Out of loop for a couple of days

I am seeing a neurosurgeon tomorrow for my ruptured discs, so I will likely not be updating today or tomorrow. It's only a consultation, so I won't know what I'm looking at (surgery, injections, etc.) until then. Thank you for your words of concern...very much appreciated!

JRL

Definat Blather

Dan Blather is still as defiant as ever. Not that anyone should be surprised, considering his impending retirement (courtesy of the blogosphere...and you're welcome!), he can say whatever he wants to. After all, he can't be fired again, right?

Link here.

Blogs under attack my liberal MSM (pardon the redundancy)

From Coulter's Republicans, bloggers and gays, oh my! column:

In response to the public disgrace and ruin of New York Times editor Howell Raines, CBS anchor Dan Rather and CNN news director Eason Jordan, liberals are directing their fury at the blogs. Once derided as people sitting around their living rooms in pajamas, now obscure writers for unknown websites are coming under more intensive background checks than CIA agents.

The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown "Talon News" service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a website where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?

Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon's only offense is that he may be gay.

First, liberals claimed Gannon was a White House plant who received a press pass so that he could ask softball questions – a perk reserved for New York Times reporters during the Clinton years. Their proof was that while "real" journalists (like Jayson Blair) were being denied press passes, Gannon had one, even though he writes for a website that no one has ever heard of – but still big enough to be a target of liberal hatred! (By the way, if writing for a news organization with no viewers is grounds for being denied a press pass, why do MSNBC reporters have them?)

On the op-ed page of the New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: "I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the 'Barberini Faun' is credentialed?"

Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter.

But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification"). Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass – even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public editor will get right on Dowd's deception.)

Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon's real name is "James Guckert." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews introduced the Gannon scandal this way: "Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a right-wing website get inside the White House press briefings and presidential news conferences?"

Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on "the phony alias Guckert used to play journalist" – as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist because he uses phrases like "phony alias.") With all the subtlety of a gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning "HotMilitaryStuds.com" and laughing.

Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner – aka Larry King, Geraldo Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak. The greatest essayist of modern times was Eric Blair, aka George Orwell. The worst essayist of modern times is "TRB" of The New Republic.

Air America radio host and "Nanny" impersonator "Randi Rhodes" goes by a fake name, and she won't even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for "privacy reasons." That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses "to withhold anything from her listeners" and says conservatives "are less likely to share such things." How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.

Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and John Kerry) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious "Talon News" service; they were merely Democrats running for president.

Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like the New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on television and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.)

Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed. Liberals' hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth campaign against Gannon consists solely of their claim that he is gay.

Blogs under attack my the MSM? Bring it on, fellas! We elected a president and took down media icons Rather and Jordan, and you want another piece of us, huh? Game on, b#tch!

By the way, Coulter's right about the gay issue. Libs are supposed to be compassionate and pro-gay, yet here they are going after a guy for being gay (as well as conservative). In the 2002 Montana U.S. Senate race, Democrat incumbent Max Baucus ran against Republican Mike Taylor, and Baucus ran commercials questioning Taylor's sexuality for being a hair stylist. So in typical liberal fashion and modus operandi, gayness (like blackness) is okay as long as it stays in the liberal bathhouse (like plantation) and not the conservative one!

Prager: Liberal "feelings"

If you notice, my mission statement here deals with the "feeling-but-not-thinking" ideology of modern liberalism. I take pride in the fact that Dennis Prager makes the same observation in his column. Here's an excerpt:

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe.

The entire edifice of moral relativism, a foundation of leftist ideology, is built on the notion of feelings deciding right and wrong. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The animals-and-humans-are-equivalent movement is based entirely on feelings. People see chickens killed and lobsters boiled, feel for the animals, and shortly thereafter abandon thought completely, and equate chicken and lobster suffering to that of a person under the same circumstances.

(snip...)

Elevating motives above results is a significant part of liberalism. What matters is believing that one is well intentioned -- that one cares for the poor, hates racism, loathes inequality and loves peace.

The emphasis on the last paragraph is mine, because the point is well-made. One reason that liberals are hostile to business is that business expects results, not intentions...and to leftists, intentions matter much more than results.

Please, indulge me and read it in its entirety. It's not long, and it makes for quick yet informative reading!

Should we raise taxes for Social Security?

Economist Thomas Sowell has the following short and sweet observation about the wisdom in raising Social Security taxes:

Raising Social Security taxes today will not leave a dime more to pay pensions to future retirees. Right now there is more money coming into the system than is going out -- and the difference gets spent on other things. Higher taxes now would mean a bigger excess to be spent on other things, leaving nothing more for the future.

I've made mention of the so-called "surpluses" of the Clinton years. There was no such thing. Their "surplus" went like this:

Let's say that Congress projected in its budget that $500 billion would be collected in Social Security payroll taxes. Let's say that the actual amount collected was $900 billion. Did the extra $400 billion go into the mythical SS "Lockbox"? Hell no! Part of it went to plug the spending deficit of $300 billion. That left a budget "surplus" of $100 billion, right?

Wrong! The SS surplus was indeed real, but the budget "surplus" was not...because the extra money collected for SS should have gone into the SS "lockbox"! But since (a) Congress overspent the way it always did (and does) and saw the SS surplus funds as a way to plug the hole, and (b) Congress spends the SS money faster than Domino's get the pizza to your house, there is no "lockbox"...and therefore, no "surplus"! But Congress (members of both parties) wanted to be able to go back during elections cycles to brag about the bang-up job they did in balancing the budget and even having money left over!

So, considering that Congress pissed away all SS surplus funds in order to further bloat government and buy votes, what makes a sane person believe that raising SS taxes would raise additional money for SS that would not be pissed away, too? Their track record isn't very flattering!

By the way, this is an indictment on both Republicans (who controlled the purse strings in the 1990's as well as today) and Democrats (who controlled the Oval Office for most of the 1990's)! Greed and powerlust know no political parties.

Libs: Let convicts vote!

Noting "voting irregularities", such as the dwindling number of people voting for them, liberals have come up with a type of outreach program of sorts: allowing convicted felons to vote. Story here.

Currently, some states do not automatically restore felons' voting rights when they are released from prison. Some kinda crap about "proving themselves fit for society" or some heartless mantra, I guess. Florida is one such state. Under Her Highness (Shrillary Clinton) and John F'ing Loser Kerry's plan (hey, he may finally come up with legislation that has eluded him for 20 years!), the libs would expand their base by adding convicted felons to the electorate.

Well, considering that felons are already voting for them, along with dead people, pets, illegal aliens, and terrorists...I don't know why the left needs to posture to make the convicts happy! They've already got a lock on their votes!

It looks like Dems learned from the last several elections: when you keep losing, find more votes, however unsavory the sources may be!

One more gem from this story, from Mr. Heinz himself:

Kerry, who lost the national contest by 3.3 million votes nationwide and 118,000 within Ohio, denied the bill was an attempt to discredit the 2004 results.

"This has nothing to do with me," said Kerry. "It is not partisan, or shouldn't be."

Riiiiiiiiiight...which would explain why he was at the photo-op to begin with! Because it's not about him! Or maybe..."it wasn't about me, before it was about me!"

Libs attempting to reinstate oxymoronic "Fairness Doctrine"

The left has been bitching about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" having been sunsetted in 1987, and about unsuccessful attempts to revive it ever since. Here's an excerpt from a NewsMax column that explains the so-called doctrine and why it's supposedly needed:

A number of Democrats, including Reps. Maurice Hinchey and Louise Slaughter of New York, Rush Holt of New Jersey and Diane Watson of California, again were pushing the GOP to re-impose the fairness doctrine, a 1949 Federal Communications Commission rule that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." In other words, present both sides when presenting information about public policy issues.

(snip...)

The fairness rule was discarded by the FCC in 1987 during the Reagan administration because, "contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues," says an analysis by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

A number of liberals believe the demise of the fairness doctrine led the way to the rise of talk radio, which is largely conservative.

(snip...)

"The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily," says the Heritage analysis.

One such choice, the liberal Air America radio network, would presumably have to include some conservative commentary if Democrats were to get their way. No word on whether House Dems thought of that, however.

The left-wing drive to get the rule reinstated is not new. As far back as 1993, Democrats were attempting to re-impose it, with the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993. It was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina and in the House by Rep. Bill Hefner of North Carolina.

So the left is complaining about the one-sided nature of talk radio? How hypocritical of them! They control CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, MTV, BET, VH1, and nearly all major metro daily newspapers out there today. They have Democracy Radio, with successfulliberal talk radio host Ed Schultz (at least one liberal has figured out how to succeed in talk radio!). They now have Air America, which has failed thus far but just got picked up by mega-conglomerate Clear Channel in 22 cities. Like conservatives, they have tons of web sites and blogs that they run.

So tell me again...just where is the lack of choices that they have? Here's guessing that they think they can crush talk radio with the "Fairness Doctrine", then maybe their misfortunes at the ballot box will stop. Well, it will water down their products at NPR, Air America, PBS, etc., too, so they should be careful what they wish for. Then again, with their failure to learn lessons from the 2004 elections, their recent selection of Howard Scream as their party's chief, and their constantly being on the wrong side (perversely so) of damned near every issue...I don't have much faith in the left to make any informed, correct decisions.

Back surgery

Looks like yours truly may need some back surgery. In the noble quest of getting in shape, I appear to have herniated four discs in my back. Actually, it may have had nothing to do with working out on the Bowflex, but who knows? Anyway, two are minimal, one is moderate, and one is severely herniated. I've been having tingling in my left leg since November, but only recently has it become unbearable.

So my writing may become a little more limited henceforth. Only time will tell.

Hey, it just hit me! Damned shame that I'm not in Cuba, where I could get free back surgery! Granted, I'd have to suffer for another several months while on a waiting list, but at least my drugs to kill the pain in the interim would be free, right? On second thought, I'll pay my $50 co-pay and be operated on much sooner by a much more competent doctor here in the good ol' US of A.

MSM turning on Kerry...why?

The Godfather mentioned an AP and a Reuters story that had unflattering references to Kerry in their latest article, and it makes me wonder...why? The Godfather thinks that it's because the MSM is hitching their trailer to a new horse, and I'm guessing that horse's ass...er, horse's name...is Hillary. From the Godfather:

Earlier today the AP had a story on John Kerry, referring to him as having lost last year's election decisively and that this election was over national security, and I observed quite poignantly that seeing that characterization of John Kerry's loss in the mainstream press was a first for me. And now there's a Reuters story out today, and the same thing, something's going on out there. The mainstream press is aligned with somebody, and it isn't Kerry. Listen to this.

"Democratic Senator John Kerry, whose baffling explanation of votes on Iraq war funding hurt his White House bid…" Where was this during the campaign because it was as baffling then as it is today, but only today does Reuters say his explanation of his votes on funding was baffling. So two quasi-hit pieces on John François Kerry on the same date. Now, this story, though, actually goes further.

"Democratic Senator John Kerry, whose baffling explanation of votes on Iraq war funding hurt his White House bid, said today he would back President Bush's new $81.9 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan. 'I think we're in a very different situation. I'm going to vote for this. I think this money is important to our being successful and the completion of the process.'"

This is called learning your mistakes. Now he's going to vote for it, and they admit that his explanation in the campaign was baffling? Now, wait, he says he's going to vote for it, but he might vote against it still. It's John Kerry, don't forget.

After all, he actually did vote for the $87 billion, before he voted against it. He says this funding vote is a "very different situation." How so, Monsieur?

"Chickendoves"

This is a new term that I first saw coined in Tech Central Station. This column (and the term) is about people (specifically, liberals) who oppose any military action despite having never served in the military. I would take it a step farther and include those who also have no immediate family who served in the military.

Anyway, the full column is here and the excerpt to hook you is right here:

Any yammering propeller-headed nitwit can tell the world to make love, not war, and no one can impeach his sincerity in making that plaintive demand. By contrast, anyone who supports the war had better be a card-carrying military veteran, or else be condemned as a "chickenhawk" -- no matter how wise, eloquent, or inspiring their pro-war position might be.

The problem isn't chickenhawks -- people who support the war but never served in the military, and probably never will.

The problem is stateside armchair philosophers who oppose military action and military policy, even though they never served in the military. The problem is anti-war punditry from intellectuals who think that an IED is a contraceptive and couldn't tell the difference between bounding overwatch and watching Baywatch. The problem is intellectuals who think their education and politically-correct ideology lets them know what the military needs -- better than the military knows it.

The problem is chickendoves.

In my fleeting moments of empathy, I can muster some modicum of sympathy for the condemnation of chickenhawks. I watched the remake of All Quiet on the Western Front, the same as everyone else. I remember the grotesque contrast between the enthusiasm of the naïve pro-war schoolteachers and the bloody realities of the World War I trenches. (Pro-war schoolteachers! It sounds like science fiction.) No one smiles at the thought of fat white guys in fezzes and monocles sipping cognac while pushing little men across a map, plotting out wars where poorer, browner men die to support the fantasies of empire.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the peace vigil: the allegedly poorer, allegedly browner men support the war, and the fat guys in fezzes and monocles now inveigh against it. Military support for the war and the Bush administration is exceptionally high. It's the well-to-do in the ritzy suburbs who wring their hands, mumbling "Dulce Et Decorum Est" while listening to dreary reports about the Iraqi quagmire on NPR. To generalize: the closer and more intimate you are with the war in Iraq, the more you support it.

The chickendoves don't care. Heck, what do soldiers know? They're only battle-hardened professionals with unusually high educational achievements and hands-on experience with the occupation of Iraq. That the chickenhawks are on the same side as the real hawks is just a curious accident, one that will not prevent the chickendoves from "defending" the soldiers whose opinions they casually dismiss.

"But shouldn't the burden of proof rest upon those who call for war, instead of peace? Don't the inherent dangers of war compel us to demand that its advocates walk the talk?" In brief: no and no. War is extraordinarily bad. But a bad peace can be worse. The graveyards of the world are filled with the bodies of those who died from a hateful "peace." Given the hideous acts of oppression and injustice that spring from the lack of war, why shouldn't we hold peaceniks to the higher standard of sincerity?

The last sentence, I think, is the most profound of all. People who seem to have a problem with American "oppression" (who wouldn't know real oppression if it buried them in a mass grave) are the ones who equate peace with a lack of military action (i.e. war)...when it is this very lack of military action that causes what I call a "warless peaceful oppression." How sick must you be to support that?

Who is Harry Reid?

In his own words:

Reid Supported Strengthening Social Security In 1990s, Opposes Now:
In 1999, Reid Declared: “[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 2/14/99)

In 1999, Reid Said: “I Think We Have To Take Care Of Social Security …” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 7/11/99)

In 1999, Reid Said: “[W]e’re Visiting Chile Because It Is Doing Interesting Things In Social Security And Other Parts Of Its Free Market System…” (Tony Batt, “Reid To Embark On South America Trip,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 3/30/99)

Now, In 2005, Reid Is Blocking Personal Retirement Accounts. “For instance, [Reid] is against personal retirement accounts: ‘If someone wants to privatize Social Security, they are going to have to find someone else to get in bed with other than me,’ Reid told a television audience in Nevada recently.” (Terence Samuel, “A Leader From The Wilderness,” U.S. News & World Report, 11/29/04)

Damn, libs hate it when you use their own words and voting record against them. They call it "attacks" and "negativism." They just don't call it what it is...the truth.

Ward Churchill not only imflammatory leftist, but also plagiarist?

Ward Churchill, the faux-Indian tenured professor at Colorado University who said that 9/11 was justified and its victims "Little Eichmanns" – a reference to notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann – is in hot water. Seems not only is he a liar about his Indian heritage, but he's also a plagiarist, too. Full story here.

Here's my prediction, and I'm not going out on much of a limb with this: CU will fire him, but only for the plagiarism. They've been toiling internally as to whether or not he should be fired for his inflammatory 9/11 rhetoric, and had thought about using "public safety concerns" as a reason to cut him loose. Well, since plagiarism is usually a quick one-way ticket out of a university, this gives the university a reason/excuse to dismiss him. That way, if Churchill makes good on his promise to sue CU for his dismissal, he'll have no leg to stand on if they argue "plagiarism", right?

Kind of a cowardly approach by CU, but it gives them the best of all worlds: he gets fired, they get to avoid losing a lawsuit, and they can tell other leftist intellectuals that CU is still committed to free speech and thought and will still welcome them...since, after all, WC wasn't fired for his views, but for his big no-no copyjob!

The MSM's take on Iraq's "failure"

Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author who regularly contributes to NewsMax.com. She has a column entitled Death Throes of the Mainstream Media, which lays the case out that the MSM is in total denial about facts, and perversely so. The column is here.

Check out this excerpt, so next time some latte-sipping tree-hugging liberal asks you "What are doing RIGHT in Iraq?" (aside from that pesky and trivial election-democracy-thingee), you'll have some facts:

Ray Reynolds (SFC Iowa Army National Guard, 234th Signal Battalion) wrote a letter home as he headed to Baghdad for the final weeks of his stay in Iraq. He wanted the recipients to know that he was thankful "to all of you who did not believe the media." Here are the "noteworthy" events he listed:

Over 400,000 kids have had up-to-date immunizations.

School attendance is up 80 percent from levels before the war.

Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.

The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.

The country had its first $2 billion-barrel export of oil in August.

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

The country now receives two times the electrical power it did before the war.

100 percent of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35 percent before the war.

Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.

Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.

Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.

Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with U.S. soldiers.

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

Students are taught field sanitation and hand-washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

An interim constitution has been signed.

Girls are allowed to attend school.

Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Has any reader of this article ever – even once – heard this good news on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC or NPR, or read it in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times – to mention just a few left-wing media outlets that never tire of saturating their audiences with bad – and anti-Bush – news? I haven't.

No better proof exists of the failure of the MSM to climb out of their biases and present the American public with "fair and balanced" news than that provided by a soldier in Iraq to federalistpatriot.com after the recent Iraqi election.

"The media have it bass-ackwards," he said. "CBS, NBC, PBS and CNN just don't get it – their reports completely failed to show the incredible energy and joy these voters exhibited. People everywhere wanted to talk to us and thank us. This is what it must have been like when the Allies liberated Paris."

"The Iraqis' statements to us were all the same: ‘Thank you for your sacrifices for the Iraqi people.' ‘Thank you for making this day possible.' ‘The United States is the true democracy in the world and is the country that makes freedom possible.'

"A homicide bomber drove up to a polling site, which was not too far from us, but he did not kill anybody but himself. After the bomb went off, the Iraqi voters calmly walked out of the polling site and spit on the remains of the suicide bomber. The polling site stayed open and the voting continued. That incident ran all day long on Iraqi TV – but not on U.S. TV."

Read this anywhere in the MSM? I haven't.

Nope...me neither.

DNC implodes, names Dean new DNC chief

The party that has been losing elections on a regular basis for the last 10+ years has named Howard Dean as its new chief. Most conservatives and libertarians are absolutely thrilled with the pick, as are most liberals. The difference is, the libs that are happy now will likely not be thrilled after 2006 and 2008 elections.

Dean said the following during his acceptance speech:

We cannot run 18-state presidential campaigns and expect to win. People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas and Utah and West Virginia if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves and tell them what we believe. That's what organization allows us to do.

Sure, Howard! The best way to woo voters in Bush Country, Mormon Country, and Mountain Country is to tell the citizens of those states what your party wants:

God out of school, public life, and anything else you can get Him out of;

Elimination of their guns;

Gay marriage and adoption of children;

The military being used for "Meals on Wheels" only, certainly NOT for defense purposes;

Expansion of the welfare state;

Opposition to educational choices due to your symbiotic relationship with bloated bureaucratic teachers unions, the ones that put Heather Has Two Mommies in kindergarten classrooms;

More abortions, and certainly no limit on teenage abortions or late-term partial-birth abortions.

Yeah, Howie, in red states, those stances will go over about as well as a fart in church. I tell you, for a national party that tries to fashion itself as being not totally liberal and being able to relate to red state Americans, what have they done recently? They picked a detached, effete New England liberal to be their presidential candidate in 2004, and they picked another detached (and deranged) effete New England liberal to be their party's leader! Smooth, liberals, really smooth!

He is correct, though, in his first sentence: trying to win 18 states hasn't worked well in the past two presidential elections. However, trading a flip-flopping liberal for a hot-headed popping-off ranting nutcase liberal just doesn't strike me as a smart move. Only time will tell if there's a method to the left's madness.

By the way, here is the famous "I Have a Scream" howl that the new DNC chief is famous for.

"MORE BLOOD FOR OIL!"

While I'm dishing out credit to Tom at the Donegal Express for his literary eloquence mixed with sound political observation skills, I hope he doesn't mind that I post this entry from his blog here. If you do mind, Tom, let me know and I'll drop it...otherwise, I'll take the risk that my readers will go to your site more often than mine! :) Heck, I check it out nearly every day, so why shouldn't everyone?

Rick Mercier, an editor at the Free Lance-Star wrote this up about the genocide in Sudan:

But you can bet that a resolution with any teeth to it will meet firm resistance in the council — much of it from veto-wielding permanent members Russia and China. France may also play an obstructionist role.

As this sorry spectacle unfolds in the coming days and weeks, it will be useful to remind ourselves that these three countries not only are blocking meaningful action against the Sudanese government, they’ve actually aided and abetted Khartoum in its cleansing of certain ethnic groups from Darfur.

Here’s how:

—China: The Chinese have been Sudan’s principal arms supplier over the past decade, furnishing Khartoum with copious amounts of tanks, fighter jets, helicopters, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

China also is heavily invested in Sudan’s oil industry, and depends on the country’s oil fields to supply the Chinese industrial dragon with a sizeable portion of the energy it needs to keep growing. Needless to say, Sudan’s weapons purchases are funded largely by the revenues generated by this oil extraction.

—Russia: According to a report issued in November by Amnesty International, the Sudanese government imported four MiG fighter jets from Russia in December 2003 and January 2004. Khartoum was expected to have imported 12 new Russian MiGs by the end of last year. This purchase coincided with the use of MiGs against civilians in Darfur.

When I met with refugees from Darfur in September, a number of them told me that their villages had been attacked by MiGs in late 2003 and early last year. Human-rights groups also have cited the use of MiGs in raids on Darfur villages.

The Russians also have ties to Sudan’s oil industry. Last summer, as the crisis in Darfur was continuing to worsen, a Russian company inked a deal to build an oil pipeline in Sudan.

—France: The Amnesty report found that the French have sold large quantities of bombs, grenades, ammunition and other military items to Sudan in recent years. The French corporation Total holds the rights to an oil concession in southern Sudan.

The United States must confront these forces of complicity and greed by pushing hard for a tough resolution on Darfur.

Well, smack my mouth and call me Sally! Who would have thought the French would be giving weapons to blood-soaked dictators in exchange for oil? I mean, I never heard of such a thing. Say it ain't so, France! We all look up to you, paragon of moral virtue that you are. I mean, you wouldn't use your influence in the UN to protect some cozy little oil deal with the scum of the earth, right? I mean, your opposition to the war in Iraq, that was pure principle, right? Right?

My bad. Apparently, they're big on "blood for oil".

Whenever anything big in the world happens, look at where the usual suspects show up. Maybe we just need to realize they're not going to be rooting for the good guys.

Let's see if some lib can come along and defend the Chinese and the Euros for being cozy with Sudan while ignoring the genocide there...the way the UN and the Clinton Administration turned a blind eye to the Rwandan genocide. Seems that as long as it's black Africans getting slaughtered in acts of genocide, the world's liberals (who supposedly care about the plights, real and imagined, of the world's black population) don't seem to give a rat's rectum about it! So next time you hear a liberal accuse conservatives or libertarians of being anti-black, tell him/her/it that he/she/it is simply the pot calling the kettle...well...black!

Another blog victory! Eason Jordan quits CNN!

Just as the blogosphere brought down CBS (aka "See? B.S.!") and Dan Rather with the forged memo story, it has claimed another deserving victim: Eason Jordan. Regular visitors to my blog have been treated to updates to the Eason Jordan saga.

I was going to reference the article by the Associated Press, but I think instead I will rely on the hilarious (yet quite astute) commentary from fellow blogger Tom at the Donegal Express...especially the part about the "Saddam Plus Gold Deluxe" package:

New York (AP)- CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amid a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq. Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy.

This is to differentiate from the time it was "fairly tarnished" when Eason admitted the Baghdad Office lied about what was happening in Iraq. This time, the lies uttered were all his.

"I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise," Jordan said in a memo to fellow staff members at CNN.

Translation: This was all supposed to be off the record!

After several management restructurings at CNN, Jordan actually had no current operational responsibility over network programming. But he was CNN's chief fix-it man overseas, arranging coverage in dangerous or hard-to-reach parts of the world.

He was really good at it, too. He'd just promise whatever rapists and thugs he had to deal with the "Saddam Plus Gold Deluxe" package.

CNN's global newsgathering infrastructure is chiefly the result of Jordan's work, said Jim Walton, chief of the CNN News Group.

Question of the Day: Is this praise, or blame? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Now, guys like Tom and I can't quite take credit for the downfall of Rather, Jordan, etc. But speaking for myself (since Tom's more than capable of expressing himself eloquently! :) ), I take pride in knowing that I am a spoke in the overall massive wheel of new media that will result in further MSM decline! Mwwwaaaaahahahahahaha!

Blogs beat MSM to big story again

More on the Eason Jordan story...or, in the case of the MSM, lack of story.

Hugh Hewitt, author of Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That is Changing Your World, has a great column (no doubt in a way to plug his book) that illustrates once again how the mainstream media (MSM) is getting beat to the punch again by the blogosphere. Specifically, the Eason Jordan controversy (prior blog entry about it, right here).

On Monday, I was part of a panel put together by Campaigns & Elections Magazine on blogging's impact on campaigns. The panel before us had been moderated by CNN's Judy Woodruff. One of my co-panelists, Jon Lauck of South Dakota Politics, asked Woodruff in the hallway outside of the meeting room what she thought of the story. "When I talked with Woodruff, she did seem simply stunned that Jordan could have said something like he did." Her reaction is similar to most of the reactions of those present at Davos, but again, the striking thing is she hadn't heard of the story. Of course, Woodruff works for CNN.

I hadn't considered the possibility that big names in journalism simply wouldn't be reading the blogs. For one thing, the blogs are interesting--whether left, right, or center. More to the point, they are news engines, carrying advance word of brewing stories. By Wednesday, February 9, Eason Jordan's slander on the military was the subject of a Fox News Roundtable on Special Report with Brit Hume, and had birthed its own blog, Easongate. Anyone admitting to not being up on the story by the following Monday was admitting to a lassitude about the news that calls into question both their work habits and news judgment.

Because of a big stonewall from the Davos bureaucrats, the videotape of the Jordan remarks has not been released. To a certain extent it doesn't matter, as Jordan has already been branded a nut because of remarks he made to a different gathering of media types in the fall of 2004. As quoted in The Guardian on November 19, he remarked: "Actions speak louder than words. The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the U.S. military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by U.S. forces."

What does matter is whether mainstream media "journalists" continue to wall themselves off from the new media information flows. Increasingly, the blogs are ahead of the old news cycle, and not just because they aren't slaves to ideological bias. They are simply more nimble, and more quick to the market with interesting facts.

Eason Jordan's verbal pratfall resembles nothing so much as Senator Trent Lott's fall from his majority leader job in December of 2002. The blogs kept those remarks alive long enough for the mainstream media to take note, and they will in this instance as well. How hard will the mainstream media have to get slapped by its own ineptitude before it even notices it is getting slapped? It has been two years since the Lott controversy, and Rathergate and other blog-driven stories have transpired in the interim. What's it going to take to wake up the Rip van Winkles inside the Beltway?

Emphasis mine. So there are three and only three possibilities for the MSM missing the stories that the blogosphere doesn't miss: bias, ineptitude, or some combination thereof. I mean, Judy Woodruff of CNN didn't know that one of her own network's top dogs said these things? Come on!

Hollywood billboards

Is this awesome or what?



This billboard is appearing around Hollywood and Beverly Hills in several locations. Keep it up, glitterati! You're constantly losing elections for your side!

I recall in November 2000, when I lived in Memphis, that on Election Day, there were three visitors that flew in from LA: faux president Martin Sheen, "Meathead" Rob Reiner, and Seinfeld starlet Julia Louis-Doofus. They went on TV, as well as knocking door-to-door, to implore the good people of Memphis to turn out en masse and vote for "home state favorite son" Al Gore. Sheen proclaimed the day "President Al Gore Day"!

Gore did win minority-dominated Memphis, but that was about it for him...he lost his "home" of TN by about 80,000 votes. So much for celebrity pull!

Rove: Clinton was right about Social Security

I've been harping on the fact that Clinton used to preach about "saving Social Security" (or, to use the DNC/MSM talking points, "shore up Social Security") for a while now. Finally, the political genius Karl Rove has joined in. Few things illustrate liberal hypocrisy better than using their idol Bill Clinton's words against them. Rove mentioned this on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

"Al Gore reiterated the point often," yet now Democrats insist there is no crisis, Hannity added.

Said Rove, "Well, again, the mantra of some Democrats. Give them the benefit of the doubt. But you're right. President Clinton did a courageous thing when he pointed out the looming insolvency of Social Security. I mean, we face a demographic time bomb that's going to go off with certainty. We may disagree as to what month exactly it happens, but the Social Security Trust Fund cannot sustain the program."

First of all, only a dolt would defend the current Social Security system. Harry Reid seems to be doing just that, ergo he is a dolt.

Secondly, libs like to mention the motives behind SS reform attempts. Hey, that's absolutely fair game...we should always question the motives of any and all politicians. No dispute there. So let's look at motives behind SS reform.

Bush wants private accounts, while libs don't want to part with government control over your life. When Clinton wanted reform, he wanted it so he could give an excuse as to why the surplus (which, by definition, means we were overtaxed) shouldn't be returned to us in the form of a tax cut/rebate...because parting with the tax money would mean that libs would have one less way for government to control our lives.

Do we see a pattern here?

Forests Being 'Slaughtered for Toilet Paper,' Actress Declares

(Sigh) What are they supposed to make TP out of...sunflowers? From CNS News:

"I think there is a dumbing-down bias (in the media) frankly," said Daphne Zuniga, who starred in the television series "Melrose Place."

"The press is reporting things that are absolutely irrelevant to any of our lives and they are sensationalistic and it is damaging," Zuniga told Cybercast News Service. She made the comments Wednesday night at the Washington Press Club Foundation's 61st annual congressional dinner, which she attended as a guest of Congressional Quarterly.

"We start to think that these things are important, like [the rape trial of NBA star] Kobe Bryant and [the molestation trial of] Michael Jackson and yada, yada, and meanwhile, you know, endangered forests are being slaughtered for toilet paper, you know, sequoias -- whatever it is," Zuniga said.

You can always tell the IQ (or lack thereof) of someone who constantly uses "like" and "you know" in a sentence. Read that last paragraph again. Try to imagine it being said in Butthead's voice: "Uhhhh---it's like, a sequoia...or something!"

Huh-huh...that was cool!

Marine likes killing terrorists? GOOD!

Father Michael Reilly (a priest, of course) has a wonderful column on the Marine who's getting skewered by the MSM for his admission that killing terrorists is a good thing:

You've heard the quote from James N. Mattis; Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, dozens of time by now:
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Displaying its usual knee-jerk antipathy towards the American military, the press seized on Mattis' comments, delivered in the middle of a panel discussion in San Diego last week.

The message was clear. The Iraq war hero is, in reality, a brute. A psychopath. A cold blooded killer whose attitude offered a window into the thinking that lurked behind the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Amazing. How do elite liberal journalists, who would never dream of joining the military themselves, think a commander prepares his men to engage the enemy? Obviously, these reporters have never been in a football locker room at half-time.

A commander needs to help his men believe that they are risking their lives for a great nation which believes great things; that they fight an enemy who would destroy our way of life and our people. How does one do that without appealing to base emotions?

There are other quotes from the top Marine commander that reporters could have noted, words that show that he's anything but the Neanderthal killer they advertised in press accounts.

Here's the advice Gen. Mattis offered his troops on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom before leading them into battle:

"Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression . . .

"Use good judgment and act in the best interests of our Nation. You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit . . . .

"If [Iraqi soldiers] choose to fight they are going to regret it, but we also believe that part of the physicians’ oath that says first do no harm. If, to kill a terrorist, we have got to kill eight innocent people, you don’t kill them."

The words of an out-of-control psycho killer? Hardly. That's why the press didn't want you to hear them.

The anti-military media would rather portray Gen. Mattis as a Ghengis Khan, Jr., executing the policies of a reckless cowboy President who's leading the nation to disaster.

Oddly enough, some of the same pundits calling for Mattis to step down are defending Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who described 9/11 victims as "little Eichmann’s” who deserved what they got.

Sorry, this priest has buried too many victims and consoled too many families to buy that. I’d rather have Gen. Mattis shooting the perpetrators of 9/11 than have Ward Churchill defending them [at public expense] any day of the week.

Further proof that liberals have a perverted and sick view of reality.

UPDATED: CNN top dawg: U.S. soldiers intentionally killing journalists

If they did, is there a jury in America that would convict them? I'm kidding!!! Nothing like a little shock-value morbid humor to grab the ol' attention, huh?

Anyway, it's been buzzing around the 'Net for a while, but needless to say, the MSM isn't touching it with a ten-foot pole. I'm talking about CNN's Eason Jordan, who (according to published reports across the 'Net) happened to accuse American military personnel of deliberately targeting (and killing) journalists in Iraq. Jordan has since disputed the characterization of his remarks. These remarks were made at the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland.

The bigger scandal seems to be the coverup going on. According to Michelle Malkin:

Forum organizers have stonewalled citizen attempts to gain access to a videotape or transcript of the Davos meeting. But American businessman Rony Abovitz, who attended the panel Jordan participated in, reported immediately after the forum that "Jordan asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated the assertion a few times, which seemed to win favor in parts of the audience (the anti-U.S. crowd) and cause great strain on others."

Another panel attendee, historian Justin Vaisse, wrote on his blog that Jordan "didn't mince words in declaring that the intentions of journalists in Iraq were never perceived as neutral and were made deliberate targets by 'both sides.'"

Even liberal Democrats are throwing Jordan under the bus, and are distancing themselves from his comments.

Panel member Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also told me that Jordan asserted that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military and that Jordan "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

Finally, panel attendee Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., issued a statement in response to my inquiry that he "was outraged by the comments. Senator Dodd is tremendously proud of the sacrifice and service of our American military personnel."

Of course, the man has a long track record of being anti-American. Hell, in 1999, Jordan proudly proclaimed: "We are a global network, and we take global interest[s] first, not U.S. interests first." If you're simply reporting the news, why take any interests first?

Then again, ol' Eason admitted a couple of years ago that CNN knew about Saddam's atrocities all these years, but they never reported it because they didn't want to jeopardize access to the Butcher of Baghdad! Wow! People died because CNN didn't do their job and report. That is what they're supposed to do, right...report?

Let's see how this pans out, and when (if at all) the MSM will pick up on this!

UPDATE: In the interest of journalistic fairness, here is CNN's lame ass face-saving rebuttal.

UPDATE: Senator George Allen (R-VA), with support from Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), is now calling for a release of the videotape of the event in question. Link

Obscure paranoid Minnesota Senator not seeking re-election in 2006

Mark Dayton, one-term Senator from Minnesota, is not seeking re-election. I guess 48% approval ratings, closing your Senate office due to imagined terrorist threats, and calling the popular Dr. Rice a liar during Senate confirmation hearings all add up to certain "electile dysfunction" for Dayton.

Sidebar on the alleged terrorist threat: How would that transpire?

Osama bin Laden: "Where shall we strike next? White House? Camp David?"
al Zarqawi: "How about the U.S. Senate?"
OBL: "Great idea! Find out where Frist and Reid are, then let them have it!"
aZ: "Actually, sir, I think we'd do FAR MORE damage to American morale if we struck the office of Mark Dayton!"

Full story here.

Budget makes cuts, and uses Enron accounting

OK, Enron accounting might be a bit harsh. But the fact is that as much as I love the cuts in spending, the budget leaves out the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan operations.

Great! That means when I balance my checkbook, I'll just leave the cost of my mortgage out of it, thus netting me an additional $1150 each month! Sure, the mortgage will actually have to get paid, but why sweat the details?

Like I said, I am a big supporter of the President, but unlike the Clinton Kool-Aid Drinkers of the left, I am actually capable of whacking the administration when it's called for. Spending cuts: good! Fuzzy math: not good!

Oh, yeah...full story here.

Stop the press! Wait, THIS passes for news??

Of all the news that's fit to print, this one has got to be one of the most newsworthy articles out there! Is it Bush's budget? Nope. What about the Middle East truce between Israel and the Palestinians? Nope. Those two stories just pale in comparison to...the removal of John Edwards' mole!

I couldn't make it up if I tried. Here's the story.

What's next? "Hillary has cup of coffee" or "Kerry at restaurant, orders filet minon before sending it back for salmon"?

Ted Kennedy: Elections are quaint

Real Clear Politics has a blog entry about America's favorite drunk womanizing murderer (no, not OJ Simpson...we don't think he was drunk). They have great insight on the suicidal tendencies of the liberals to let this man speak for their cause:

TED KENNEDY, FREEDOM FIGHTER: Ted Kennedy was so excited about the first democratic elections in Iraq in more than a half century he decided to try and undermine them by giving a highly publicized defeatist rant at Johns’ Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies on January 27. Three days later Kennedy's office put out this wildly enthusiastic one paragraph statement saying the Senator thought the Iraqi elections were "a good first step" but "not a cure" and urging President Bush to hurry up and "look beyond" the vote.

Given that we've seen two other remarkable cases of democracy blossoming around the world in the last six months, I wondered if Senator Kennedy had greeted the historic events in Afghanistan and the Ukraine with the same passion and enthusiasm with which he handled Iraq. The answer, not surprisingly, is "yes."

On October 8 of last year, one day before Afghans went to the polls, Kennedy delivered this statement on the floor of the United States Senate:

Afghanistan still faces fundamental threats to the casting of ballots on Saturday, let alone its long-term stability and prosperity. Elections are vitally important to the process of rebuilding a free country, but they are not a panacea for the myriad problems that face the people in Afghanistan.

Sounds pretty familiar. This time, however, it looks as if Senator Kennedy didn't bother with congratulating the people of Afghanistan on their historic achievement. Kennedy's web site shows that he did find time to issue three statements that weekend (October 9-10), but praising democracy in Afghanistan wasn't among them. Nor does a Lexis-Nexis search for the month of October turn up any trace of Senator Kennedy saying a single thing (either positive or negative) about the Afghan elections. It's as if they never happened.

But surely the good Senator had something positive to say about Ukraine, right? After all, the Orange Revolution was untainted by Bush's hated militarism/imperialism/unilateralism and came off without a shot being fired. Liberals (and conservatives) everywhere praised the peaceful manner in which democracy triumphed in Ukraine.

Not Kennedy. Starting with the time of the initial, fraudulent vote in Ukraine (November 21) through the revote (December 26) through the day Yuschenko was sworn in (January 23) I can't find a single word uttered by Senator Kennedy on the matter. Nothing on Google, nothing in Lexis-Nexis. Nothing on his web site and nothing in the Congressional Record. If Kennedy has said something - anything - about the historic events in Ukraine I can't find it.

Kennedy's indifference to the spread of freedom and his belief that elections are quaint but not really important events are two more reasons the Democrats are in real and mortal danger by letting this man continue to be the face and voice of their party.

Quaint, indeed. He's a socialist first, and a pro-elections guy second.

Dean a slam dunk for DNC chief; Roemer warns Dems

Though rare and hard to find these days, Tim Roemer is one of a dying breed: an introspective Democrat. According to the AP:

Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said Democrats must be more inclusive in their outreach to fast-growing parts of the country.

"I got into this race five weeks ago to talk about the devastating loss we experienced in November," Roemer said in an interview. "It was not about 60,000 votes in Ohio. It was about losing 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the country. If that's a trend in business or politics you're in trouble."

Republicans are in the strongest position they've been in since the early 20th century, Roemer said.

Roemer, who said top Democrats in Congress encouraged him to enter the chairman's race, said he wants to strengthen Democrats' position on national security.

"If there's one reason Senator Kerry lost the presidential race, it was because he failed to make the American people feel safer," Roemer said, adding that he also wanted to encourage talk within the party about developing a stronger position on values.

Roemer said he hoped to make the party more inclusive, especially on the issue of abortion. He opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother.

His opposition to abortion rights sparked early opposition in the race from abortion choice advocates.

Aides to Dean, the only candidate standing from the original seven-man field, said he continues to make calls to DNC members to assure his choice as chairman.

Dean has said he will focus his efforts as chairman more on building the party at the local, state and national level, raising money and winning elections, while elected officials will be more responsible for policy positions.

No wonder Roemer lost! A pro-life Democrat, running the DNC? Ha! The party of diversity sure doesn't practice what it preaches, does it?

Roemer sure is right about not dwelling on 60,000 votes in Ohio. But because Dems lost the last two presidential elections in manners that certain "what-if" scenarios make it close enough for their liking, they will refuse to do much of anything different. Kinda like the guy who plays the slot machine, and continues to pump money into it because on each spin, he's just one bar away from the jackpot! He doesn't realize that he's not going to win by doing the same thing every time (i.e. putting in the coin, pulling the lever). Today's Democrats are working the slot machine, doing nothing different, and losing their shirts in the process!

Patriots win Super Bowl in my backyard, which means...

The Patriots won Super Bowl 39 (I prefer real numbers to Roman numerals) here in Jacksonville. I wish the weather could have been warmer, since it was around 80 degrees about two weeks ago. But it was in the upper 60's today, and was around 63 at kickoff.

Can't complain, though I was kinda pulling for Philly. Just to see something different, other than the announcers getting orgasmic over Brady. He's a good guy, and I respect his accomplishments. But for the love of Pete, I wish the announcers would give it a rest already! Notice that QB's are referenced during the game by the last names: Marino back to pass, Elway steps into the pocket, Montana whips one down the middle, McNabb scrambles, etc. But the announcers never call the Patriots' QB by his last name: Brady. Every sentence is Tom Brady. Such as "It looks like Tom Brady got a fart stuck crossways in his ass, but not to worry! EMT is on the sidelines, and Baptist Memorial Hospital is only 1.3 miles from here, so America can breathe easier!" To call him Brady would be, I guess, less deferential and more disrespectful. Never mind that far better QB's like Marino and Montana and Elway are known only by their last name. But not Brady (oops, I did it again!)

Anyway, to get to my point. The Patriots won this Super Bowl, and last year's Super Bowl. The Red Sox won the World Series last year. This means that the only loser to come out of Mass. in the last year...is John Kerry!

Rummy puts Russert in his place

From NewsMax:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld blasted NBC's "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert on Sunday for selectively editing an exchange he had in December with a National Guardsman who complained that his unit's vehicles weren't armored.

"That was unfair and it was selectively taking out two sentences from a long exchange," the Pentagon chief complained. "And when you suggested that that's how I answered that question, that is factually wrong."

Story Continues Below


Russert had just aired a clip of the now infamous exchange between his guest and National Guardsman Specialist Thomas Wilson, where Wilson asked during a town hall meeting in Kuwait why "we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?"
In footage aired by Russert, Rumsfeld replied: "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

"And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up."

After the clip had ended, the irked Defense Secretary said, "That is not how I answered that question.

"But Mr. Secretary," replied Russert somewhat sheepishly, "it clearly represents the exchange and ... "

"It does not," Rumsfeld shot back.

Prepared with a full transcript, the Defense chief overode the NBC host and proceeded to read his full answer:

"I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored," Rumsfeld began in response to Wilson.

"They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to places where they are needed. I'm told they are being – the Army is – I think it's something like 400 a month are being done now.

"And it's essentially a matter of physics. It's not a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army's desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you go to the war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that can be accomplished.

"I can assure you that General Schumacher and the leadership of the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip.

"It's interesting. I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and the tank could still be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up.

"And you can go down and the vehicle – the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that's what the Army's been working on." [END OF RUMSFELD'S ANSWER TO WILSON].

After finishing the transcript, the defense chief told Russert:

"Now, that answer is totally different from picking out two lines. And I think it's an unfair representation and it's exactly what some of the newspapers around the country did."

Rumsfeld said that thanks to a program begun last year, every vehicle in Iraq carrying U.S. troops in combat zones would be fully armored by Feb. 15.

Finally nice to see someone from the administration calling the MSM on its distortions!

Clinton in 1998: "Save Social Security first!"

I posted an entry in January about that (link here). Bill Clinton first mentioned this in 1998 during his State of the Union address. (Sidebar: Notice that as much as Republicans detested Clinton, they never booed or catcalled at his SOTU speeches? Yet liberals the other night booed and catcalled Bush's speech, like the classless and childish little brats that they are).

According to Byron York's column at National Review Online:

In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending — or, more importantly, no tax cuts — "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

The column is great, and it's short, so please read it. It nails the hypocrisy of the left, just like my prior posting did. Granted, York does it better and with more research and quotes!

More:

Gore said that in coming years — by 2032 — "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

"Save Social Security first," said Gore.

"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.

Today, some of those same lawmakers are leading the opposition to President Bush's initiative and no longer fear a crisis in Social Security. And indeed, by 1999, after GOP tax-cut proposals had been defeated and he escaped conviction in his Senate impeachment trial, Social Security's future became a less urgent issue to Clinton. In his 957-page autobiography, My Life, Clinton included no extended discussion of Social Security at all.

Basically, Clinton and the libs didn't want to give a tax cut, so they said we needed the "surplus" (which, by the way, wasn't even a real surplus...another topic for another day) to shore up Social Security and save it. Now that there is no surplus, they say Social Security is fine and we need to leave it alone.

Huh? There was plenty of money to save a deathly-ill Social Security in 1998 and 1999, but now there's no problem with Social Security...so it got better funded as the treasury lost money? Further proof at how far removed from basic economics the left is.

Old bag in Colorado sues teen girls for making cookies for neighbors

This one is too much. It just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished.

According to the Denver Post:

Two Durango teens thought they'd surprise neighbors with nighttime deliveries of home-baked treats. But one woman was so terrified, she sued and has won.

Durango - Two teenage girls decided one summer's evening to skip a dance where there might be cursing and drinking to stay home and bake cookies for their neighbors.

Big mistake.

They were sued, successfully, for an unauthorized cookie drop on one porch.

I'll ruin the ending for you:

A Durango judge Thursday awarded Wanita Renea Young almost $900 to recoup her medical bills (trip to the ER). She received nothing for pain and suffering.

"The victory wasn't sweet," Young said Thursday afternoon. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson."

Yeah, they learned a lesson: that their old biddy of a neighbor is a hateful old bag, the kind of person who gets off on bringing everyone else down to her level of misery. I mean, read that line again: I'm not gloating about it! By saing that she's not gloating about it, she is definitely gloating about it!

I have no proof, but based on her misery level and her eagerness to sue two wonderful girls, I'd bet she's a bedwetting liberal. Again...I have no proof! I'm just guessing, since it fits the modus operandi of the left.

Pelosi: American soldiers in Iraq are "occupying force"

"We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in the televised response she delivered after Bush's remarks. Emphasis mine.

Wow. The Iraqis just voted in numbers that ought to make apathetic Americans ashamed, and they have just publicly begged our forces not to leave yet. Yet here comes that prune from "Than Franthithco", the leader of her party in the House, referring to our troops as occupiers.

Then again, you can't really blame her. She has to keep her loony Bay Area constituents happy, and this kind of troop-bashing does just that.

Pelosi also spoke of having met with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and wounded soldiers in military hospitals.

"They remind us of our responsibility to build a future worthy of their sacrifice," she said. Tell me, Nance: Would that "responsibility" to which you refer include undermining their efforts in Iraq, hoping that they fail so you guys can score political points and say "It's not your fault, troops! It's your commander-in-chief's fault!"?

These people are sick.

MSM duped with captured American soldier hoax

The MSM (mainstream media) jumped all over the story they thought would damage Bush: a captured American soldier in Iraq, threatened with certain death. Turns out that the video that showed an American soldier with a machine gun pointed at his head...was actually footage of a toy soldier with a toy gun pointed at him! Click here for a picture, if it's still there.

As soon as the MSM discovered that they had been duped, they ran the clarification story...and removed it from most of their web sites in the same day!

According to the Grapevine:

An Islamist Web site has posted a photo of what it claims is an American soldier held hostage, with a gun pointed at his head, with a threat that he’ll be killed in 72 hours unless Iraqi prisoners are leaving. The Web site says, "Our Mujahedeen heroes of Iraq’s Jihadi Battalion (search) were able to capture American military man, John Adam, after killing a number of his comrades and capturing the rest."

But the thing is, the U.S. military says no American soldier have been reported missing. And an American toy maker, Dragon Model USA (search), notes the soldier bares a striking resemblance to it Special Ops action figure named Cody. Pentagon officials say terrorists are "getting really desperate."

So, to recap:

Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard is more than 30 years old, yet is still newsworthy to this day. A story run in a day about a catpured soldier that turned out to be embarassing to the MSM is pulled in the same day!

The Godfather said today: "Dan Rather will stand by the toy soldier hostage story and say that even though it's been confirmed it's a toy soldier, that the story is still accurate." Now that's funny!

The worthless left

Hat tip to my friend who forwarded this Dennis Prager column to me. One of my biggest beefs with liberals has always been that they have a perverted sense of reality, that they are unable to distinguish between right and wrong. As Mr. Prager points out, they are also unable to distinguish between good and evil, and that makes them worthless.

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

It took a Polish rescuer of Jews in the Holocaust, cited this week 60 years after the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration and death camp, to best describe those people who cannot or refuse to know the difference between good and evil. They are "worth nothing."

Since I was an adolescent, I have been preoccupied with evil: specifically, why people engage in it and why other people refuse to acknowledge its existence. As I have gotten older, I often find the latter group more infuriating. Somehow, as much as I don't want to, I can understand why a Muslim raised in a world permeated with hate-filled lies about America and Israel, and taught from childhood that God loves death, will blow himself up and joyfully maim and murder children. As evil as the Muslim terrorist is, given the Islamic world in which he was raised, he has some excuse.

But the non-Muslims who fail to acknowledge and confront the evil of Muslim terror and the evil of those monsters who cut innocent people's throats and murder those trying to make a democracy -- these people are truly worth nothing. Unlike the Muslims raised in a religious totalitarian society, they have no excuse. And in my lifetime, these people have overwhelmingly congregated on the political Left.

Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.

There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/Baathists win.

It brings me no pleasure to describe opponents of the Iraqi war as "worth nothing." I know otherwise fine, decent people who oppose the war. So I sincerely apologize for the insult.

But to the Left in general, as opposed to individually good people who side with the Left, I have no apologies. It is the Left -- in America, in Europe and around the world -- that should do all the apologizing: to the men, women and children of Iraq and elsewhere for not coming to their support against those who would crush them.

That most Democratic Party leaders, union leaders, gay leaders, feminists, professors, editorial writers and news reporters have called for an American withdrawal and labeled this most moral of wars "immoral" is a permanent stain on their reputations.

About 60 percent of the Iraqi people went to vote despite the fact that every Iraqi voter risked his or her life and the lives of their children, whose throats the Islamic fascists threatened to slit. Yet, the Left continues to label the war for Iraqi democracy "immoral" while praising the tyrant of Cuba.

Leftists do so for the same reason they admired Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung and condemned American arms as the greatest threat to world peace during and after the Cold War. The Left "does not know the difference between good and evil." And that is why it is worth nothing.

Dick Morris on the suicidal choice of "DNC Dean"

That's what I'm going to start calling Dean until he does/doesn't get the DNC chair...because I'm convinced he will get it. And I'm not the only one who is praying for that to happen!

Dick Morris, among others, weighs in on the downward (and leftward) spiral of the modern Democratic party. Some snippets are below, though his full column is here. Oh, yeah...the snippets:

WHEN the British ultra-liberals in the pre- Tony Blair Labor Party published their lengthy election manifesto in the late 1980s, the radical document so explicitly spelled out their defiance of English public opinion that a Tory politician called it "the longest suicide note in history." Now, in choosing their new national leader, the Democratic Party is publishing a much more succinct suicide note. It reads "Chairman Howard Dean."

There is a school of thought among Democrats that by embracing policies and programs deeply at variance with what most Americans think will enhance the party's electoral viability. It was such wisdom that led to the selection of doomed nominees like Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry. It is only when the views of these crazies were repudiated — as with the nominations of JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — that the party can win elections.

(snip)

Here's how it work: When moderates and centrists embrace the GOP and President Bush, they leave the Democrats to the tender mercies of the liberals. The party is deprived of the ballast offered by swing voters, the party moves further and further to the left, driven by a Jacobin desire for revolutionary purity and revenge against those who urge pragmatism and point to the path to victory.

(snip)

What kind of chairman will Dean make? He will probably be as bad for the party's prospects as Nancy Pelosi has been as Democratic leader in the House. He will dig a deeper and deeper hole for the party, alienating its moderate donors and holding it hostage to the likes of Michael Moore and the Hollywood left.

Morris goes on to talk about Hillary and her laughable attempt to make herself look moderate for 2008. But I wanted to focus on "Screamin' Dean" for this entry.

Dean said on Saturday night at a swank Manhattan hotel: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for!" He also said, "We need to be people of conviction."

Yes, Howard, you do...but so many of your liberal brethren running for public office run away from the liberal label and their convictions! They should just come clean about their liberalism, and the truth shall set them free! After all, the truth set little Tommy Daschle free, didn't it?