Gitmo detainees...lying? No way!

Call Amnesty International and our MSM "useful idiots"!

On Larry King, Vice-President (and "evil Big Oil Baron") Dick Cheney had this to say about Amnesty's report calling the prison at Guantanamo Bay a Gulag: "Frankly, I was offended by it. For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously." Aside from Euroweenies and Euroweenie-wannabes in America, who does?

Cheney mentioned something that you seldom (if ever) hear the MSM bring up when they talk about these allegations of detainee abuse. He said that most of the allegations of abuse almost always come from former detainees released to their home countries that are now lying about their detention.

How dare he insinuate that Islamofascists are lying! The nerve! Just because the al Qaeda training manual mentions using lies to manipulate world opinion doesn't mean that these poor terrorists actually do it! I mean, from Baghdad Bob to Saddam Hussein to Syrian big cheese Assad to the worm food known as Yasser Arafat, we've seen Muslim leaders lie without shame for decades now...but that doesn't mean that Islamic terrorists will lie!

And by Allah, if these former detainees (like clockwork, in unison, as if scripted from, oh, say...a terror manual?) say that their Koran was desecrated, then by Allah, it was! I mean, why would they tell lies against the evil Westerners?

Amnesty never met a hard luck story (even a fake one) it couldn't bleed its heart over. By the way, whenever Christian religious symbols have been descerated (Bible burnings in Saudi Arabia, altar defacement in the church where the Palestinian terrorist cowards holed themselves up in), you never see three things: (1) anger in the "Christian streets"; (2) Amnesty (and other anti-Americans) getting worked up over it; and (3) Christian violence.

Happy Memorial Day!

I hope everyone has a wonderful Memorial Day holiday! Please take this time to honor those who gave their lives for this country so we may enjoy the freedoms that we have today. Enjoy time spent with friends and family. I know I will, which means that this will be the only post today.

Common Sense and Guantanamo Bay

A column by Professor Mathew Manweller of Central Washington University:

There are always going to be those people who never miss the chance to declare their moral superiority over the rest of us. The news has been full of condemnations of late criticizing the way the US government has been interrogating terrorist suspects. From the intensity of the self-indulgent whining, you would think government agents had reconstructed the Hanoi Hilton and were sticking bamboo shafts under the fingernails of these well-meaning but misguided terrorists. The truth however is far more insidious than we could ever have imagined. Did you know they have documented cases from Guantanamo Bay where interrogators have used Twinkies and other forms of junk food to entice terror suspects to spill the beans? I know. Try to keep your revulsion in check. Please, don’t let your children read this article. But I’m afraid it gets even worse. Earlier this year, it was learned that female interrogators were showing up to the detention center scantily clad. Yes, folks, you heard it here. Women dressing up in mini-skirts and tank-tops to get information from Muslim terrorists. When, my friends will the horror end?

This week, we had to confront another crime against humanity. It appears that interrogators have been handling the Koran inappropriately. Of course, for all its symbolic value, we are talking about paper with ink on it. No one was beaten. No one was starved. But who cares really? If it makes a sensational story where a news reporter gets to condescendingly spew self-righteous dialogue, and Democratic senators get to wax poetically about their own moral authority, it is news, my friend.

Today, Amnesty International decided to join in the self-congratulatory posturing calling Guantanamo Bay “the gulag of our time.” They catalogue a host of heinous treatment which includes sleep depravation and psychological torture. Apparently anyone who has raised teenagers has been subjected to torture if we accept Amnesty International’s definition. But to claim that Guantanamo Bay is the functional equivalent of a gulag is proof positive that we have become victims of our own psycho-babble. In the Soviet gulags thousands of political prisoners were systematically killed through starvation and beatings. In Cuba, prisoners are interrogated by mini-skirt wearing women. Yeah, I see the connection. Let’s bring these shameless women before the Nuremburg courts.

I often try to imagine how Amnesty International would like to see interrogations take place. I think it would go something like this:

Interrogator: Tell us who your associates are and what they are planning.

Terrorist: No.

Interrogator: Please.

Terrorist: No.

Interrogator: Pretty please.

Terrorist: No.

Interrogator: Well, this guy is just too tough of a nut to crack. Send him back to the spa where he can wait for his private jet ride back to Afghanistan. Bring in the next guy.

Or, here is the way most Democratic senators would like to see Guantanamo Bay run:

Interrogator: Tell us who your associates are and what they are planning.

Terrorist: No.

Interrogator: If I have to, I will go to the UN and get a resolution demanding you tell me.

Terrorist: You wouldn’t dare!

Interrogator: I will. In fact, I’ll get a Security Council resolution condemning the fact you’re not telling me what I want.

Terrorist: OK, OK, I give. Here is what I know.

The reality is that you can’t win a war fighting by the Queensbury rules. Just like criminals, terrorists don’t walk into an interrogation room and simply tell you everything you want to know. You have to manipulate them. Just like cops do down at the precinct. Sometimes, cops lie to suspects (They tell them their partner ratted them out even when they haven’t). Sometimes they apply emotional pressure (They talk about a suspect’s mother or children). Sometimes they apply psychological pressure (The let them sweat for a while or tell them they will get the needle if they don’t confess). All of this is fair game when you are trying to save lives and protect a community. It is also fair game when you are trying to nab terror suspects and learn more about their organizations. In fact it is more than fair game, it is common sense.

Rule clarification, updated in my profile

Notice that in my profile I mention that all points of view are welcome. As frequent guests to this blog who have been here for a while know, I pride myself in that philosophy. Dear friends of mine here have disagreed with me on things varying from Terri Schiavo to the death penalty to voting rights of paroled felons. These disagreements have always been done civilly, and have based on sound reasoning. Well, I guess I should qualify the word "all"...geez, I sound like Bill Clinton wanting to know what "is" is!

A recent visitor here considers himself a liberal, and it's clear that he is. However, during a recent discussion, he broke a rule (indirectly) of Netiquette that has been around in USENET newsgroups since 1990. This rule is called Godwin's Law. The law is as follows:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Participants then ignore the perpetrator henceforth, unless or until they decide to acknowledge his/her existence. The perpetrator has showed a lack of coherent thought and critical thinking and has tried to inflame passion by using a gratuitous reference to universally accepted evil (which is funny, since liberals usually refuse to acknowledge good and evil, right and wrong...but I digress).

Well, the aforementioned liberal has been entertaining, but he recently violated Godwin's Law, albeit indirectly. Instead of referring to ideological opponents as "Nazis", he referred to them as "American Taliban." So I added Leffingwell's Corollary to Godwin's Law, which basically extends the law (and its violation's consequences) to include Taliban, al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, etc.

Basically, the individuals referenced by said liberal as "American Taliban" have not, to the best of MY knowledge, perpetrated acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing or extinction, and rhetorical overreaches like that are invalid and in poor taste.

If the reference or analogy uses Hitler/Nazis/Taliban/etc. in a way that does not compare personally, the analogy may be considered valid. Example:

Statment: "Bill Clinton was a good leader...look at the way he improved the economy!"
Reply: "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy."

While I'm no fan of Clinton and could write a thesis on how he did nothing to or for the economy, I do not take the above reply to be comparing Clinton to Hitler. I take it to mean that improvement of the economy in and of itself does not a good leader make. Godwin's Law was not violated. However, look at this example:

Statement: "Clinton did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda! He's no better than Hitler!"
Statement: "Clinton is just like Saddam Hussein in that he had those women and children in Waco killed!"

While it is true that Clinton did nothing about Rwanda, Clinton did not personally order or approve of the genocide there. And while Clinton's bumbling AG Janet Reno royally botched the handling of the Waco standoff, that was a ham-handed attempt to defuse a volatile situation. Deserving of elevated, passionate criticism? Abso-freakin'-lutely! Testaments to unadulterated evil? Uh...no. Such comparisons as above violate Godwin's Law, and the piehole that uttered the nonsense would (and should) be ignored by everyone else.

So, while the offending liberal is still welcome to waste his time and post his drivel, he can count on getting no replies from me. I encourage my other readers here to also ignore him, but that's up to you guys.

"We're neutral"

Newsweek to al Jazeera: "We're neutral."

al Jazeera to Newsweek: "Yeah..(snicker...snicker...) we are, too!"

Story:

Just days after Newsweek "retracted” its Quran-flushing story, a top editor with the magazine seemingly backed away from its flat-out retraction, telling the U.S.-hostile al-Jazeera network that Newsweek was "neutral” on whether Americans had desecrated the Quran.

In a May 19 interview with the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera, Newsweek’s Washington bureau chief Daniel Klaidman admitted the magazine made a "mistake” in publishing the story, and promised: "In the future, we won’t make these kinds of mistakes.”

The Al-Jazeera interview with Newsweek was translated this week by Memri.org - the Middle East Media Research Institute, a non profit group that engages in "original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.”

The Memri transcript shows that Newsweek was cleverly telling millions of Arab viewers there story may still be true – they just did not have the evidence to support their original allegations.

The Al-Jazeera reporter asked Newsweek’s Klaidman, "But there is no proof that it (the Quran desecration) did not happen either.”

So al-Jazeera wants proof that the incidents did not happen? Interesting. While most anti-American entities think we should treat the savages detained in Gitmo with an "innocent until proven guilty, despite what your lying eyes show you," these same entities think that it is incumbent upon America to prove that the lies spun from al Qaeda's propaganda training manual techniques MUST be disproved...in other words, guilty until proven innocent!

Yeah, the al-Jazeera Terrorvision Network...good and reliable, independent and balanced, unbiased and objective!

Gulag? How the hell would THEY know?

Boortz nails anti-American Amnesty International on this one:

The always reliable anti-American organization known as Amnesty International got into the United States-bashing act yesterday. They made a statement that is quite a gem. They came right out and accused us of running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Really....they don't say.

First off...let's take a look at the definition of a gulag. Gulag refers to the system of camps run by the Soviet Union between 1930 and 1955 in which millions of people died. The gulags held political prisoners in brutal conditions. Now let's see how that compares to things down in Cuba. The U.S. is holding 540 Islamic terrorists prisoner. They are illegal combatants and not entitled to Geneva conventions protection. They were taken prisoner while trying to kill us. Not political prisoners in the least. They are being held with cause.

And why is Amnesty all hot and bothered about it anyway? What about the forced labor gulags in North Korea? Castro's Cuba? Why are they more worried about our little prison in Guantanamo Bay? The answer is because they are an anti-American organization and their goal is always to make America look as bad as possible. Always blame America first.

By the way, it's interesting to note the Associated Press' discussion of the gulags in the Soviet Union, where as they say "untold thousands" died. Still covering for Uncle Joe, I see. Conservative estimates put the dead from Stalin's camps at more like 20 million.

540 vs. 20 million. You be the judge.

You'd figure that while they were there at Cuba checking out those poor al Qaeda and exhaulted Taliban (revered by a recent visitor here), they'd stroll over to Havana to see some real human suffering. I know, the human suffering there isn't the fault of failed socialist policies...it's the cruel American blockade.

"Extraordinary circumstances"

Hat tip to Neal Boortz:

Those kind, generous liberals

Libs like to fancy themselves as kind and generous and compassionate (with other people's money, never their own), when they're not too busy spewing bile and venom in conservatives' directions. Aren't they just the charitable bunch?

Well, their idol, Bill Clinton, has been speaking to various charity groups lately, and charging hefty speaking fees for his services. Look, I don't begrudge the man for charging speaking fees. But billing a charity? That's almost as vile as diddling a 20-something-year-old intern in the Oval Office!

Full story is here, but here is the gist of the story:

Volunteer groups in Ireland are criticizing ex-President Bill Clinton for charging a suicide prevention charity $125,000 for a 40-minute speech Monday night.

"Any initiative that contributes to the prevention of suicide is very welcome," said Pat Buckley, spokesman for a group of Irish suicide support groups, in an interview with the Irish Examiner.

"But the money it will cost for Bill Clinton to make this keynote speech would fund a lot of counseling for the bereaved and those at risk of suicide in places like Cork, Limerick or Kerry."

Clinton's fee, Buckley added, could also cover the costs of "voluntary [suicide prevention] activities of groups North and South."

(snip...)

On Tuesday morning, Mr. Clinton will attend a breakfast at the Berkley Court Hotel in Dublin to raise money for the Rose Project, an Irish charity for AIDs sufferers in Africa.

It's not clear whether the ex-president will be charging the AIDs charity for his speech.

Depends on how much hell is catches over this incident. Yeah, right...

The rattlesnake analogy

Here's an old Cherokee story that applies to the GOP filibuster cave last night:

A little boy was walking down a path and he came across a rattlesnake. The rattlesnake was getting old. He asked, "Please little boy, can you take me to the top of the mountain? I hope to see the sunset one last time before I die." The little boy answered "No Mr. Rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you'll bite me and I'll die." The rattlesnake said, "No, I promise. I won't bite you. Just please take me up to the mountain." The little boy thought about it and finally picked up that rattlesnake and took it close to his chest and carried it up to the top of the mountain.

They sat there and watched the sunset together. It was so beautiful. Then after sunset the rattlesnake turned to the little boy and asked, "Can I go home now? I am tired, and I am old." The little boy picked up the rattlesnake and again took it to his chest and held it tightly and safely. He came all the way down the mountain holding the snake carefully and took it to his home to give him some food and a place to sleep. The next day the rattlesnake turned to the boy and asked, "Please little boy, will you take me back to my home now? It is time for me to leave this world, and I would like to be at my home now." The little boy felt he had been safe all this time and the snake had kept his word, so he would take it home as asked.

He carefully picked up the snake, took it close to his chest, and carried him back to the woods, to his home to die. Just before he laid the rattlesnake down, the rattlesnake turned and bit him in the chest. The little boy cried out and threw the snake upon the ground. "Mr. Snake, why did you do that? Now I will surely die!" The rattlesnake looked up at him and grinned, "You knew what I was when you picked me up."

The rattlesnake represents Democrats, and the naive snakebit boy represents the GOP.

Those Shirts

Little plug for ThoseShirts.com, with whom I am not affiliated (but I wish I were):

Dean: stop using words!

DNC chief Howard "Primal Scream" Dean was on Meet the Press Sunday. Hilarity ensued:

Russert caught the one-time presidential candidate off guard when he asked about his recent endorsement of self-professed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders to replace retiring Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords. "Well, first of all, he's not a socialist, really," Dean protested. When Russert noted that Sanders had acknowledged in writing: "Outside or in the House, I am a Democratic socialist," Dean offered meekly, "Well, a Democratic socialist – all right, we're talking about words here."

Yeah, we are...don't you just hate it when that happens? Those damned word thingees again!

DeLay prosecutor at Dem fundraiser

From the Houston Chronicle:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who denies partisan motives for his investigation of a political group founded by Republican leader Tom DeLay, was the featured speaker last week at a Democratic fund-raiser where he spoke directly about the congressman.

A newly formed Democratic political action committee, Texas Values in Action Coalition, hosted the May 12 event in Dallas to raise campaign money to take control of the state Legislature from the GOP, organizers said.

Earle, an elected Democrat, helped generate $102,000 for the organization.

Nope...no political motivations here. And then this knee-slapper:

Earle said Wednesday he knew the group that met in Dallas was raising money for Democrats, but that it was not his reason for speaking.

"I'd make the same speech to any group, Republican or Democrat, as long as the group was interested in honest, open government," Earle said in a telephone interview.

Yeah, right. Maybe he'd like to help federal investigators check out the 120 Representatives in the House who spent more on travel for their staffs (paid for by lobbyists) than Tom DeLay did. Somehow, I doubt he would.

By the way, the top five Congress members who take the most junkets last year:

- Rep. Maxine Waters and Senator John Breaux, both Democrats.
- Rep. Harold Ford, Democrat
- Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat
- Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat

Tom DeLay is ranked 121st. Wonder why the House Democrats haven't pushed for a full-blown investigation into DeLay? Because they know full well the investigation scope will increase to cover the aforementioned Democrat wandering souls (excluding Breaux...he retired). It's much easier to publicly trash DeLay without specifics, since those tend to be inconvenient at times, don't they?

The Abe Fortas filibuster lie

CNN's attempt to show purported GOP hypocrisy in filibustering of judicial nominees:

In 1968, a Republican filibuster kept Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas from rising to the chief justice position and eventually forced him to resign from the court.

That's the lie (now being reported as fact) peddled by the left and by CNN (forgive the redundancy).
What really happened with Abe Fortas? Fortas lost support due to revealed knowledge that he had given inaccurate information to the Judiciary Committee.

When the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Senator Dirksen (Illinois Republican who brokered Republican support to break the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. And it was a BIPARTISAN filibuster!

Fortas was filibustered for possible corruption, which was probably unnecessary since he likely would have been voted down anyway. Plus, he was already a Supreme Court Justice who was being nominated for the Chief Justice spot.

This filibuster can't be used by the left (at least not accurately, but they rarely let facts get in the way of good MSM-carried sound bites). Three main differences with Fortas' filibuster and those used by Senate liberals today:

1. Fortas had a bipartisan filibuster. Today's are only by one party...the one that keeps losing elections.
2. Fortas had done something illegal or at least appeared improper and unethical. None of Bush's nominees has been accused of such.
3. Fortas was not denied a Supreme Court position, since he already had one. Bush's future nominees for the Supreme Court will no doubt be filibustered for that court.

There. That oughta put that liberal lie to rest.

'NEWSWEEK DISSEMBLED, MUSLIMS DISMEMBERED!'

Pun on mindless liberal mantra: "Bush lied, people died!" Sic 'em, Ann Coulter!

When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story.

When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post -- which owns Newsweek -- decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it.

Why no pause for reflection when Isikoff had a story about American interrogators at Guantanamo flushing the Quran down the toilet? Why not sit on this story for, say, even half as long as NBC News sat on Lisa Meyers' highly credible account of Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick?

Newsweek seems to have very different responses to the same reporter's scoops. Who's deciding which of Isikoff's stories to run and which to hold? I note that the ones that Matt Drudge runs have turned out to be more accurate -- and interesting! -- than the ones Newsweek runs. Maybe Newsweek should start running everything past Matt Drudge.

Somehow Newsweek missed the story a few weeks ago about Saudi Arabia arresting 40 Christians for "trying to spread their poisonous religious beliefs." But give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact-checking -- before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of "Piss Christ."

Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas justified Newsweek's decision to run the incendiary anti-U.S. story about the Quran, saying that "similar reports from released detainees" had already run in the foreign press -- "and in the Arab news agency al-Jazeera."

Is there an adult on the editorial board of Newsweek? Al-Jazeera also broadcast a TV miniseries last year based on the "Protocols of the Elders Of Zion." (I didn't see it, but I hear James Brolin was great!) Al-Jazeera has run programs on the intriguing question, "Is Zionism worse than Nazism?" (Take a wild guess where the consensus was on this one.) It runs viewer comments about Jews being descended from pigs and apes. How about that for a Newsweek cover story, Evan? You're covered -- al-Jazeera has already run similar reports!

Ironically, among the reasons Newsweek gave for killing Isikoff's Lewinsky bombshell was that Evan Thomas was worried someone might get hurt. It seems that Lewinsky could be heard on tape saying that if the story came out, "I'll (expletive) kill myself."

But Newsweek couldn't wait a moment to run a story that predictably ginned up Islamic savages into murderous riots in Afghanistan, leaving hundreds injured and 16 dead. Who could have seen that coming? These are people who stone rape victims to death because the family "honor" has been violated and who fly planes into American skyscrapers because -- wait, why did they do that again?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to hold Newsweek responsible for inciting violence among people who view ancient Buddhist statues as outrageous provocation -- though I was really looking forward to finally agreeing with Islamic loonies about something. (Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do.) But then I wouldn't have sat on the story of the decade because of the empty threats of a drama queen gas-bagging with her friend on the telephone between spoonfuls of Haagen-Dazs.

No matter how I look at it, I can't grasp the editorial judgment that kills Isikoff's stories about a sitting president molesting the help and obstructing justice, while running Isikoff's not particularly newsworthy (or well-sourced) story about Americans desecrating a Quran at Guantanamo.

Even if it were true, why not sit on it? There are a lot of reasons the media withhold even true facts from readers. These include:

A drama queen nitwit exclaimed she'd kill herself. (Evan Thomas' reason for holding the Lewinsky story.)

The need for "more independent reporting." (Newsweek President Richard Smith explaining why Newsweek sat on the Lewinsky story even though the magazine had Lewinsky on tape describing the affair.)

"We were in Havana." (ABC president David Westin explaining why "Nightline" held the Lewinsky story.)

Unavailable for comment. (Michael Oreskes, New York Times Washington bureau chief, in response to why, the day The Washington Post ran the Lewinsky story, the Times ran a staged photo of Clinton meeting with the Israeli president on its front page.)

Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.

Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.

Protecting a reporter's source.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."

No one told me that Mary Mapes went to work for Newsweek!

Newsweek's aftermath...is Bush's fault?

The MSM is circling the wagons on this one. Notice how quick they come to the aid of one of their brethren whenever their agenda-based "reports" turn out to be well-edited and eloquently-worded lies! The Media Research Center documents (link) the talking points going around the circuit. Just a sample of some of the damage control spin:

Reporters Come to Newsweek's Defense, Suggest Story Really True

(you know, the CBS defense? "Well, the source was wrong, but the story was still right!" Hey...the National Enquirer can use that approach! "OK, the photos of Elvis on the UFO are fake, but the story is still real!")

MSNBC's Olbermann & Crawford Suggest Bush Team "Set Up" Newsweek

(I'll bite...how do you "set up" an MSM source?)

Schieffer Blames Newsweek's Retraction on White House "Pressure"

(looks like CBS Evening News is continuing the Rather tradition)

Alter: Story May Be True, Chides Pentagon, Touts Mag's "Digging"

(Alter works for Newsweek, so it's news that he's defending them?)

Yep, it was Bush's fault that Newsweek had to retract its dungpile report! It had nothing to do with the fact that the story was wrong and wreaked of hitpiece and sloppiness. Oh, no, it was Bush's fault that the lies had to be retracted! I tell you, what I wouldn't have given for any of my college professors to make me retract a bad report and give me another crack at it!

The last item is hilarious, because Alter says "the larger question that people have to ask is do they want news organizations out there trying to dig, or do they want to take all their information from the government?" As the MRC astutely points out: But in this case, isn't Newsweek's position that they got their information from a government official?

Reid's war on the judiciary...and it IS war!

I've often said that the left will fight to the death any judicial nominee that dares to interpret the Constitution the way it was written, rather than legislate from the bench. After all, liberal ideas are routinely rejected by the public (and overwhelmingly so). In order for liberals to force their way of life onto an electorate that rejects their message, they must do so from the bench, since they fail to do so legislatively. In other words, the judiciary is the last gasp of hope for the liberal agenda.

Harry Reid has begun a smear-and-intimidation campaign against the (twice-elected) President's judicial nominees. Excerpt below, full story here:

Columnist Bob Novak unveiled the story in his May 16 column, reporting that a California political consulting firm requested the financial records of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones and 29 other "appellate judges in all but one of the country's judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities." According to Novak, such a mass request for disclosure by federal judges is unprecedented.

But what makes this more interesting is that one of the partners in the consulting firm is Craig Varoga, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Should we assume complicity on Reid's part?

Until I hear him denouncing this outrage, I'll presume he's supportive of it. With his consistent pugnaciousness and pettiness in these Senate skirmishes and his recent demeaning reference to President Bush as a "loser" before high school students, we now know Reid's not the mild-mannered public servant he pretends to be.

Neither was Tom Dasshole, and looked what happened to him. Granted, Reid has another 5+ years, since he was just re-elected in NV before becoming the new attack dog of the left.

Many doubt the dirt hunt is limited to the judges' public records. Judicial Confirmation Network counsel Wendy E. Long said: "It's clear that Sen. Reid's former communications director, who now runs a left-wing political research firm, has not been hired by NARAL simply to obtain public records. You don't hire an expensive political research firm to do what the Senate Democratic staff can easily do."

Of course you don't.

Of the two political parties, which has the cleaner hands in the fight over federal judgeships? One party is fighting to the death for the "privacy" "rights" of women to "choose" to kill their own babies in the womb on demand and, in the process, is in bed with groups engaged in the most egregious privacy-invading expedition against prospective Supreme Court nominees.

Ironic, isn't it? These bastards purport to care about "privacy" at every turn...unless we're talking about the privacy of anyone who gets in their way! But, there is a good idea to come from this:

If everyone's finances are so relevant all of a sudden, perhaps someone should do an expose concerning the financial workings of NARAL to inquire, among other things, into what kind of incentives NARAL and other such groups have actually to be pro-choice, as opposed to pro-death. What's good for the goose ...

Arab savages WANT to believe U.S. is anti-Muslim

Newsweek runs a bullsh#t story with the shoddiest of journalistic practices that purports desecration of the Koran in Gitmo. The Arab world takes to the streets in anger, and innocents die. Muslims who don't live here say it's proof that the U.S. is anti-Muslim (which would come as a shock to Muslims who do live here).

Newsweek retracts its story, exposing its inaccuracy (that's being kind) for all the world to see. The Arab world's reaction? They still believe the now-discredited story, despite said story's creators stating its bovine feces factor.

To summarize: believe the patently false story with the anti-Muslim theme, refuse to believe the same source which says the anti-Muslim story was false. The bloodthirsty cretins simply want to believe it. These third-world savages (and I mean only the ones who are still protesting and bitching about the lies) are only happy when they're miserable.

LA Times column: Dems need to whistle Dixie

At least one sun-dried coastal liberal understands that Democrats will have to "condescend" to us Southerners in order to win the White House. Here's guessing that it will take a little more than a catfish-and-cheese-grits photo-op to do it, too.

From Ron Brownstein of the LA Times (link):

Since President Bush's narrow reelection in November, many Democrats have looked longingly to the Mountain West as the party's best opportunity to rebuild an electoral college majority. And in the years ahead, states such as Colorado, Arizona and Nevada may indeed become more competitive political battlefields.

But new long-term population projections from the Census Bureau show that anyone who believes Democrats can consistently win the White House without puncturing the Republican dominance across the South is just whistling Dixie. The census projections present Democrats with an ominous equation: the South is growing in electoral clout even as the Republican hold on the region solidifies.

(snip...)

There are enough crosscurrents to discourage any simple assumption that demographic change guarantees Republican continuity in the White House. But one conclusion seems inescapable: Democrats need to expand their map. The states that favor them are shrinking in influence — which means the party will too unless it can challenge the Republican hold on the states, especially in the South, adding population and votes with each passing day.

The problem is a big one for Democrats, too. Al Gore abandoned the South (except for FL), and he lost. John Kerry said during the primary that Democrats "make the mistake of looking South" to win, and pointed to the fact that Al Gore lost New Hampshire by about 6,000 votes and would have thus won the presidency without a single Southern state. Translation: drop dead, rednecks!

One of the main reasons that the South will be a problem for liberals is because they are so arrogant and condescending, and Southerners simply are not. Libs don't want to get their hands dirty pressing the flesh with a bunch of hayseeds, so they try to win Western states instead (like Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada). The strategy hasn't worked very well, yet they keep repeating because they get close enough to (in their minds) justify the strategy. After all, why try to win a state full of ham-and-eggers if you don't have to, right guys? Isn't better to go to a fundraising snowlodge retreat in Aspen or desert hideaway in Santa Fe instead of a BBQ in Memphis or a crawfish boil in Baton Rouge?

Quite simply, Democrat politicos from outside of the South don't get it. More and more liberals like Brownstein are begrudingly understanding the need to compete in Dixie, but as long as the national party continues to lean on Northeastern effete liberals like John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and Teddy (hiccup..blub-blub!) Kennedy...they will continue to go down in electoral defeat.

Dems team up with Larry Flynt to derail Bolton

Senate Democrats are now enlisting the help of smutmaster Larry Flynt to help derail the John Bolton nomination. Full story here.

Nothing says "We're serious about reaching out to 'Red State' Americans and people of faith" more than leaning on Larry Flynt for help! Glad to see liberals are sincere in their efforts to consider normal America's moral values!

Newsweek making even CBS look credible!

All Hell has broken loose in the Muslim world, many are dead, and Newsweek has blood on its hands. It is now turning out that Newsweek relied on the same type of sloppy journalism that CBS relied on when Rather, Inc., ran its since-discredited Bush National Guard story in an attempt to influence last year's election. From MSN / Newsweek:

By the end of the week, the rioting had spread from Afghanistan throughout much of the Muslim world, from Gaza to Indonesia. Mobs shouting "Protect our Holy Book!" burned down government buildings and ransacked the offices of relief organizations in several Afghan provinces. The violence cost at least 15 lives, injured scores of people and sent a shudder through Washington, where officials worried about the stability of moderate regimes in the region.

The spark was apparently lit at a press conference held on Friday, May 6, by Imran Khan, a Pakistani cricket legend and strident critic of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Brandishing a copy of that week's NEWSWEEK (dated May 9), Khan read a report that U.S. interrogators at Guantánamo prison had placed the Qur'an on toilet seats and even flushed one. "This is what the U.S. is doing," exclaimed Khan, "desecrating the Qur'an." His remarks, as well as the outraged comments of Muslim clerics and Pakistani government officials, were picked up on local radio and played throughout neighboring Afghanistan. Radical Islamic foes of the U.S.-friendly regime of Hamid Karzai quickly exploited local discontent with a poor economy and the continued presence of U.S. forces, and riots began breaking out last week.

Late last week Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita told NEWSWEEK that its original story was wrong. The brief PERISCOPE item ("SouthCom Showdown") had reported on the expected results of an upcoming U.S. Southern Command investigation into the abuse of prisoners at Gitmo. According to NEWSWEEK, SouthCom investigators found that Gitmo interrogators had flushed a Qur'an down a toilet in an attempt to rattle detainees. While various released detainees have made allegations about Qur'an desecration, the Pentagon has, according to DiRita, found no credible evidence to support them.

The full story needs to be read to be believed, but let me fast-forward to this part of the story, where Newsweek tries to pass the buck to other news sources:

NEWSWEEK was not the first to report allegations of desecrating the Qur'an. As early as last spring and summer, similar reports from released detainees started surfacing in British and Russian news reports, and in the Arab news agency Al-Jazeera;

Well, Allah-dammit, nothing says objectivity and believability like the al-Jazeera terrorvision network! Really, they tried to point to AJ as a believable source! Next thing you know, they'll be running a UFO story based on the latest copy of the National Enquirer (who, right about now, looks more believable than Newsweek).
Continuing:

On Friday night, Pentagon spokesman DiRita called NEWSWEEK to complain about the original PERISCOPE item. He said, "We pursue all credible allegations" of prisoner abuse, but insisted that the investigators had found none involving Qur'an desecration. DiRita sent NEWSWEEK a copy of rules issued to the guards (after the incidents mentioned by General Myers) to guarantee respect for Islamic worship. On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report. Told of what the NEWSWEEK source said, DiRita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"

How could he be credible now? I guess the same way that Rather insisted that his source was "unimpeachable"...only to be impeached later. And yes, Mr. DiRita...people are dead because of the son of a bitch.
Finally:

One of Falkoff's clients told him, "Another detainee tried to kill himself after the guard took his Qur'an and threw it in the toilet." A U.S. military spokesman, Army Col. Brad Blackner, dismissed the claims as unbelievable. "If you read the Al Qaeda training manual, they are trained to make allegations against the infidels," he said.

And our American media is apparently running serious news reports based on said terror training manual. I tell you, al Qaeda probably never dreamed the Western media would aid and abet (willingly or not) them in this way.

Reid outs judge's FBI file

It's become clearer than Tom Daschle's schedule these days that his successor, Harry Reid, is not ready for the big leagues yet. From today's Washington Times:

Minority Leader Harry Reid strayed from his prepared remarks on the Senate floor yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on "a problem" he said is in the nominee's "confidential report from the FBI."

Those highly confidential reports are filed on all judicial nominees, and severe sanctions apply to anyone who discloses their contents. Less clear is whether a senator could face sanctions for characterizing the content of such files.

Now Bill Clinton could pull a "Well, I never said what was in those files...just that they existed before Hillary shredded them!" and get away with it. Reid doesn't have the personality to pull that off, though he will have the MSM helping him out.

So to recap: former CIA analyst (i.e. non-security non-espionage position) Valerie Plame had her name in the paper last year, and libs raised holy Hell. Judge Greer, who ordered the starvation death of Terri Schiavo, was said to be beyond reproach...that it wasn't fair to insult a member of the judiciary. Yet somehow, it is fair game to characterize confidential files on a judge who is nominated to a federal appeals court.

The files are ones that Reid shouldn't have had access to...quick, find the GOP staffer who gave it to him to deflect attention from the fact that Reid had the files in the first damned place! Oh, wait...that tactic was already used last year!

PBS not liberal enough

It is a well-known fact that PBS has been oozing liberal bias and programming pretty much since its inception. With years of Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, etc., on the air, PBS has been quite the taxpayer-funded mouthpiece of the left. Factor in children's programming that pounds home socialist messages, and it's impossible to dispute the leftward tilt of PBS. Matter of fact, one of my fellow bloggers has a PublicBS Watch blog set up that documents (among other things) PBS' crap.

Well, if you ask two liberal House members, it just isn't liberal enough over at PBS.

Two Democrats are calling for an investigation into the new chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, and his efforts to add a little balance to the PBS menu, especially since PBS' ratings have been in the toilet (almost as bad as those of MSNBC). Representatives David Obey and John Dingell seem to think it's against the law to "censor" programming. They thusly expose the left's belief that anytime a liberal is not allowed to present their point of view whenever they want ad nauseum, it's censorship. So does Barney get to start dropping F-bombs, now that there's supposed to be no censorship? Maybe we can watch Tinky Winky polish Dipsy's putter for all the world to see! Oh, the new possibilities!

You know, these liberals have a point! I mean, aside from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, MTV, VH1, Reuters, the AP, BBC, Air America, and nearly every MSM daily newspaper in the country...just how in the hell is a lib to get his (unpopular) message out there? A watered-down PBS won't help them!

By the way, notice that one of the liberals' favorite cause celebre, the Fairness Doctrine, is being ignored by them? Granted, the Fairness Doctrine isn't in effect anymore, but I find their hypocrisy telling. I mean, they want commercial radio stations to be forced to air liberal messages if it has conservative messages...but that same level of "balance" does not apply to government-owned broadcasts?? "Hi, Mr. Pot...I'm Mr. Kettle!"

For the record, I think PBS should be de-funded. It's nothing more than state-owned broadcasting. Don't we call that "propaganda" in other countries?

al Qaeda's last stand?

Looks like Iraq is al Qaeda's last stand. Link

The war in Iraq is increasingly looking more like a showdown with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda followers than a battle primarily against Saddam Hussein loyalists.

The shift is making the fight a focal point of the U.S. global war against Islamic terrorists and one that might dictate whether the U.S. wins or loses, said a senior official and an outside expert.

"If they fail in Iraq, Osama and his whole crew are finished," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a military author and analyst.

The changing dynamic was highlighted this week when the U.S. military launched a major offensive in western Iraq, primarily against foreign jihadists who crossed the border with Syria to join the al Qaeda network in Iraq led by Abu Musab Zarqawi.

What?!?!? I thought that al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq! Isn't that what the left and their MSM mouthpieces have been telling us for two years now?

Harry Reid pulls a "Dixie Chicks"

Funny that the as-of-late habitually losing Democrats call for "bipartisanship", all while they continue to spew their bile-laced vitriol about how evil Bush and Republicans are. I guess that by default, that would make the American electorate evil for continuing to elect non-liberals in droves.

Recent comments by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid made news (on non-MSM sources) over the weekend. Reid had this to say about President Bush (who, by the way, won Reid's state of NV in 2000 and 2004): "The man's father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser. I think President Bush is doing a bad job." Well dip me in sh#t and roll me in suagr...if that's not bipartisan, then just what the hell is?

On top of the comments themselves, the more despicable aspect is that Harry Reid chose a time to say that when the president is abroad, representing the United States. I suspect international (i.e. anti-American) media sources picked this up and ran with it.

But the silence is damned deafening over here in the U.S.! No MSM sources have run with the story here. I mean, our "esteemed" (ahem) media barely noticed that the Democratic leader in the Senate called the president a loser. What if the situation were reversed, and George W. Bush had called Harry Reid a loser? Front page of the Times (pick one) or the Globe (pick one), that's what.

Harry Reid, meet the Dixie Chicks. Let's hope Harry's career goes the same direction as that of the Dixie Chicks after they opened their blowholes. Anyone heard from them lately...hmmmmm? Didn't think so.

Tony Blair won...right?

Some headlines of MSM and UK papers:

"No landslide", "Support of war cost him", "Brits show anti-war sentiment"

I admit that I don't know British slang or vernacular, but do these terms mean "Tony Blair wins unprecedented third election"? I mean, I am admittedly limited to my American English (and a small amount of French, which would come in handy in the event that I ever meet a German to whom I wish to surrender). But by those headlines, it sounds like Tony Blair was defeated in the UK elections.

So for those of you out there who get their news from CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MTV, or any of the major daily newspapers, please do not be shocked when I let you in on this little secret:

Tony Blair was re-elected!

Dems' UN nominee broke law, yet confirmed; Bolton is mean, yet to be confirmed!

Former Clinton UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke apparently broke the law, or at the very least, had serious ethical violations when his nomination was before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He received a slap-on-the-wrist fine of $5,000 and a plea on a civil count.

What did he do? Well, the full story is here, but here's an excerpt that summarizes his actions:

Upon leaving public service, Holbrooke became an instant millionaire executive with Credit Suisse First Boston. According to an official with intimate knowledge of the investigation, private citizen Holbrooke would call people he knew on staffs of various embassies—people who still likely saw him as their boss—to set up meetings with foreign officials, and he allegedly used former employees to provide him with office space and drivers.

Holbrooke’s defense was shaky, at best. He claimed that because he was also the special envoy to Bosnia, all his trips and various uses of government property were solely to benefit the U.S. government. Most of the travel, however, was underwritten by CSFB, not the U.S. taxpayer.

Did the GOP sink his nomination? Nope.

Fast forward to today. Dems are much less "diplomatic", pardon the pun. Holbrooke breaks laws, gets confirmed by all Democrats and most Republicans. John Bolton might be mean to subordinates (like every liberal legislator), and by gosh, he's not fit for the office! After eight years of Clinton moral turpitude, now character finally matters to these people!

Welcome to the game, guys! Better late than never, huh?

Pelosi: Investigate Republican ethics, NOT fellow Dems

Nancy Pelosi, D-Bitchifornia, wants to investigate Tom DeLay for possible ethics violations, specifically accepting travel paid for by lobbyists. Fair enough, even though her motivations are less than pure: She doesn't care if DeLay has or has not done anything wrong or improper...she wants him to fry. Personally, I have no problems with an investigation, irrespective of motivation.

Here, though, is where I practice the lost art of ideological consistency. This art used to be important in the early days of political discourse. This art has never been practiced by the left, though, and Pelosi is no different. Story:

House Republicans called Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi a hypocrite yesterday for not demanding investigations into new ethics questions that have arisen about the travel of her fellow Democrats.

"She demanded an investigation into [Majority Leader] Tom DeLay, but hasn't said a word about these Democrats who have done the same thing," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican. "If she doesn't call for investigations into her fellow Democrats, then it's clear she's being a hypocrite."

Republicans are wondering why the California representative won't ask for investigations into Democratic Reps. Norm Dicks of Washington, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, James E. Clyburn of South Carolina and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, all of whom face questions about accepting travel paid for by lobbyists.

"As we expressed in earlier letters, Madame Leader, it appears more and more that your repeated calls for an investigation of Mr. DeLay are more driven by politics than by any real concern for the House rules," Mr. McHenry, with two other Republicans, wrote in a letter to Mrs. Pelosi yesterday.

Her response?

Despite urging from Republicans, Mrs. Pelosi refused to call for any investigations of her Democratic colleagues.

"The Republicans are yet again attempting to muddy the waters to divert attention from their pattern of abusing of power," spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said yesterday.

In other words, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. To his credit, George Stephanopoulos called her on it in an interview.

In an ABC interview Sunday, Mrs. Pelosi dismissed questions about travel by Democrats, telling interviewer George Stephanopoulos: "Do not fall into a Republican trap of equating technicalities on reporting, timing of reporting with not upholding an ethical standard of the House."

Republicans see a double standard.

"What is a 'technicality' for her requires a full-scale investigation for others," said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Carl Forti.

Indiana Democrats sue state over photo ID voting requirement

My first reaction when I read the headline was "Wow! They have Democrats in Indiana?"

From the story:

The lawsuit claims the law, which is among the strictest in the nation, violates the U.S. Constitution and federal voting laws. It is slated to take effect July 1.

Critics say requiring a photo ID at the polls unfairly affects the poor, minorities, people with disabilities and the elderly, many of whom do not have driver's licenses and might struggle to obtain a photo ID.

Where to begin here?

First of all, there's nothing in the Constitution that the left can point to here. What language could possibly be interpreted by a liberal judicial activist as finding this law unconstitutional?

Secondly, Democrats are almost exclusively the ones who are perpetrating vote fraud. The elections of 1960 (Nixon ballot machines found at the bottom of Lake Michigan, "new" ballots found in Texas), 2000 (Gore giving homeless Wisconsinites cigs to go vote in a state he won by 5000 votes, double-voting in WI and MI, squelching military votes in FL), 2002 (dead Indians and pets in a SD Senate race won by the Democrat by 520 votes), and 2004 (see prior post about what happened in the WA governor's race) all come to mind. Dems would be less successful at vote fraud if valid photo ID was required. For them to say that they're merely concerned about the rights of minorities and the elderly is about as believable as a Michael Moore movie! I live in FL, and there's no shortage of minorities or bluehairs driving our roads! If they're driving, they have (or should have) a driver's license.

What is so damned offensive about people proving that they are who they say they are in order to guarantee "one person, one vote"? Unless one plans on cheating, there is not a damned thing wrong with requiring proof of identity. It's only fair, and sane!

Democrats are suddenly AGAINST statistical sampling?

For years now, Democrats have wanted the U.S. Census to use a method called statistical sampling (instead of an actual head count) when determining population numbers, especially for Dem-friendly ethnic groups. They've said that minorities are underrepresented in the Census, and therefore underrepresented in Congress (since electoral votes, Congressional districts, etc., are based on Census numbers).

Fast forward to yesterday (May 2), where in Washington state, Democrats succesfully stole a gubernatorial election in November. Republican Dino Rossi won the vote by over 200, won after absentee votes were tallied by about 120 votes, and won after a machine recount by 42 votes. The Democrats "found" a "previously undiscovered" cache of ballots in liberal Seattle King County, and as luck would have it, "found" enough votes to overturn the election results. Republicans won a court challenge yesterday in wanting to apply a proportional analysis in illegal votes (for both candidates), which Democrats were fighting tooth-and-nail.

Democrats said the method amounts to statistical guessing. At the same time, they have been collecting evidence of illegal votes in GOP-leaning counties, and plan to use the same proportional analysis in court.

In arguments before Bridges, David Burman, an attorney for the Democrats, likened proportional analysis to flipping a coin. To overturn an election, "They have to be certain," he said. "Mathematical chances are not good enough."

Really? Not good enough when your candidate can be screwed, but certainly OK enough to gerrymander some Congressional districts that Democrats are unable to win at the ballot box, right?

To be fair, I do find it hypocritical that the GOP is now suddenly for sampling. Clearly, both sides are putting their finger in the wind on this one. However, with the fervor that the left has displayed in favor of sampling, I find their hypocrisy a bit more intense than that of the GOP.

Newspapers' circulation numbers in the crapper

One of the Mainstream Media's (MSM) major components in their daily efforts to push their leftist propaganda on the American citizenry is the use of daily newspapers. Well, they're losing that part of their battle on a geometrically increasing basis.

Newsday reports that the average drop over the last six months for daily newspapers (predominantly liberal, of course) is 1.9%. But the LA Times has seen their circulation tank by a whopping 6.5%, and an unbelievable 7.9% for Sunday!

Neal Boortz attributes much of the decline to (1) the availability of the same news stories (and in less biased presentations) on the Internet, and (2) the failure of government schools to properly educate kids on how to read and how to think (not what to think, but how). But he has some words of comfort for the MSM:

Newspapers do have a few things going for them....you can't line the bird cage with the Internet or wrap fish in a cable news channel.

Indeed!

The best way to achieve peace

This says it all:

Know thy enemy

This is found on a t-shirt, and I'd give you the link, but it appears to be busted now. Anyhoo, the list:

Know Thy Enemy: Fun Facts About Liberals

The main diet of the liberal is tofu and granola. This makes them puny and easy to throw.

Liberals will try to entice you with their twisted logic. Counter with a bitch slap.

Hanging a picture of Ronald Reagan over your door will keep liberals from entering

Liberals are against nuclear weapons but have yet to suggest a soy-based substitute that can obliterate cities.

If you see a fuel-effecient car, it's probably being driven by a liberal. Run it off the road with your SUV.

Liberals are constantly inflaming the culture war. They seem to forget which side has all the guns.

The most dangerous predator of liberals is the real world. They hide from it in college campuses.

Inspired by rhyming slogans and giant puppets, liberals sometimes congregate into groups known as "protests." The purpose of these is unknown.

Liberals hate America and love more oppressed people... like evil dictators.

I've heard vicious rumors that liberals also like the French, but that might just be slander against liberals.

Liberals are always whining about tolerance, but when I punch them for that, they get moody. Hey, be tolerant!

Relax, folks. I'm not advocating any kind of violence against libs or anyone else (except for Islamofascists). It's supposed to be funny, and for the most part, it is! Unlike Air America and its Randi Rhodes show, there's no advocating of capping anyone here (see prior post).