Iran's new prez one of the hostage-takers in 79?

Nedra Pickler, AP reporter, has an "article" today that is of interest: Iran's newly elected weirdbeard is supposedly one of the captors of the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis that Carter ineptly handled and that lasted 444 days. Anyway, to Nedra:

Former hostages Chuck Scott, David Roeder, William J. Daugherty and Don A. Sharer told The Associated Press that after seeing Ahmadinejad on television, they have no doubt he was one of the hostage-takers. A fifth ex-hostage, Kevin Hermening, said he reached the same conclusion after looking at photos. A close aide to Ahmadinejad denied the president-elect took part in the seizure of the embassy or in holding Americans hostage.

Granted, some former hostages don't recall seeing Ahmadinejad during their captivity. Fair enough. But in this "article", we see what side of the fence Nedra and the AP lean on: the side that believes Ahmadinejad over the hostages. Surprise, surprise. But get a load of this!

A memory expert cautioned that people who discuss their recollections can influence one another in reinforcing false memories. Also, it's harder to identify from memory someone of a different race or ethnicity, said psychologist Elizabeth Loftus of the University of California, Irvine.

"Twenty-five years is an awfully long time," Loftus said. "Of course we can't say this is false, but these things can lead people down the path of having a false memory."

A memory "expert"? What the #### is THAT? How does one get recognized as being a "memory EXPERT"? Maybe Ken Jennings is a memory expert since he won over $2 million on Jeopardy! Anyway, I can see how discussing recollections influence false memories:

ME: Hey, Steve! Remember that time ManicNole dressed up like Edith Bunker, sang Broadway show tunes in Latin, and had purple hippos come out of his butt to the kazoo-played rendition of When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again?

MANIC: Uh, guys, that's stupid! NONE of that ever happened!

STEVE: Yeah, Johnny, I recall that! Boy, that sure was funny!

MANIC: Hmmm. Well I guess I stand corrected. Yeah, now that you mention that, it is starting to sound a little familiar! Boy, that sure brings back some memories!

Finally, I suppose it's not bigoted for a "memory EXPERT" to assert that Whitey likely confuses memories of brown people, huh? I mean, God Allah knows that it's really hard to imagine that someone who was terrorized, traumatized, and victimized for over a freaking year could actually remember what his captor looked like! Surely, the passage of time and the hue of Iranian skin are dulling such burning memories!

Semper Fi, Deaniacs

Left upset over 9/11 remarks in speech

The left and its allies in the MSM continually parrot the lie that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Directly or indirectly, you be the judge. From Andrew McCarthy's column:

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992? (Left: "He probably changed his mind!" - ed.)

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks? (Left: "He probably changed his mind!" - ed.)

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab al Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking? (And just WHAT was that airplane fuselage doing there, training al Qaeda on the proper way to signal the stewardess for another package of peanuts? - ed.)

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

Personally, I've always contended that since Iraq is part and parcel of the overall war on global terrorism, and that since it was clear they allowed al Qaeda to train there (see training camp at Salman Pak reference above), Iraq triggered Bush's promise not to differentiate between terrorists and countries that harbor and abet them.

Some say "Well, then, why not Syria? Or Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Libya?" I agree. Those countries should be next or put on notice they WILL be next if they don't shape up and crack down on terrorists. It looks, though, like Libya doesn't feel like testing us, evidenced by their decision to publicly disarm (think Saddam wishes he had done so now?).

But Rome wasn't built in a day, and in 2001, we were told by our recently re-elected Commander-in-Chief that this would be a LONG war covering several fronts. The next president, Republican or...Independent (since Dems can't win anymore), will be fighting the war on terrorism, too.

Are burqas REALLY that bad?

Hat tip to the always-hilarious V the K at the Caption This! blog. Keep it up, V!

Permalink here.

I am wondering if this... thing was once somebody's sweet little girl, running to her Daddy clutching fresh-picked field daisies in her outstretched hand.

Somehow, I think not.

1. Man, Tom Cruise has really lost it.

2. How can you tell this was taken in San Francisco? Because the crowd's attention is directed at something even more bizarre behind her.*

3. The following year, the neighborhood association re-evaluated their Christmas Parade plans and went with a more traditional Santa.

4. "Oh, I don't know. I just woke up this morning and decided to set back the Gay Rights Movement 20 years."

5. Heather has two mommies. And now, we know why Heather tied up Billy in the janitor's closet and gave him a stern yet sensual whipping.

6. "Check it, peeps. I got my J-Lo/Uncle Fester vibe workin' for me."

7. "Now, for all the feminists in the audience, the dom who puts the 'suffer' into 'suffragette,'... Ilsa!"

8. "Rolling, rolling, rolling, keep those lesbos rolling...."

9. "Deutschland! Deustchland! Uber Alles!"

10. "Gosh, Hillary. You really woke up horny today. What were you dreaming about?"

Scuba Boy has stones, plus hilarious news flash!

Neal Boortz wonders the same thing about Scuba Boy that I do:

Leftist hero Ted Kennedy was pontificating yesterday about what Bush needed to say during his speech on Iraq last night. During his rant Kennedy comesout with this gem:

"This is a difficult and challenging profession. No one should come to it lightly. As it should be. People have to be held accountable, professionally, and the public is looking at it in terms of private lives, as well. Everything is fair game."

Everything is fair game? Fine, Senator. If people need to be held accountable in their private lives, when are you going to explain to us why wandering up and down that dark road on that July night in 1969 worrying about your political future. What was more important, your political life, or saving the life of that girl trapped in the car you managed to drive into the drink? You do know that Mary Jo was alive in that car for as much as two hours, don't you? Two hours to die while you're working on your cover-up. Accountable? Do you care to respond to the Mass. State Police Detective Lieutenant who said that you "killed that girl the same as if (you) put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger"? You belong in jail. Not in the U.S. Senate.

Libs who cheer and support Ted Kennedy should be ashamed of themselves.

In more light-hearted and typically hilarious fashion, the Goomba News Network had this "news" story about America's favorite drunk uncle:

WASHINGTON (Goomba News Network) -- Last night's Democratic Party response to President George W. Bush's speech on Iraq was at times uneven and incoherent. Senator Edward Kennedy (Traitor-MA) attempted to inspire the nation with a short presentation detailing the Democratic Party's plan for Iraq. Here are excerpts from Kennedy's speech:

"The Democratic Party is like a big car...an SUV...or a whataya call it?... a Hummer. We've got lots of room in the back seat for Liberty and Freedom."

"There is room for all Iraqis in the big Democratic Party car. Some of them can sit
in the front and some of them can squeeze into the back seat with Liberty and Freedom and... Michael Moore"

Kennedy then fell into a fit of giggles.

"I'm going to drive that big Democratic Party car with Iraqis and Freedom and Justice and Liberty and Michael Moore and Barbara Boxer and Barama Osama and...America...and I'll drive over President Clinton's Bridge to the 21st Century."

Suddenly there were loud whispers from off camera and Kennedy seemed annoyed

"What? What? Don't worry, I can drive."

At this point, the screen went black for 11 seconds. Senator Joseph Biden (plagiarist-DE) then appeared to complete the national address.

This was the second embarrassment for the Democratic Party in one week. Last Sunday, Senator Robert Byrd (KKK-WV) compared Iraq to a big unruly German shepherd his family owned during his early years. He stated that his Uncle Clem had taken the dog to some people he knew who had a big farm in the country where the dog could run and be happy. Byrd then stated that he had the same plan for the people of Iraq.

The GNN also picked up on Teddy's inspiration quotation, fashioned in the mold of his brother John: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Just figure out how badly you can hurt your country so that it won't be Conservative any more."

MSM doom-and-gloom stories in 1945, too

They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.


New York Times articles:

Germans Reveal Hate of Americans. Oct. 31, 1945.
The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared. This official views the situation as so serious that he and others are protesting the withdrawal of 1,600 experienced military-government officers from the German governments on township, county and regional levels between Nov. 1 and Dec. 15."

Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared. November 18th, 1945.
Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments under the Potsdam Declaration.

Germans Declare Americans Hated, December 3rd, 1945.
An exhaustive compilation of opinions of Germans in all walks of life on their reaction to the United States occupation of their country was released this afternoon from the confidential status under which it was submitted to officials of the United States Forces in the European Theatre recently. Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation, though there was some praise for the improvements in transportation, health conditions, book publishing and entertainment.

German Election Set In Towns of U.S. Zone, December 19, 1945.
United States Seventh Army headquarters announced today that plans had been completed for initial German elections in January at Gemuende. A statement said that a vast majority of Germans remained passive in attitude toward politics and displayed no disposition to take over civic responsibilities.

Starting to sound a little familiar, huh folks? History appears to have vindicated us and proved the MSM (specifically, but not exclusively, the NYT) completely wrong. Then again, the MSM is used to being proved wrong all the time, yet they go on doing the same thing. That's the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results.

Reuters: Replace "hard-liner" with "conservative"

The Godfather noticed the change at Reuters, the news organization whose policy forbids using the term "terrorist" (since, according to them, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"):

Surfing around yesterday my RSS feeds, and I have some Yahoo! News feeds on my RSS, and I got one from Reuters. One of the things that occasionally you will find on an RSS feed is a wire story rewrite. You will see the original with red lines through what has been revised, red lines through what was eliminated. Let me read to you the first version of this story about the Iran presidential election from Reuters dated yesterday. "Hard-line President-Elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" I have trouble reading between the lines here yesterday, "sparked western fears about Iran's nuclear program and helped push oil prices over $60 on Monday but EU analysts warned against any hasty judgments." They replaced "hard-line President-Elect Mahmoud" with "ultraconservative President-Elect Mahmoud." We've encountered this countless times before, folks, where the mainstream press takes the tyrants, the dictators, the thugs of the world and calls them "conservatives" and "ultraconservatives" and that's what Reuters did.

They started out "hard-line" president-elect and changed it to "ultraconservative" president-elect "faced an uphill task on Monday to assuage concerns." That was replaced with "sparked Western fears about Iran's nuclear program," and there are other things, "in the West that he will adopt a tougher policy on Iran's nuclear program and roll back freedoms at home." All that was stricken out, replaced with "ultraconservative president-elect Mahmoud sparked western fears about Iran's nuclear program and helped push oil prices over $60 on Monday." That's the final version;

See? Reuters finds the term "terrorist" to be unpalatable, but has no qualms equating the terms "tyrant" and "conservative." I'd expect that comparison from the moonbat wing of liberals and Democrats, but a supposedly "objective" news source?

Nope...no liberal media bias.

Bush's speech and subsequent (and predictable) reactions

AP Headline: "Bush Criticized for Linking 9/11 and Iraq". Bush critizied? No way! Who'da thunk it? Why, that never happens in the MSM, does it? Anyway, right off the bat, you get an idea of just who is criticizing our commander-in-chief during war:

Democrats in particular criticizing Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.

(snip...)

Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq — a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

Nancy, you ignorant slut, of course there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq...just not the one you're implying. No, there's no real proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The real connection is that 9/11 was an act of Islamofascist terrorism and Iraq had an Islamofascist dictator who we (and the entire world intelligence community) saw as supporting terrorism (indisputable facts: he financed suicide bombings against Israel, which not coincidentally have gone down since his cash flow stopped; and he tried to assassinate the former President Bush) and developing WMD (some of which we have found, despite press reports to the contrary...another topic for another day). Iraq is simply part and parcel of the worldwide efforts to combat global terrorism.

Establishing a democracy-style government in Iraq will eventually have a domino effect in the rest of the Middle East, which will make it considerably more difficult for terrorism to breed and thrive.

So yes...Iraq is connected to 9/11 by virtue of the overall war on terrorism. Continuing...

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," maintained that "one of the very big mistakes early on was that he didn't have enough troops on the ground, particularly after the initial victory, and that's still the case."

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.

Somebody did tell the press that Kerry lost, right?

Whew! It's a damned good thing that we have Senators sitting in cushy D.C. offices that know more about our troops' needs than their own generals! I mean, if we had to rely on the military to manage the war instead of Senators, can you imagine the fallout?!? The president says that his generals and Secretary of Defense tell him that there are sufficient forces, but what do those nimrods know compared to McCain, Kerry, and Biden? After all, as Kerry was fond of telling us last year, he did serve in Vietnam and Bush didn't! Yeah, that line of thinking went over with the electorate like a fart in church.

Finally:

"The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."

We don't have OBL, so the war is a failure, Harry? Wow...wait'll they hear THAT back in Nevada! Also, al Qaeda remains so capable of doing this nation great harm that they've attacked us again since 2001 over here! No, wait...they have not attacked us here since then! My bad...

Liberals are unwittingly aiding and abetting al Qaeda by giving them press clippings that leave the impression that America is losing its will. A local soldier was on the news here saying that one terrorist they caught over there said in broken English that "You will leave, so we hold out!" Read into that what you will. I read that as Democrat politicians' efforts to score political points against a president they despise is paying off for our enemies. My impressions, based on simply watching the implosion of today's Democratic party, is that Democrats are willing to sustain losses in this war in order to regain power, and then they'll worry about what to do in the war on terrorism. Sick, my friends...just sick.

Has Souter screwed himself out of his own property?

From Freestar Media LLC's press release:

For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

Here's hoping for their successful attempt to send Souter and his kind a message!

Competing visions for America

Note that neither one has "Fiscal discipline" or "Property Rights"? Wonder again why I'm a Libertarian?

By and large, though, this is true...

Coverage of Durbin comments vs. Rove comments

Dick Durbin, a U.S. Senator (i.e. an elected politician, serving constituents in IL), calls behavior by our troops Nazi-like, and nary a peep by the MSM. Karl Rove, a political advisor (i.e. not a politician, serves the president and not the general public), floats a belief that liberals offered therapy and understanding for our attackers and the MSM is on him like Bob Byrd on a white bedsheet. Observe:

Chris Wallace: "Now let's check out a story you won't find on any other Sunday show. There's a new study out comparing how the media covered Senator Durbin's remarks about the treatment of prisoners and Karl Rove's speech about the response to 9/11. Here's what the Media Research Center found. On the Rove flap, which broke Wednesday night, ABC and NBC jumped on it, carrying stories Thursday night and Friday morning. But on the Durbin story, a very different reaction. ABC and NBC waited seven days, ignoring the entire controversy until Durbin apologized on the Senate floor. CBS never covered the story at all."

Nope...no media bias.

Newsweek: Yep, we're liberal

The Media Research Center reports on a little tête-à-tête between Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas and NPR newsbabe Nina Totenberg on Inside Washington over the weekend:

Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas wondered, on Inside Washington over the weekend, whether the effort in the U.S. House to reduce funding for PBS and NPR through the CPB would "make NPR a little less liberal?" An indignant Nina Totenberg of NPR retorted: "I don't think we're liberal to begin with and I think if you would listen, Evan, you would know that."

Thomas countered that "I do listen to you and you're not that liberal, but you're a little bit liberal." Totenberg insisted, "I don't think that's a fair criticism...any more than you would say that Newsweek is liberal." To which Thomas conceded: "I think Newsweek is a little liberal."

How funny that Nina swears NPR isn't even remotely liberal, then tries to counter on Thomas that "yeah, well, if we are, then you are too! Nah-nee-nah-nee boo-boo!" Thomas ruins her point with a wrecking ball: "You're right...we are liberal." Uh...well...uh...not exactly what she was expecting, huh?

Kudos to Thomas for recognizing his employer's bias, which is a bias, by the way, that liberals deny. I think if a Newsweak editor says that they're biased over there while some unemployable non-bathing slacker wearing hemp clothes with a burlap toboggan says they're not...I'll defer to said editor.

But don't take my word for it:

This isn't the first time that Thomas has recognized bias. The July 12, 2004 CyberAlert recounted: The media "wants Kerry to win" and so "they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic," Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted on Inside Washington over the weekend. He should know. His magazine this week sports a smiling Kerry and Edwards on its cover with the yearning headline, "The Sunshine Boys?" Inside, an article carrying Thomas' byline contrasted how "Dick Cheney projects the bleakness of a Wyoming winter, while John Edwards always appears to be strolling in the Carolina sunshine."

(snip...)

The night after the election, Thomas contended on MSNBC's Hardball that President Bush suffered from media bias against him since "most" of Thomas's colleagues in the media "don't like Bush and they do like Kerry" and he "can't believe that doesn't affect" coverage. He also asserted, from NBC's "Democracy Plaza" in Manhattan, that "the mainstream media" are out of touch "with most of America. I mean there is a red-blue divide. And most of the media types live in the blue part. They live right here."

In light of Thomas' own words, as well as the fake Koran-flushing story, Newsweak ceases to be a credible source of information.

Yours truly gets mentioned on Slate!

Wow...this blog was mentioned over a month ago on Slate, and I didn't even know it! I'm quite honored that they felt the need to give my humble little blog an honorable mention during their "Today's Blogs" section by Rachael Larimore.

Oh, yeah...here it is! link

This could be it! THE big time for me! (Silence........) OK, maybe not...I guess I need to get back to work! :)

Anyway, thanks for tuning in, folks! You are all appreciated! :)

USSC exposes file-sharing services' liability; Dixie Chicks breathe sigh of relief

THE US Supreme Court just ruled that file-sharing services like Grokster can be sued if its users are the ones who are breaking copyright-infringement laws. I have no problem with that, really. But check this excerpt from the story out:

In the closely watched case, supporting the effort to sue the companies were dozens of entertainment industry companies, including musicians Don Henley, Sheryl Crow and the Dixie Chicks, as well as attorneys general in 40 states.

Emphasis mine. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to break it to the Dixie Twits that Grokster, Napster, et al aren't the ones responsible for declines in their record sales. Then again, I don't think they want to hear that their fat little lead singer's inability to shut up and just sing is the #1 cause in decline of their record sales. Like that political genius Larry the Cable Guy said: "Does anyone doubt that if it weren't for the two good-looking ones, that fat little chick wouldn't be working in a Lane Bryant store in Nashville?"

Hillary Pressures Networks to Cancel Klein

Last week I mentioned that it was funny to watch the MSM ignore Ed Klein's new Hillary-unfriendly book...a book that is creeping up the bestseller list despite the MSM blackout. Without addressing the substance or lack thereof in the book, I simply noted that the MSM did not extend the same attitude when it came to gossiphound Kitty Kelley's anti-W book. Nope, the MSM was all over that like Ted Kennedy on a brandy sniffer.

Well, not only is the MSM ignoring it, but it looks to be a blackout as a direct result of an orchestrated campaign by the Clintons and their powerful media allies. Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post, said while he was hosting CNN's "Reliable Sources" show: "A spokesman for Senator Clinton told me that when news organizations call, they do make the argument, why give this guy airtime?"

From NewsMax:

Though the celebrated author was scheduled to appear on more than a half dozen major TV network shows, all have cancelled except one, Fox's "Hannity & Colmes."

However, conservative host Sean Hannity did reveal that he was under immense pressure to cancel the program.

"I've had more political pressure than I've ever had in all my years in radio," Hannity said to Klein during a radio interview. "Do you know the number of requests I've had to cancel you and not have you on this program? I've never in the history of this program had more demands to cancel the guest."

(snip...)

Salem Radio Network's Mike Gallagher, syndicated nationwide, said he was deluged by emails opposing Klein's scheduled appearance and demanding he drop the author. Gallagher described the campaign as "very unnatural, like an orchestrated [effort]" and not from his listeners.

But other networks, particularly television, have succumbed to the pressure.

Klein's original schedule had him appearing on several top-rated TV shows. But all of them have cancelled. Among the cancellations: "Extra;" MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews;" and CNN's Paula Zahn show.

Several shows apparently expressed a keen interest in booking Klein until pressure from the Hillary camp stopped them, among them ABC's "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today" show, and CNN's "Aaron Brown."

How about this for his disinvite from the little-watched MSNBC show Hardball?

An MSNBC producer told NewsMax that Chris Matthews' "Hardball" had merely considered booking the Hillary author, saying the idea was dropped when producers found out that the book was "a big piece of crap."

However, another source at the network told NewsMax that MSNBC chief Rick Kaplan has long been close to the Clintons (he was one of the celebrated Friends of Bill and Hillary who spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom) - a fact that could have played a role in the network snubbing the Klein book.

Nope...nothing fishy about that sleepover connection thingee.

What's funny is that Klein's always been loved by liberals, because he is one. I mean, he was editor of the New York Times Magazine and held top editor jobs with liberal rage Newsweek and Vanity Fair. His leftie pedigree has never been challenged until now.

Also, NewsMax makes the same observation I made last week about the Kelley anti-W trash book:

Others are noting the media's hypocrisy in dealing with the Klein book and how the same media treated Kitty Kelley's book "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty." Kelley's book offered far more salacious allegations about George W. Bush.

The books are hardly comparable, though; Klein is a veteran, award-winning journalist known for serious, and non political biographies, while Kelley has developed a reputation as a purveyor of gossip on her targets.

Last week, Fox News host Neil Cavuto told his audience, "Kitty [Kelley] was booked on shows. Ed is getting no bookings, period ... Could it be the media relished dirt on the president, less so on the woman who wants to be president?"

With a heated presidential campaign underway last year, Kelley was given star billing on show's like NBC's "Today" show (with an unprecedented interview over three days); CNBC's "Capital Report;" CNN "Newsnight" hosted by Aaron Brown; CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight;" CNN's "American Morning" with Paula Zahn; MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, among others.

Though Kelley made unsubstantiated allegations, including charges of illicit sex and drug use against Bush (previously she accused President Reagan of date rape in a book that received page one coverage from the New York Times), her book drew huge media interest.

Rush notes that the MSM rarely "circle the wagons to defend a politician." Normally, they get off on ruining a politician's career. Not so with the Clintons, especially one with aspirations of higher office.

Well, the MSM tried to ignore the Swift Boat Vets, but ultimately could not due to pressure from the alternative media (blogosphere, talk radio, Internet). My guess is that this will be different, because while the MSM really wanted Kerry to win and pulled out damned near all the stops to do it, they will drink the Clinton purple Kool-Aid and die before they let any anti-Hillary info (true or not) hit the airwaves.

Finally, "among the criticisms are claims that Klein has accused Hillary of being a lesbian and that Bill Clinton raped his wife. But a read of Klein's book shows that he never makes either allegation." In other words, trot out the same lazy liberal arguments to any idea: don't read the details, just demagogue.

Stolen election and red state Americans kill moonbat

Some of you may have read or heard about this already. My apologies for being late to this, but I decided to weigh in.

Some liberal moonbat in Tuscon, AZ, named Cory William Zimbleman died last week or the week before. His obit has to be read in order to be believed. Here's part of it, exactly as it appears in the Tuscon paper (and online version):

An avid atheist, he studied the bible and religion with more fervor than most Christians. He had strong political opinions and followed Amy Goodman's radio broadcast "Democracy Now." Alas the stolen election of 2000 and living with right-winged Americans finally brought him to his early demise. Stress from living in this unjust country brought about several heart attacks rendering him disabled.

I feel griefstricken and horrible that I in part contributed to this man's demise! To think that his whole life was caught up so much in politics that he allowed it to ruin his health to the point of mortal deterioration...I mean, it is just sad. Not his death (which is sad to those who knew him)...but his narrow worldview and fatal obsession.

Look, I despised Bill Clinton with every fiber of my being, but I had a nice life during the Clinton years (no, libs, this is not an invitation to tell me my happiness was based upon Clinton's policies, economy, etc.). While I hated how that man defiled the Oval Office, I didn't live my life obsessing with anything that went on in D.C. During the Clinton years, I attended FSU, got married, had kids, and established a helluva career (among many other accomplishments and memories). I never thought "Yeah, all that was great, but it meant nothing because Bill Clinton was president!"

Also, note in the obituary the phrase "an avid atheist." Isn't that like saying "a fervent non-drinker" or "a staunch non-parent"? How can you enthusiastically not believe in or practice something? Here's guessing that right about now, Mr. Zimbleman is a believer.

Also, he fervently studied the Bible of a religion he rejected. Why? Most atheists I know are always looking for "gotchas" in the Bible to try to prove that it's bullsh#t and thus there is no Christian God. You would think they would be content to simply allow the 90% of us Americans who believe in God to wallow in our "ignorance", right? But no...they try to bring us down to their level of misery by trying to get us adopt their non-believing attitudes.

Look, I have no problems with atheists who live and let live. It's not my job to convince them that they're going to Hell, and I really don't wanna try. I dated a girl in college for over a year who was an atheist, but she didn't begrudge me for going to church or believing in God. I didn't try to convert her, so we got along great. I have a couple of friends who are atheists or believe in other gods. Besides, I'm far from perfect, to say the very least, so I don't exactly feel like being a hypocrite and telling other people how to live a righteous life when I fall WAY short of one myself. My "live and let live" attitude is in stark contrast with the hostility displayed by most atheists I've ever encountered who are downright angry at those of us who don't share their views.

Anyway, R.I.P., Mr. Zimbleman. I'm sorry that your family and friends are grieving because you let your politics and worldview deprive them of more time with you.

Ted Kennedy to Rumsfeld: "Resign"

During a Senate grilling session last week, Scuba Boy Ted Kennedy asked Rumsfeld if he would resign. "Don't you think it's time you resigned?" he asked. Rummy responded thusly: "Senator, I've offered my resignation to the president twice. Both times, he declined to accept it."

I am constantly amazed at the level of gall that this cretin from MA posseses! I would have loved for Rummy to have responded with something like this:

"Senator, considering that you have killed more human beings with your car than I have ever personally killed; and considering that you let said human being die a slow torturous death; don't you think that you of all people should be the last person to lecture anyone on torture, and that you should be the one who resigns?"

Yeah, the folks of MA keep re-electing Teddy. That means that his bosses (the voters) approve of his performance...God knows how, but they do. Rummy's boss (W.) approves of his performance. So if it's good enough for Scuba Boy to keep his job because his bosses are happy, then it's good enough for Rummy to keep his job for the same reason.

So while Howard Dean bloviates about Tom DeLay starting a jail sentence, I wonder how the Screamer feels about his party looking to a drunken murderer like Ted Kennedy for leadership, hmmm?

Why are Dems getting defensive over Rove comments?

I had a point to ponder today. Came up with it all my own, too! I was so proud of my moment of brilliance and observation that I watched Beavis & Butthead Do America for the 923rd time just to bring myself back to my juvenile reality.

OK, Dems got really torqued at comments that Rove made about liberals. From NewsMax:

White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Democrats said Thursday.

Apparently the same sentiment was not shared by Dems when it came to Durbin's comments. They said he shouldn't resign or apologize...but he apologized (sorta) anyway. But I digress...

Bush's chief political adviser, Rove said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Emphasis mine. Righteous indignation was shown by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuckie Schumer, Frank "The Lout" Lautenberg, and Howard Dean. They screamed for Rove's head.

There's just one problem. Rove didn't say "Democrats", did he? He said "liberals"! Whether we agree with his statement or not, I find the aforementioned Dems' defensive remarks intriguing because...well, because these Dems (like most in elected positions) pretend like hell that they aren't liberal! So if they claim to be non-liberal, why should they care about Rove's comments about liberals, hmmmmmmmmm? I mean, I'm from Tennessee, but if you spoke poorly about rednecks, I wouldn't get defensive because I'm not a redneck! So this tells me that the Dems in question are indeed liberals, which is fine...so long as they'd just admit it's who they are!

Anti-abortion wacko who advocates killing abortion doctors to run for U.S. Senate

Randall Terry, the nut from anti-abortion terror group Operation Rescue who has defended the practice of killing abortion doctors, has decided to run for the U.S. Senate here in Florida. As a Republican.



Not exactly what I had in mind when I noted in a prior post that Katherine Harris needed a GOP opponent in the primary!

Flag burning amendment

I'm against an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits flag burning. As a libertarian, it offends my sense of personal freedom and liberty.

Look, anytime I see an American burn a flag, I want to rip off his leg and beat him over the head with it. I'm outraged and offended by stupidity in general, and this degree of stupidity in specific.

However, this is America, and you're free to be stupid if you want to be. Washington, DC, and its "seasonal residents" are proof.

Is burning a map of the U.S. next? What about burning a hat with the American flag on it? Perhaps a bumper sticker with a picture of a burning flag? Which of those is any different an expression of free speech than burning a flag?

I disagree with the dope-smoking, treehugging, burlap-wearing, non-bathing, unkempt, unemployable, and otherwise useless human beings who burn the flag right after burning their joint...but they have a right to be stupid ass Americans. Usually people like that are given a talk show, movie role, lunch date with Michael Moore (bring the platinum card for that!), or run for public office (and likely win) in California.

Flag burning is covered by the First Amendment, and passing another amendment that says otherwise is morally wrong and a monumental waste of time...something to which we Americans are becoming increasingly more accustomed while watching our elected leaders.

Supreme Court: This land is your land, this land is MY land!

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the property you saved up for, mortgaged 15 - 30 years of your life on, invested in, raised your family in, built an emotional attachment to, and built a lifetime of memories in...is your property so long as a wealthy developer doesn't want it. At that point, you're screwed.

See, the city of New London, CT, had a neighborhood of residents that had the unmitigated gall to want to keep their homes for many of the aforementioned reasons you keep your homes. Most of these homes were Victorian era, and many had been homes handed down to generations as far back as 100 years. Well, some wealthy developer came in and wanted to turn it into commercial property. A handful of homeowners held out, not for bigger buyouts...but to actually keep living in their homes. The developer asked the city to eminent domain these homes. "How can we do that?" asked the city. "That pesky Constitution thingee says it needs to be for public use only!"

Well, with creative word parsing that would make Bill Clinton and liberal judicial activists proud, the developer had an idea that will forever shape property rights in this country. "Well, indirectly, this IS for public use! Granted, you're seizing private property from one owner and transferring the property to another private owner, BUT since I'm going to make it into property that will create jobs and generate more property taxes than those peons who live there, then the jobs and extra tax revenue WILL be a public benefit!"

Anybody other than me think that the Fifth Amendment's "public use" provision wasn't exactly talking about an office park? The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts (not grants) the government's right of eminent domain. The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The Fifth Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this right for a public use without paying for it: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to mean use for something like a school, library, police or fire station, power transmission lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by government for the benefit of the general population. As politicians became more and more impressed with their own power they started to expand this definition of public use.

Anyway, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London was well within its right to confiscate private property and turn it over to a private individual. Not surprisingly, the four liberals on the Court (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) ruled for excess and unbridled government power and scored yet another blow in the battle against individualism. However, the sometimes-liberal-sometimes-not-as-liberal Justice Kennedy (no doubt inspired by international law and Canadian opinion, I'm sure) sided with the libs. Stevens basically said that the "good of the community" could be considered when stealing property from less influential homeowners. Funny...that argument is made every day in Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. Oh, the company we now keep. Anyway, O'Connor said in her stinging dissent that this decision renders virtually all private property vulnerable to government confiscation.

To be fair, I acknowledge two points: (1) this is not always a Democrat-Republican thing, since land grabs have happened in places such as Alabaster, AL, that are run by Republicans who basically are looking for vote-buying dollars on the local level; and (2) many libs I spoke to yesterday were rightly outraged because they own homes, too, and realize that with the USSC's green light yesterday, they own their house only as long as their local governments (and now the local business community) say they do.

However, what few defenders I've seen thus far definitely have tilted way left! That doesn't mean they typify liberal opinion...only that the first impression is that what few people support this are more likely to be liberal than not.

Finally, the message is also that influence-peddling knows no party or ideology, and that the less well-to-do are much more likely to be screwed by this ruling. After all, a man with a million dollar home has enough clout to get the city council or county commission to back away from his palace. An elderly couple in their 80's don't have the resources to buy such influence or to fight such an infraction. They celebrated their wedding in that home. They raised their children in that home. They held their 50th wedding anniversary party in that home.

One of the many things that always separated this country from any other is the idea that your property is yours, and there can't be any Mugabe-like attempts by the government to take it away. So much for that freedom! Well, there is some good news: I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to...oh, wait, that's not what I meant!

Oh, yeah...now I remember! There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and (thank God for my situation) Florida. That's four red states and three blue ones, proof that private property rights are generally respected by all Americans.

I'm swamped at work today, so I'll post more about this and other topics later. But needless to say, I'm seething with rage and anger right now over this!

Florida GOP needs to do better than Katherine Harris

I'm not gonna touch Election 2000 with a 10' pole!

Florida incumbent Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat, leads Republican Congresswoman Katherine Harris in a recent poll for next year's Senate race. It ain't close: 53% - 36%, 11% undecided. Heck, north FL is "GOP Central", and Nelson leads there! Here in Jacksonville, Dems always do poorly, due to their reflexive anti-military position (which doesn't sit well in a city with two military bases and thousands of military personnel)...but Nelson is doing quite well here. Last I saw on local news, he's got an approval rating here around 52%.

Look, I know that there's over a year left...plenty of time for either of them. But Nelson is vulnerable, since Floridians don't like him voting in lockstep with Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton. His voting record on judicial nominees galls many Floridians (despite the Palm Beach newspaper's claims that he "carries little baggage").

But Katherine Harris is not popular statewide. Some of it has to do with Election 2000. Some of it has to do with her blind ambition and opportunism (much like Hillary's). I like her, but I'm realistic enough to see many Floridians do not.

Polls don't mean everything here (just like anywhere else). I mean, Bill McCollum was supposedly going to win the FL GOP primary last year for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Bob Graham. Polls showed McCollum with a lead, up until the day before the primary. He was defeated by double-digits by Mel Martinez. Then polls showed Martinez would get trounced by Democrat Betty Castor in the general election. Final days' polls showed the race tightening, and Martinez won by about 80,000 votes.

Anyway, I think if the GOP wants Bill Nelson's seat, they need to recruit a better candidate than Katherine Harris.

Media blackout of anti-Hillary book

For those who don't know, Edward Klein has written a book about Hillary Clinton. It's not flattering, to say the least. As much as I can't stand the air that the elitist bitch breathes, I think Klein's book comes across in some respects (i.e. allegations that she's gay, that Bill raped her after informing someone of his intentions, etc.) as tabloid trash. Other aspects of it that describe the contempt she has for average Americans, including the police and the military (despite her newfound, just-in-time-for-campaign "respect" for the armed forces), are quite believable and well-documented. But if part of the book is sleazy and poorly-researched, isn't it fair to ask what other parts of it are? To be fair, I haven't read the book yet, so I'm not fully qualified to comment extensively. I can only go by quotes and excerpts I've read online, seen on TV, or heard on the radio.

Having said that, I do find the MSM double standard interesting, but not surprising. Anyone remember Kitty Kelley? She once coined herself "the Queen of sleeze", and she wrote a book called The Family which purported, among other things, that George W. Bush snorted coke at Camp David when his dad was President. Excellent insight into just who (or what) Kitty Kelley is: link

I know that the kook fringe of the left believes that Bush is some overgrown frat boy who boozes and cokes it up (past and present), so this stuff is red meat for them. However, her source (yes, that's singular) was Neil Bush's scorned ex-wife Sharon, who had once hit up W. for a $467,000 loan to keep her Houston mansion. He refused. 'Nuff said, right? Well, Sharon (to her defense) publicly says that she never said anything of the sort about W., which means that (a) Sharon's lying, which would grant legitimacy to Kelley's stories (and we just know how reliable Kelley is); or (b) Kelley made it up. You be the judge.

Kelley also wrote trash books about Nancy Reagan. She alleged that Nancy and Sinatra had an affair (including a romp in the CA governor's mansion when Ronnie was guv), that Nancy reportedly told her that Ronnie "orders killings like he orders linguine", and that Ronnie knocked up a woman years ago and left her high and dry. Her sources are often those with a bone to pick with the subject.

So, this supermarket tabloid artist releases an anti-Bush book last year before the election, and what reaction does she get from the MSM? Well, America's perky liberal Katie Couric books her on the Today show (which, thankfully, no one watches anymore) to help her plug her book. For three days. Other MSM sources gave her face time in order to give her story legs to run with.

So I guess my only point is that if the MSM is blacking out Klein's book because it's supposedly full of trash and innuendo, then why did they give Kitty Kelley the time of day? Anti-Hillary book: circle the wagons around Her Highness, and ignore the knave! Anti-Bush book: let's see what the author has to say!

Nope...no media bias.

Too good to pass up

This will hopefully be the last thing I post about Durbin the Turban for a while, provided he doesn't step on his winky anymore anytime soon. I'm moving on to other topics, but I'll leave Durbin with this parting shot:

Hillary emboldened?

Neal Boortz steps up to the plate:

Dick Morris is telling us that "personal attacks" on Hillary Clinton will only embolden her. Morris is also a bit upset about Ed Klein's book (The Truth About Hillary) which alludes to homosexuality, a rape at the hands of her husband and other such dark charges.

OK .. a question. Just what constitutes a "personal attack." Would telling the American people that Hillary holds them in absolute and complete disdain be a personal attack? How about identifying Hillary as a liar? How about explaining her contempt for the laws of this country; her feeling that those laws apply to others, but not to herself. What if I detail how Hillary helped with an Arkansas real estate scheme (Casa Grande) that ended up costing the American taxpayers millions? What if I remind people about her health care plan, a health care plan that could have put you in jail if you dared to try to hire a private doctor. Would that be a personal attack? What if I remind people that Hillary loves government more than freedom, and believes that America is great because of its government, not because of the dynamic of people working and living together in economic liberty? Would it be a personal attack if I reminded people that Hillary is a combatant in the war against individualism?

If those be personal attacks ... then I'm your guy. What a great time to be a talk show host.

Yes, Neal...you can best believe that all of things you outlined will be interpreted by the MSM and other Shrillary allies as personal attacks.

Libs latching on to yet another fake document

First, libs wet themselves last year when that bastion of media impartiality, Dan Rather, broke the story about Bush's National Guard Service (or, in their minds, lack thereof). Come to find out, the documents were forged.

Then, Newsweak ran with this story about Koran-flushing by our guards in Gitmo. Come to find out, it was a single source who based his account on hearsay. Said source was also purportedly a "senior government official", curious in light of Newsweak's spirited defense of their hard-nosed investigative techniques: "Do you want someone who reports and investigates, or who simply takes the government's word for it?" Apparently they did the latter and tried to pass it off as the former.

Now, we have that "damning" Downing Street Memo. I haven't discussed it much, mainly because in light of the two aforementioned MSM flubs, as well as peddled theories that Kerry really won OH and FL in '04, I take liberal conspiracy theories with a grain of salt. Well, it appears I was wise to ignore this one, too.

For those who don't know, here's the gist of the Downing Street Memo:

Stamped "secret and strictly personal -- UK eyes only" and dated July 23, 2002, eight months before the Americans and Brits invaded Iraq, the main Downing Street memo summarizes a report from Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of British intelligence. He'd just come back from Washington, where he'd met with top Bush administration officials.

Here's one juicy chunk:

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

So, it looks like Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, and was going to "find" evidence to justify it. Wow. Seems damning, right?

There's just one small problem: it's not original. Thus, its authenticity is in question. From NewsMax:

The so-called Downing Street Memo - which was presumed to be authentic when Bush administration critics began touting it last month as evidence the president committed impeachable crimes - is actually a manually recreated copy - with the source of the memo now admitting he retyped the document before destroying the originals.

British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May 1, revealed to The Associated Press over the weekend that "he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals."

Smith's admission means there's now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo's meaning.

But wait! British intellignece? Wasn't that part of our basis for believing Saddam had WMD's? British and Russian intelligence (along with UN reports)? So we relied, in part, on faulty British intelligence, but now the same British intelligence is suddenly reliable because it's got some anti-Bush juicy morsels in it? But I digress...

Of course, expect the left to argue the same thing they did in the CBS fake document case: "Well, the documents are fake, but the story is real and you haven't proven otherwise!" Yeah, like it's incumbent upon us to prove a negative! OK, I saw on the Star that Michael Jackson is really an alien...I saw the photos! OK, the photos were doctored, but you still haven't shown me that MJ really isn't an alien!

See, Kerry brandished the Memo like Ted Kennedy brandishing a deli napkin with a waitress' phone number. He was ready to go after Bush and try to bring him down (since he failed to do so at the ballot box) with this "damning" Memo. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," he told a reporter.

He has since backed off. Even a loser like Kerry knows the fallout from fake documents. It played a part in his '04 loss.

From the Desk of Senator Dick

Hat tip to Iowahawk for this scoop on the king of metaphors: Durbin the Turban:

Mr. Hector Gutierrez
Gutierrez Bros. Landscaping
Arlington, VA

Dear Mr. Gutierrez:

Nothing could have prepared me for the shock that awaited as I exited the front door of my home early Wednesday morning, where I discovered that your lawn crew had cut a swath of environmental destruction across my yard so horrifying that it only can be compared to the Rape of Nanking. I can scarcely bring myself to describe the killing fields that are my North azalea beds and the brutal degradation and torture suffered by the bluegrass around the locust tree by the rear patio. I am writing to inform you that I have contacted the US Department of Interior to conduct a full independent investigation into Gutierrez Brothers' actions in this matter. Please be advised that you may be subpoenaed for records pertaining to mower height, pruning shear maintenance, and leaf blower emissions. I would also advise your crewmen to heed the lessons of the Judgement At Nurenburg: although they may be spared the justice due their superiors, "I was only following orders" is not an excuse.

Sincerely,

Senator Richard J. Durbin
Washington, DC

And what atrocity did United Airlines commit? Well...

Customer Relations Department
United Airlines
Elk Grove Village, IL

Dear Sir or Madam:

In the dark annals of human evil, history has recorded the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocides, and Stalin's mass starvation program. And now, United Airlines flight 671 from Reagan International to Chicago O'Hare on June 3rd, 2005. I know, because I am a survivor of that dark exemplar of man's cruelty to man.

Perhaps I should have known what I was in for when your brusque gate agent refused to issue an upgrade to me for the flight (despite being a Premier/1K member for over 10 years), or when your flight crew Gestapo confiscated my carry on Roll Tote (even though I had nearly fit it into the overhead bin). But the true measure of the horror did not dawn on me until me and my fellow passengers were left taxiing on the O'Hare tarmack for over twenty minutes in the Auschwitzian Airbus A320 cattlecar, in temperatures approaching 85 degrees, not knowing our fates or whether we would make it to our fundraising dinners.

Santayana once said, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." And I say to you and your fellow United criminals: "never again," unless you credit my account at least 2 flight segments for this travesty.

Sincerely,

Senator Richard J. Durbin
Washington, DC

cc: Human Rights Watch
cc: Amnesty International

Good thing he cc'ed Amnesty on this, since they're the experts on gulags.

There are a couple more of these letters that have been unearthed, but this one takes the cake:

Mr. and Mrs. Robert Epstein
3786 Arbor Cove
Fairfax, VA

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Epstein:

In her diaries, Anne Frank wrote, "After all that has happened, I still believe there is good in everyone." I am sad to say that after the obscene neighborhood parking situation Saturday, prompted by your son Jacob's Bar Mitzvah at Congregation Beth Shalom, I cannot reach the same optimistic conclusion.

As I witnessed one after another of your uniformed parking attendant shock troops invading my cul de sac with menacing SUVs, eventual blocking my driveway, I could not help but imagine the raw panic that must have gripped the doomed souls that inhabited the ghettos of Warsaw in 1939. Although the traffic jam eventually passed over when your took your adolescent blitzkreig on to Lazer FunZone, I am not sure I will ever fully recover from the trauma.

Never again, Mr. and Mrs. Epstein. Never again.

Sincerely,

Senator Richard J. Durbin
Washington, DC

Wonder why he didn't cc CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)?

With friends like these...

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "If it is Dick Durbin in trouble, then something is wrong."

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) showing just how clueless some on the left can be. She isn't exactly helping Durbin the Turban by keeping attention on his stupidity.

The left has received its talking points over this flap: criticize the right for "changing the subject" or "diverting attention from the real issue." Folks, in an era that (for better or worse) is governed by the sound bite, any politician must be keenly aware of what he/she is saying. Durbin merely parroted what the left thinks of our soldiers but aren't courageous enough to say themselves.

We hear from the left that poor word choice shouldn't mask the points they're trying to make. Well Hell's Bells, you leftist morons! Why, then, do you have inarticulate jerks like Dean and Durbin speaking for your party if you think they do a terrible job of articulating your views? I would argue that they're doing a fine job of articulating the left's true views, but the negative fallout from their comments wasn't quite what you people had in mind, now is it?

You liberals need to understand something: words mean things! If you're going to make an analogy in order to make a point, choose your analogy (and its components, i.e. words) carefully...lest you wind up looking like the idiots we know you to be!

Durbin the Turban kinda-sorta-notreally apologizes

Doug TenNapel has a hilarious observation about Durbin the Turban's faux apology:

“I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.”

Try this one on your wife. "I'm sorry you misused and misundterstood my true feelings, when I said 'you act just like a bitch' I was trying to say that you deserve my respect, admiration and support."

Durbin the Turban's gross analogy

Mark Steyn sums up Dick's views better than anyone else. Full column here (PLEASE read it!), excerpts snipped below:

Last Tuesday, Mr. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, quoted a report of U.S. "atrocities" at Guantanamo and then added:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Er, well, your average low-wattage senator might. But I wouldn't. The "atrocities" he enumerated -- "Not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room" -- are not characteristic of the Nazis, the Soviets or Pol Pot, and, at the end, the body count in Gitmo was a lot lower. That's to say, it was zero, which would have been counted a poor day's work in Auschwitz or Siberia or the killing fields of Cambodia.

But give Mr. Durbin credit. Every third-rate hack on every European newspaper can do the Americans-are-Nazis shtick. Amnesty International has already declared Guantanamo the "gulag of our times." But I do believe the senator is the first to compare the U.S. armed forces with the blood-drenched thugs of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Way to go, Senator. If you had a dime for every crackpot Web site that takes up your thoughtful historical comparison, you would be able to retire to the Caribbean and spend the rest of your days torturing yourself with hot weather and loud music, as well as inappropriately provocative women and insufficient choice of hors d'oeuvre and all the other shameful atrocities at Guantanamo.

For those who like to throw out the "gulag" references and other semanticly-challenged words:

Just for the record, some 15 million to 30 million Soviets died in the gulag; some 6 million Jews died in the Nazi camps; some 2 million Cambodians -- one-third of the country's population -- died in the killing fields. Nobody's died in Gitmo, not even from having Christina Aguilera played to them excessively loudly. The comparison is deranged, and deeply insulting not just to the U.S. military but to the millions of relatives of those dead Russians, Jews and Cambodians, who, unlike Mr. Durbin, know what real atrocities are.

Had Mr. Durbin said, "Why, these atrocities are so terrible you would almost believe it was an account of the activities of my distinguished colleague Robert C. Byrd's fellow Klansmen," that would have been a little closer to the ballpark but still way out.

Oh, if I had a dime for every time the MSM reminded us of Byrd's KKK past...I would have...uh, maybe, a dime? Tops? Anyway, continuing:

Spot the odd one out: (1) mass starvation, (2) gas chambers, (3) mountains of skulls, (4) lousy infidel pop music at full volume. One of these is not the same as the others, and Mr. Durbin doesn't have the excuse of being some airhead celeb or an Ivy League professor. He's the Senate Judiciary Committee's second-ranking Democrat. Don't they have an insanity clause?

Durbin, Dean, and Rangel are proof that they have no such clause. Finally, in closing:

The senator from Illinois' comparisons are as tired as they're grotesque. They add nothing useful to the debate. But around the planet folks naturally figure that, if only 100 people out of nearly 300 million get to be senators, the position must be a big deal. Hence, headlines in the Arab world like "U.S. senator stands by Nazi remark." That's al Jazeera, where the senator from al-Inois is now a big hero -- for slandering his own country, for confirming the lurid propaganda of its enemies. Yes, folks, American soldiers are Nazis and U.S. prison camps are gulags. Don't take our word for it, Sen. Bigshot says so.

This isn't a Republican versus Democrat thing; it's about senior Democrats who are so over-invested in their hatred of a passing administration that they've signed on to the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe.

It would be heartening to think Mr. Durbin will himself now be subjected to some serious torture. Not real torture, of course; I don't mean using Pol Pot techniques and playing the Celine Dion Christmas album really loud to him.

But he should at least be made a little uncomfortable about what he's done -- in a time of war, making an inflammatory libel against his country's military that has no value whatever except to America's enemies. Shame on him, and shame on those fellow senators and Democrats who by their refusal to condemn him endorse his slander.

I've known all along that the left's seething hatred of Bush is so intense that they'd gladly sacrifice American's best interests in order to score political points. If we lose soldiers, that's bad news for America...which is good news for liberals. That, my friends, is just sick.

PETA: People Eager to Trashbin Animals

PETA employees arrested for cruelty to animals. Two PETA employees disposed of dead animals in trash bins. OK, no big deal there...if not for the fact that (a) the dumping was illegal, and (b) the real kicker: many of the dead animals were adoptable before PETA sent them to meet their maker!

See, PETA gets some animals from animal shelters and tells the animal shelters they'll find them homes. The animal shelter, understaffed and usually underfunded, agrees. Then PETA...euthanized these animals?!?

Jailarity ensues: link

By the way, hat tip to tnjack for sending this my way...

Energy problem: yes or no?

From Neal Boortz:

The two Florida senators have made a deal with the Bush administration. The only way they'll support the new energy bill would be if there is a ban on all drilling for oil and gas off the Florida coast. Americans have this image of offshore rigs as filthy, polluting environmental time bombs. They're wrong. This exemption makes no sense. Either we have an energy crisis, or we don't. If we take Florida out of the mix, then there's no energy crisis. Don't talk to me about automobile fuel efficiency and setting my thermostat to 78 in the summer as long as there are no rigs off the Florida coast.

Boortz is right. I mean, Sen. Martinez (Republican) supports drilling in ANWR and Prudhoe Bay in Alaska (as do I). Sen. Bill Nelson (Democrat) does not support drilling ANWR, despite the fact that it was established in 1960 for the sole purpose of oil and gas exploration! But I digress... (and no, this isn't an invitation to debate ANWR drilling...I'm going somewhere with all this)

So for Martinez, oil rigs aren't safe? Then why support drilling in ANWR, sir? What, it's OK to pollute Alaska or risk an environmental accident there...just not in Florida? Hey, the man's been in DC for six months and he's already figured out how to play to the homers! "Screw Alaska...just don't drill in FL!"

Look, I know Jeb's against it, too, and I respect Jeb deeply. But Boortz' point is a good one: if we have an energy crisis/problem, we use all sources we can; if we don't have a problem, then we don't need FL or AK or anywhere else. Just keep importing the oil from that unstable jihadist hellhole called the Middle East, and keep your head firmly planted in the sand!

I expect pandering to the enviromental Chicken Littles from Bill Nelson...but not from Mel Martinez.

Supreme Court, 1950: Enemy combatants have no right of habeas corpus

The USSC decided in Johnson v. Eisentrager in 1950 (a 6-3 ruling) that constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus does not apply to enemy aliens detained by the United States on foreign soil. From MSN:

The Bush administration says American courts have no jurisdiction to hear their petitions because they are enemy combatants and foreign nationals, held outside U.S. territory. (Under a century-old lease with Cuba the United States has "jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo, but Cuba retains "ultimate sovereignty.") Therefore, the administration argues, the United States can hold them on Guantanamo indefinitely, without access to counsel or other legal rights.

As authority for this proposition, the administration cites the Supreme Court's June 5, 1950, ruling in Johnson v. Eisentrager, in which the court held that the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus does not apply to enemy aliens who, like Eisentrager and his 20 German co-respondents in the case, were detained by the United States on foreign soil. So far, a district judge in Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have agreed with the Bush administration.

Justice Robert Jackson, writing for the majority, noted the following:

To grant the writ to these prisoners might mean that our army must transport them across the seas for hearing. This would require allocation of shipping space, guarding personnel, billeting and rations. It might also require transportation for whatever witnesses the prisoners desired to call as well as transportation for those necessary to defend legality of the sentence. The writ, since it is held to be a matter of right, would be equally available to enemies during active hostilities as in the present twilight between war and peace. Such trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy.

So...what was that again about the rule of law and Gitmo detainees?

Finally, Jackson wrote "that the Constitution does not confer...an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States." In other words, let the tribunals begin!

Durbin: American soldiers like Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalin

Recent visitors seem to have this bizarre sympathy towards the Islamofascists that want us dead. I don't know, maybe these terrorists had their goats stolen from them when they were kids, or Ali's inner jihadist was wounded when his sweetheart spurned his advances at age 17...right before he cut her head off in the name of Allah (did she get 72 virgins? No, that's right, she's considered subhuman and inferior!). Either way, it's a strange and interesting phenomena to watch the left get all hot and bothered over discomfort caused to the vermin detained in Gitmo. And that's what it is...discomfort, not torture!

Well, now said visitors have an ally in the U.S. Senate. Actually, they seem to have quite a few of them (Hillary, Leahy, Scuba Boy Kennedy, etc.). It's no secret that a large portion of the Democratic party loathes (as Bill Clinton once wrote) the Military. To them, the whole idea of maintaining a national defense is as waste of time. However, I'm specifically referring to Dick (how appropriate) Durbin.

Durbin referred to the A/C being cranked up to make it cold, and the A/C not being used to make it about 100 degrees. So it never gets that hot in the Middle East? That will no doubt come as a shock to our soldiers in 120-degree Iraq right now. Durbin seems to be saying that 100 degrees is too hot for a poor widdle terrorist, but acceptable for our own soldiers. Then again, his disdain for our soldiers is apparent in his own words.

Durbin's comments on the Senate floor:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Wow...just "wow"! I see Dick got his "gulag" talking points from Amnesty International. But hey, why quip about semantics?

The outrage that flooded Durbin the Turban's office caused him to backpedal. No, wait...my bad! It caused him to refuse to apologize and ally his sympathies with the cretins in Gitmo, falsely claiming they're afforded rights under the Geneva conventions. Then again, what part of the Geneva conventions are we breaking? Not that it matters, because again...these jihadists are not covered by Geneva! (And please...spare me your "Yes they are, because blahblahblah")

Like OpinionJournal says, "We are fighting an enemy that murdered 3,000 innocent people on American soil 3 1/2 years ago and would murder millions more if given the chance--and according to Dick Durbin, our soldiers are the Nazis." Your assessment is correct, guys. That's the thinking of a Dick.

Well, as long as Illinois is a hopelessly blue state, they will continue to elect statewide and national embarrassments like Dick.

UPDATED: Reuters think of Bush as Hitler, too!

UPDATE: My buddy Nickie Goomba has a hilarious post regarding other famous Nazi salutes (he's got pictures for proof): Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, the Pope, Colin Powell, Bob the Builder, etc. If you don't click this to read the post, you officially suck.

If Reuters changes the photo below, I will try to find a link to a saved copy of the picture. But as of right now, Reuters is running this picture of Bush with a wave to the crowd...a wave that resembles Hitler's "Zieg Heil!" salute. Nope...no media bias.

Hilarious stuff: A California Condor Omelette?

Thanks to Doug TenNapel for this (note the enviro-wacko's "#uck Bush" shirt with a swastika for the S...even Reuters agrees with that characterization (see related post)):

Amnesty Amnesia

The nitwits who stagger in here from time to time to defend Amnesty International's mindless "gulag of our times" reference need to read this from a former reporter who worked closely with Amnesty in London:

I was at one point quite close to its London headquarters, and I used to both carry and return messages for the organization when I went as a reporter to screwed-up countries. The founding statutes were quite clear: An Amnesty local was to adopt three "prisoners of conscience," one from either side of the Cold War and one from a "neutral" state. Letters were to be written to the relevant governments and to newspapers in free countries. Though physical torture and capital punishment were opposed in all cases, no overt political position was to be taken. (I remember there was quite a row when an Amnesty "country report" on Argentina went so far as to describe a guerrilla raid as "daring.") By adhering to these rules, AI became a credible worldwide group to which even the most repressive governments sometimes had to pay attention. All honor to its founder Peter Benenson, who died earlier this year.

Respectable, and fair enough. But...

And now look. I think it is fairly safe to say that not one detainee in Guantanamo is there because of an expression of opinion. (And those whose "opinion" is that all infidels must die are not exactly prisoners of conscience.) Morally neutral on this point, apparently, Amnesty nonetheless finds its voice by describing the prison itself as "the gulag of our times." No need to waste words here: Not everyone in the gulag was a "prisoner of conscience," either. But if an organization that ostensibly protects the rights of prisoners is unaware of the nature of a colossal system of forced labor and arbitrary detention—replete with physical torture, starvation, and brutal execution—then the moral compass has become disordered beyond repair. This is not even neutrality between the fireman and the fire. It surely expresses a covert sympathy with the aims and objectives of jihad and an overt, if witless and sinister, hatred of the United States. If only this were the only symptom of that tendency.

Emphasis mine. But words don't mean much to the left, so if Amnesty calls us Gitmo a "gulag", despite the lack of torture, starvation, forced labor, or execution...then they show themselves to possess poor English at best, and sinister and stupid at worst.

Kofi: You've Got Mail!

From Neal Boortz:

Kofi Annan is scraping off his shoe today after it was revealed yesterday the investigators looking into the Oil-For-Food program found an e-mail between Kofi Annan and a company that won a contract and hired his son. Looks like Kofi was greasing the skids for young Kojo the Korrupt.

This is yet another piece of evidence tying Kofi Annan to the criminal theft of billions of dollars under the Oil-For-Food program. If this were corporate America, Kofi Annan would have been fired the minute any money was found missing. If Kofi Annan were an American president, he would have long been impeached. The disaster happened on his watch.

But as it stands, Kofi's pass continues to get punched by the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress. What's it going to take for him to resign? Perhaps more evidence of wrongdoing....that could be on the way. Stay tuned.

Yep, the left gets all hot and bothered over Ken Lay and Enron pilfering the company coffers and screwing employees...and they should get upset over that! But man, do liberals circle the wagon around St. Kofi or what? The UN steals billions of dollars of humanitarian aid and leftists scream "Kofi didn't know! He's not responsible!" Well, looks like Kofi did know! Hope he gets the Ken Lay treatment, but don't count on the MSM giving it to him.

The only thing I'll say about the Jackson verdict

I haven't followed the Jackson trial much, so this is all I'm going to say about it.

I think Jacko's guilty as hell of being a pedophile. If Jackson had been convicted, I'd say that you'd have to charge the boy's mother with pimping out her child. I mean, the rumors have been afloat for over a decade now, and those alone would keep me from sending my kid over to Neverland! Since the mother was a scam artist and welfare queen, it could be logically deduced that she was looking for a payday. The sad thing is that she was willing to serve up her son in order to achieve it.

But her shadiness of character, and her lack of social graces while on the stand, made her an unsympathetic (and thus unbelievable) witness. Fair or not, that was how she was seen. So if Jacko diddled her boy, she did the boy no favors by her other actions (not just sending the chicken into the fox den).

Sadly, the verdict reminds me of the OJ verdict: most blacks rejoice, most whites are upset. The main difference is that I think most whites thought OJ would get convicted (due to the irrefutable DNA evidence), but many (if not most) whites thought Jacko would beat this rap.

Finally, the conclusion one may draw is this: It is OK to kill someone (OJ, Robert Blake) or molest children (Jacko) in California if you are famous. I laugh sarcastically when I hear lawyers argue that the system is NOT tilted to favor the famous. Justice can indeed be purchased.

FL teachers union using bigoted logic to fight vouchers

This is certainly meant as no slight to my bud Steve H., who is a fine FL public school teacher. But even he knows how awful the union can be.

Florida allowed for school vouchers back in 1999. Simply put, it allows parents of schoolkids in poorly performing districts to send their kids to public or private schools that perform better. The liberal response was basically "To hell with those little bastards! Let them stay in failing schools and have no chance at life! We don't want our dues-paying members (i.e. public teachers) to be held accountable for what they teach! Besides, if more kids opt for private schools, then public schools may be forced to let go of our golden geese...er, dues-paying members!" Please, don't waste your time screaming that education is underfunded. We fund more per pupil than we've ever funded (even accounting for inflation), and the most highly funded school district in the country (in D.C.) is also the most poorly performing...proof that simply throwing money at it doesn't help.

George Will has a column that exposes what the union is trying to do to my state's kids:

The attack on Florida's school-choice program relied on 19th-century bigotry and 21st-century obscurantism.

Florida's Opportunity Scholarships, the nation's first statewide school-choice program, was enacted in 1999 to ameliorate a gross civil-rights injustice—the fact that poor families whose children are trapped in terrible schools are helpless to prevent their children's life chances from being blighted. The program empowers students to transfer from failing schools, as defined by set criteria, to the public or private school of their choice.

Teachers unions immediately filed suit to block this escape route—this underground railroad, if you will—from the public-school plantation. The suit cited two provisions of Florida's constitution.

One is its Blaine amendment, which says no public money shall go "directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." The other says the state must make "adequate provision" for "a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools."

Basically, the Blaine Amendment was anti-Catholic when fear and loathing of Catholic immigrants was pervasive, and was meant to keep Protestantism as the order of the day. Will explains in the column how the Blaine rationale is flawed and the bigoted interpretation of it by the union is based on ignorance of its origins and intentions. Will also explains how the "uniform" rationale is also flawed. I won't go into it here (lest the post become too big), so read it. But he makes an observation I want to share:

Indeed, the teachers unions say that the state, consistent with its duty to provide "uniform" education, can send children with special needs to private schools.

See, if a child is, say, autistic, public school teachers have no problem sending him/her to a private school and out of their hair. Thank God for special ed teachers like Steve who see it as their responsibility to help these kids. So autistic kids can go to private schools with no complaints, but let a child from a gang-ridden crumbling inner-city school want to go to a private school, and "Oh, HELL NO! You'll stay right here, you little sh#t! Just look over your shoulder every now and then, learn to duck when trouble comes, read your Heather Has Two Mommies book, and get in touch with your inner feelings...or something!"

Basically, the unions are intent on fighting any attempt at public school reform, accountability, or anything else that invades their fiefdoms. Fortunately, parents of all races and backgrounds are beginning to clamor for change (and vouchers), because while they may be liberal or conservative or somewhere in between...they're still parents who love their children and want the best for them.

Gitmo's hellish menu

Let's look at the "torturous" menu that we force those peace-loving Islamofascists at Gitmo to eat, as reported by Rep. Duncan Hunter:

"For Sunday they're going to be having Orange Glazed Chicken, Fresh Fruit Roupee, Steamed Peas and Mushrooms, Rice Pilaf - we treat them very well," he told Fox.

Last night, Hunter said, the U.S. "torture victims" enjoyed the same kind of gourmet fare, including an entree of "Lemon-baked Fish."

On the other hand, feeding the detainees MREs, the standard fare given to our troops on the front lines, is strictly verboten - considered an "abuse" under restrictions imposed by Congress, Hunter said.

Yep, you read it right. Bloodthirsty savages get to eat better than our troops. Leave it to a liberal (and our wobbly-kneed politicians of both parties) to think that's more acceptable than forcing Gitmo's innocent victims to consume MREs. Now, if the lemon-baked fish is the same kind you'd find at Barnhill's or Golden Corral, then you'd have a point about torture!

Rep. Hunter finished with this sad-but-true observation:

"In fact," he said, "if you did that for American GIs - if you had a call to prayer five times a day - the ACLU would sue on the basis that we violated the separation between church and state."

Indeed, the ACLU (aka the Anti-Christianity Liberals Union) would sue.

PBS flap

George Neumayr, executive editor of The American Spectator, has a great column of the recent flap of Ken Tomlinson trying to correct the 99.99% liberal tilt of "public" broadcasting. The column is short and excellent, and this excerpt sums things up well:

The arrogance of the liberal cabal at PBS is incredible. They complain in proportion to their lost privileges. They automatically assume that Americans should feel happy to pay higher taxes to finance what amounts to PBS infomercials for the Democratic Party and the ideological cultural left.

The media coverage of Tomlinson reflects this arrogance of the aggrieved ruling class pining over its diminution (and minor at that) of power at PBS. Starting with the premise that liberalism is synonymous with editorial neutrality and independence, the media cast Tomlinson as "political" while his liberal critics at PBS are treated as "independent." This drawing of artificial lines is necessary in order to make the story sound compelling. But the story isn't alarming in the least if people know that the independent critics here are Democrats and liberals who treat PBS tax dollars as their own personal piggy bank for ideological projects.

Under a picture of Bill Moyers, the Washington Post ran the caption: "Bill Moyers's PBS program is reported to have been monitored for 'anti-Bush' content." That's supposed to sound very chilling. But what Tomlinson did sounds responsible once you know that Moyers's infomercials for the Democrats are financed with tax dollars. Didn't the same press now getting worked up over Tomlinson complain recently about tax dollars going to pro-Bush content (from Armstrong Williams and the like)? If tax dollars shouldn't go to pro-Bush journalism, by that same reasoning the press should object to tax dollars going to Bill Moyers for anti-Bush journalism. That Tomlinson objected to Moyers' anti-Bush content isn't any more threatening to editorial independence than the press's legitimate squawking about tax-financed right-wing punditry.

(snip...)

Democratic Congressmen John Dingell and David Obey, trying desperately to upend Tomlinson before the liberal monopoly at PBS cracks up, have written to Corporation of Public Broadcasting Inspector General Kenneth Konz: "Recent news reports suggesting that the CPB increasingly is making personnel and funding decisions on the basis of political ideology are extremely troubling." It wouldn't occur to them that this is an exact description of what PBS under a liberal monopoly has done for decades. It has funded, hired, and programmed according to a liberal ideology since it started. But Tomlinson, a Bush political appointee, hires another Bush political appointee to do work a reasonable person would expect him to do, and that's a scandal?

Personally, I think PBS should be 100% de-funded! There is not a damned thing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the role to get involved with media programming. In other countries where the government has state-sponsored programming, we call it "propaganda", but for some reason, we call it "education" over here. My tax dollars should not be funding television programming that otherwise wouldn't survive in the marketplace (though maybe Barney and Clifford the Big Red Dog would do well).