any calls for her to recuse herself in cases involving the ACLU? You already know the answer.

I saw this bumper sticker about 2 weeks ago on a car at the Phoenix airport, and laughed my ass off. Then today, i was making my daily trip to mASS BACKWARDS, and saw it again:



Priceless.

Michael Ramirez in the L.A. Times is dead-on with this:



These days, children are more afraid to say "Under God" than they are to not say it, thanks to the liberal indoctrination they get everyday at school. That is why Emily will be going to private, Christian or Catholic schools only.

I am glad that Saudi Arabia killed the son of a bitch responsible for beheading Paul Johnson. However, I am still a bit skeptical about the Saudis. I wondered why they only caught him right after, and not before Johnson was killed. Fox News then reported that he was caught disposing the body and was killed then. Perfectly reasonable, and I might have accepted it 100% if it were anyone other than the Saudis. I don't trust those duplicitous bastards one iota.

Remember reading MacBeth? MacBeth immediately kills King Duncan's bodyguards upon "discovering" the death of the king, as an act of revenge? His haste in killing them leads the other to be suspicious of him, because they wanted the bodyguards alive for questioning. Everytime I see something happen, and the Saudis immediately kill or execute those responsible, I cannot help but be reminded of MacBeth.

Nevertheless. I pray those scum who killed Mr. Johnson suffered horrible and painful deaths.

The Democrats are planning to honor Ted Kennedy at the convention in Boston. Get this:

June 18, 2004 -- The opening night of next month's Demo cratic convention in Boston is set to feature an emotional party tribute to hometown hero Ted Kennedy, who has served in office longer than every other senator but one.
Guess no one at the Democratic National Committee took a close look at the calendar: That July 26 salute to Teddy just happens to coincide with . . . the 35th anniversary of Chappaquiddick.

It was on July 25, 1969, that the senator appeared before a Massachusetts district court judge and, in a proceeding that lasted all of seven minutes, pleaded guilty to one count of failing to report the accident that resulted in the death of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne.

No jail time was imposed; the only official sanction Kennedy ever suffered was the temporary loss of his driver's license.

I wonder how many networks will mention this anniversary...

The Club For Growth is going to be running a commercial featuring President Reagan in the next week or so. Just watch the Democrats cry about Bush "politicizing" Reagan's death, acting as if The Club For Growth is an arm of the Bush/Cheney campaign. And remember, these are the same people who say with a straight face that groups like MoveOn.org and those other 527's have nothing to do with John Kerry.