Hollywood Foreign Policy Review

The magazine that everyone must have a subscription to! Read the headlines on the mag cover! My personal favorite is the "How to speak out without upsetting the rubes in mainstream America" headline...since that's what they think of us anyway.

Hat tip to my friend Lisa Renee at Liberal Common Sense for pointing me to FortLiberty.org, where this is contained:

Helen Thomas suicide watch

America's batty old aunt in the attic, Helen Thomas, said last week that if Cheney ran for president, she'd kill herself. The jokes and "Run, Dick, run!" comments began popping up all over the blogosphere, reproducing faster than Jesse Jackson in a room full of Rainbow/PUSH secretaries.

Well, apparently the old hag has thin skin. From Drudge:

White House press doyenne Helen Thomas is plenty peeved at her longtime friend Albert Eisele, editor of THE HILL newspaper in Washington, D.C.

In a column this week headlined "Reporter: Cheney's Not Presidential Material," Eisele quoted Thomas as saying "The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."

Thomas also said: "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does," according to Eisele's column.

But Thomas said yesterday at the White House that her comments to Eisele were for his ears only. "I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying.

"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.

But Eisele said that when he called Thomas, "I assume she knew that we were on the record."

"She's obviously very upset about it, but it was a small item -- until Drudge picked it up and broadcast it across the universe," Eisele said.

Still, he noted that reporters aren't that happy when the tables are turned. "Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele said with a laugh.

Emphasis mine. So it's OK for a reporter to print things that are said by people who don't want their words published, and reporter will publish the words (a) if spoken by a Republican or (b) if the reporter maintains (mostly with a straight face) that the quote was fair game (kinda like Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter in last year's presidential race). But boy, you let a reporter have the shoe on the other foot, and it's just damned wrong!

Good enough for thee, but not for me, eh Helen?

No title needed...

Hat tip to my pal Nickie Goomba...

Embryonic stem cell research rift in GOP

There seems to be some squabbling in the GOP about embryonic stem cell research , specifically federal funding of it. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist supports it, while President Bush does not. In Frist's remarks from the Senate floor, he specified exactly which embryos should be used:

I said four years ago, we should federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed.

Personally, I agree with everything he said about embroys to be used for stem cell research...everything except federal funding.

Look, I hate to be an insensitive jerk here, but it is not the federal government's job to provide taxpayer funds to do stem cell research. States, sure. Private grants, sure. Fundraisers, yes. Confiscating money from taxpayers, many of whom may find the research objectionable, at the federal level is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind as a valid federal responsibility.

For me, it's not a bioethics issue. My own belief is that the research is valuable, and we may potentially harvest a great deal of medical rewards from it. I want to see it funded from somewhere. I just don't think it's clear that the federal government should be the one funding it. I haven't seen anything in the Constitution that convinces me otherwise, but I am certainly open to your views.

So the right is screwing the poor and the elderly?

This has got to be one of the most disgusting things I've read in a while. Hat tip to ManicNole for bringing this to my attention. From the Washington Times (and picked up by the blogosphere, once again picking up the slack for lazy and/or partisan journalists in the MSM):

Did Al Franken's liberal radio network Air America divert city money for the elderly and inner-city children to itself? That's the question people should be asking this week after the revelation that the New York Department of Investigation is looking into whether hundreds of thousands of dollars were illegally transferred from a Bronx community center to Air America. Only a community paper and a few Internet bloggers seem interested in what could be an egregious case of illegal funneling of tax dollars to a private, partisan organization.

In late June, city officials designated the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, a nonprofit organization that runs mentoring programs for children and day care for Alzheimer's patients, a "non-responsible city contractor." Investigators found "significant inappropriate transactions and falsified documents that were submitted to various City agencies." The city subsequently suspended the club's contracts, which run well into the millions.

It turns out, according to sources quoted anonymously by the Bronx News, that the mishandled money went to Air America. One source claims that $480,000 was wrongly transferred. The city investigation is concentrating on Charles Rosen, the club's president for 15 years, and Evan Cohen, the development director, who is a former chairman of Air America. Mr. Cohen resigned from Air America in May after the network's leasing plans in Chicago, San Francisco and elsewhere fell through.

The network's plans fell through because of its failure to grasp the concept of capitalism. While its founders are well versed in it, its pinheaded on-air personalities bite the hands that feed them. But I digress...continuing:

No one has claimed that Messrs. Cohen or Rosen sought to profit personally from any transfers. The money was said to have been a "loan" from the community center to Air America, which Air America would repay with interest at some point in the future. But why the public till should be tapped to rescue a foundering news outlet was a question no one seemed to consider. Maybe Air America officers thought spending public funds on their network was a truly compelling public interest. It isn't, of course, and if the allegations are true, they reveal a misuse of tax dollars to support a partisan organization.

(snip...)

Most of the mainstream newspapers have ignored this story. We only found out about it through the reporting of Brian Maloney, who pieced a story together on his blog "The Radio Equalizer" which was picked up by syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. The New York Daily News buried an item at the end of a column of news briefs. There was nothing in the New York Times, which has heaped flattering coverage on the flailing network.

Air America is struggling to find listeners, leaders and reliable funding. But should it take money from children and the ailing elderly? Al Franken and Randi Rhodes, ever the defenders of the "little guy," should explain this one.

Let's assume that public money that would have benefitted Alzheimer patients were pilfered and transferred to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or some other right-of-center talk radio ideologue. Does anyone doubt for a millisecond that the New York Times and the rest of the leftist MSM would be all over the story like Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd on a waitress?

Aren't liberals supposed to be for the little guy, i.e. the poor, the children, the elderly, and the sick? Aren't right-wingers supposed to be the evil ones, trying to screw those same groups of people? Maybe Franken and company can pin this one on Karl Rove, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Halliburton, drilling in ANWR, Florida 2000, etc.

Race-baiting poverty pimp scores another win

Jesse Jackson, the shameless shyster, has cried "wolf" once again. Alas, ESPN gave in. From the Washington Post:

When programming executives at ESPN came up with the idea to send their main news show on a 50-state tour, they failed to include the one place in the country that is home to the White House, the U.S. Capitol and almost 600,000 residents.

The cable sports network paid for its omission.

The D.C. mayor issued a press release complaining of a monumental dis. A local radio political commentator threatened to call for a boycott of the network. And, yesterday, the Rev. Jesse Jackson jumped into the fray and called an ESPN executive to proclaim the District as worthy of a traveling television show.

Now I did go to college at Florida State, and I admit that I didn't take a geography course there, so cut me some slack here. But if my memory serves me correctly, Washington, D.C. is not a state. To quote that intellectual giant Bobcat Goldthwait: "Magellan, get a f###ing map!"

No, I'm not dissing D.C., but why call it a "50-state" tour if you're going to D.C., too? Anyway, read the article. It looks like ESPN did the French thing and gave in.

LA Times: "silly" to think being in good shape helps mental performance

Hey, what do doctors know anyway? Hat tip to Little Green Footballs and Tammy Bruce:

In a piece for the Los Angeles Times on July 22, 2005, titled “The (over)exercise of Power,” Jonathan Chait notes he finds the president’s interest in exercise “disturbing.” He bleats, “What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.” As opposed to a president’s obsession with Big Macs and a certain intern?

Chait finds the fact that the president makes time to exercise “astonishing.” He then notes: “My guess is that Bush associates exercise with discipline. ... The notion of a connection between physical and mental potency is, of course, silly. ...”

Really? Not according to the medical establishment and the surgeon general’s office, which notes the benefits of exercise. Such as? Better sleep, reduced tension and stress, reduction of high blood pressure, reduction of anxiety and depression, reduced risk of colon and breast cancer, healthy bones, muscles and joints, improved self-image, and generally improved physical health.

For the most powerful man on earth, the man on whose shoulders the fate of the free world rests, the president clearly recognizes exercise is an imperative component to his being able to do the job.

Chait tries to assert his point about the “silliness” of connecting exercise with mental acuity by arguing, “Consider all the perfectly toned airheads in Hollywood — or perhaps, even the president himself.” The last time I checked, most actresses in Hollywood are emaciated, they are not “perfectly toned.” There is a difference between being thin and being healthy — a distinction lost on Chait and Hollywood in general.

It would be easy to dismiss Chait as just another “journalist” who makes a living hating the president, but there’s more to it than that. You see, leftists harbor a personal jealousy of people unlike them.

(snip...)

President and Mrs. Bush and the Roberts family make the mistake of not pledging allegiance to the decline of culture. They insult the Left by reminding intellectually lazy Slaves to Decay like Chait and Givhan that class, decorum and respect still exist. Tradition, caring for one's family and caring for oneself are still values that prevail.

Is Lynne Stewart to be the new American beauty standard? Is Michael Moore, and the slow suicide of morbid obesity, to be sought after? Is Ward Churchill to be the New Ideal Man? Is the discipline brought by exercise and self-restraint so frightening that we would prefer to have a quadruple-bypass like Bill Clinton?

After all, if you care enough about yourself to resist a Big Mac and Krispy Kreme, you would also have the discipline to resist an intern. Unless, of course, your world is one where there are no standards, exercise is "creepy," and looking good is "old fashioned." Theirs is a world, as Bill Clinton mused, where you do what you want "because you can."

Thank goodness Americans are deciding they deserve better.

Bic Macs, Krispy Kremes, and interns...good. Caring about your health...creepy. Thanks for the clarification, Left Coast.

Dean goes off the deep end...again. So what else is new?

I frequently state that every time Howard Scream...er, Dean...opens his piehole, it feels like Christmas has come early. Hat tip to my friends at Moonbattery for this hilarious gem:

In a startling display of his total disconnect from conventional reality, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean treated members of the College Democrats of America last Friday to some of his most rabid demagoguery to date. The students were educated in the bizarre alternate reality inhabited by Dr. Dean, in which President Bush is to blame for the Supreme Court's recent decision allowing private property to be seized so that new private owners can develop it.

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean bellowed.

Anyone who follows the news will be aware that Bush has yet to place a judge on the Supreme Court. Anyone who follows it closely will know that it was the court's left-wing contingent — Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer — who with the help of Kennedy passed the disturbingly unconstitutional ruling that eminent domain can be used to seize private property for commercial development. The court's three conservatives — Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas — all dissented, as did O'Connor.

Wiser Democrats have been trying to get the doctor to take his medication, or at least tone down his public outbursts, going so far as to denounce some of the outrageous insults he has directed at Republicans — to no avail, evidently, as Dean was in true form in front of his fellow adolescents at the CDA's annual convention.

Drawing the curtain on the era of moral integrity personified by the Clintons, Republicans have brought a "culture of corruption" to Washington, according to Dean.

"If we want it back, we'll have to buy it back," he growled, plainly spelling out the strategy of George Soros and leftists from the entertainment industry.

"We are Democrats because we have moral values," Dean brayed, milking the line for extra laughs by explaining that moral values entail balancing the budget and supporting a "strong public education system" — which some would interpret to mean pandering to teachers' unions at the expense of students' educations.

After whipping the cognitively challenged crowd into a frenzy with his divisive rhetoric by calling Republicans bigots, Dean shrieked over the applause, "I am sick of being divided!"

In support of his firm stand against divisiveness, he declared that Republicans only care about children before they are born, not afterward.

It's easy to imagine the speech running on until men in white jackets emerged from the crowd with oversized butterfly nets, frightening Dean away from the podium.

I seldom feel the need to respond to or get worked up over Howie's diatribes, mainly because I just take it for granted that enough people can see how clearly loony the man is. Had he been the Dems' nominee last year, it's quite possible that Bush would have won all 50 states (though deep blue state Vermont, Howie's home with socialists Bernie Sanders and Ben & Jerry, would have been a toss-up). Yet even had Bush won all 50 states, the left would still insist there was no mandate.

Appeasement and bribery never work when dealing with tyrannical forces.

Mona Charen has a great column on how well appeasement and bribery worked with North Korea, and how the left didn't (and still doesn't) get it. Column here, excerpt follows:

Do you remember North Korea? It's the country Sen. John Kerry and the Democrats kept asserting was more of a threat than Saddam's Iraq during the campaign of 2004. Funny, they haven't mentioned it since. They've reverted to the customary Democratic methods of dealing with threats in non-election years: appeasement, bribery, denial and blame America -- not necessarily in that order.

The Clinton administration certainly attempted the appeasement and bribery technique. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright traveled to Pyongyang to flatter the regime. In 1994, we signed the "Agreed Framework" -- a deal that required North Korea to cease work on its graphite-moderated nuclear power plants (which can produce weapons-grade plutonium) and promise to sin no more. In exchange, we agreed to supply North Korea with two light water nuclear reactors (the $4 billion cost was shouldered mostly by Japan and South Korea).

Additionally, the United States agreed to supply North Korea with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually gratis, to compensate for the loss of energy from the nuclear reactors it was, in theory, shutting down. The U.S. further provided formal assurances that we had no plans to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against North Korea.
There you have the perfect liberal approach. The thinking behind it is clear as a bell. North Korea is not aggressive; it is frightened, thus the assurances about our peaceful intentions. North Korea is not building nuclear power plants in order to become a nuclear bully boy, but only for electricity for its people. We'll cheerfully provide that.

Ya gotta long for the good ol' days of Bill Clinton, huh? Sure, he ignored the issue of terrorism for eight years, but it's fairly difficult to pay attention when your getting your putter polished by an intern your daughter's age...so cut the man some slack! Sure, he sold nuclear technology to the NorKoms and ChiComs (the latter in exchange for campaign contributions). Sure, both of those things happened to compromise our national security interests under Bill Clinton's watch...but hey, were our 401k accounts in great shape or what?! Exactly what Clinton policies or proposals contributed to the boom of the 1990's is anyone's guess, but don't let a little thing like that get in the way of perpetuating ignorant assertions that the man singlehandedly improved the economy! But I digress...continuing:

It failed miserably. A few years after signing this accord, the North Koreans fired a missile over Japan. Secretary of State Albright raced to a microphone to announce that "We agree, and we have let the North Koreans know, in no uncertain terms, that the August 31 launch was a dangerous development." But, she added stubbornly, "Our engagement with North Korea through the Agreed Framework remains central to our ability to press for restraint on missiles and for answers to our questions about suspicious underground construction activities."

So because we were bribing them not to cheat, we'd earned the right to complain when they did? Of course the North Koreans cheated. At first they hotly denied they had cheated, but later, they proudly proclaimed the fact. Today, they claim and few doubt that they possess at least some nuclear weapons. North Korea has shared its technology in the past with Iran and Libya, and since the nation is literally starving (communist economies always produce bumper crops of poverty), and since Kim Jong Il is a vain and sinister leader, we must assume that North Korea might sell nuclear weapons to the highest bidder.

This is the table that has been set for us. While many liberals seem to think that the greatest threats we face arise from the Patriot Act or from "Bush's lies," the truth is that bitter and evil men still seek the power to destroy as many of us as they can possibly hit.

As many people as they can hit. Not white people. Not black people. Not conservatives or Republicans or libertarians. But as many people as they can hit. That means they want liberals dead, too. They want us ALL dead. You folks do understand that, right?

Appeasement worked with Hitler. Uh...no, wait, it didn't. He still marched through Europe and attacked Britain, who had up to then appeased Hitler greatly.

Well, it worked with the USSR. Uh...no, wait, it didn't. They built up a huge nuclear arsenal to use against us until they spent themselves into bankruptcy.

OK, appeasement worked with al Qaeda in Spain. Uh...no, wait, it didn't. al Qaeda tried to attack Spain again after the gazpacho-eating surrender monkeys tucked tail at the ballot box to vote in a socialist appeaser. "Initially, it appeared that terrorists targeted Spain because of the government's support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq. But weeks after outraged Spaniards voted out their pro-U.S. government and the new leaders announced the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, another bomb was found on the tracks of a high-speed train line." What?? You mean al Qaeda lied? No way!

Appeasement and bribery of evil makes the insane assumption that your good will is going to be matched by an evil entity's good will. Does that sound the least bit rational to you?

Durbin the Turban pulls a Kerry on nominee's religion

Dick Durbin, he of eloquent prose and flawless analogies, has been flip-flopping a lot lately when it comes to judicial nominees' religious beliefs. From NewsMax:

Today, Catholic League president William Donohue criticized Sen. Dick Durbin's attack on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts:

"After Senator John Cornyn laid to rest on Monday any concerns that Judge Roberts would allow his religious views to affect his rulings on the bench, we thought this matter was closed. We were wrong: Senator Durbin told a CNN correspondent yesterday that he 'needs to look at everything, including the nominee's faith... .' Now match this up with what Durbin has said previously:

Speaking about questions regarding the religious beliefs of a nominee for the federal bench, Durbin said on April 15, 2005, 'By the Constitution and by law, we cannot even ask that question, nor would I.'

On June 11, 2003, Durbin took umbrage at Circuit Court nominee William Pryor when Pryor merely noted the historical relationship between Christianity and the nation's founding: 'Do you not understand,' he said, that this 'raises concerns of those who don't happen to be Christian that you are asserting an agenda of your own, religious belief of your own inconsistent with separation of church and state?'

After taking flack for his remark, Durbin said on July 23, 2003 that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ought 'to expunge references to religion from this point forward.' He added, hypocritically, 'This is beneath the dignity of the committee.'

The very next day, July 24, he reversed himself, saying, 'If Senator [Jeff] Sessions is suggesting that anyone who has a religious belief should never be questioned about it, even if it has political implications, I just think [that] is wrong-headed.'

On July 31, he reversed himself again, this time having the audacity to co-sponsor a resolution saying, 'It shall not be in order to ask any question of the nominee relating to the religious affiliation of the nominee.'

"Durbin's duplicity is mind-boggling. But of greater concern is his determination to force Roberts to submit to a religious test."

By the way, SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy is a Catholic, too, but many lefties like him because of recent decisions to (a) apply international law and foreign opinions to creatively interpret our Constitution, and (b) further empower government and screw the individual when it comes to property rights (Kelo v. New London). I guess it's only when a non-liberal Catholic is up for a judicial spot that religion becomes an issue.

National security leaker

Nope, not Karl Rove. From NewsMax:

No wonder 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been silent as a churchmouse about Karl Rove while her Democratic colleagues call for his prosecution for leaking classified information about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Turns out - in the only case in U.S. history of a person successfully prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press - Hillary's husband pardoned the guilty party.

On January 20, 2001, President Clinton pardoned Samuel Loring Morison, a civilian analyst with the Office of Naval Intelligence. In 1984, Morison had been convicted of providing classified satellite photos of an under-construction Soviet nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Britain's Jane's Defence Weekly.

He received a two-year jail sentence.

In pardoning Morison, Clinton dismissed the advice of the CIA.

"We said we were obviously opposed - it was a vigorous 'Hell, no,'" one senior intelligence official told the Washington Post at the time. "We think ... giving pardons to people who are convicted of doing that sends the wrong signal to people who are currently entrusted with classified information."

Morison is the only person ever successfully prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, the law invoked by Democrats who want to nail Rove after it became clear that he didn't violate the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

But it's going to be difficult for Dems to feign national security outrage over Plame's outing when the husband of their party's presidential front-runner let an actual convicted leaker off the hook.

Last week, when Sen. John Kerry called for Mr. Rove to be fired, with Hillary standing by his side, she nodded silently. When reporters asked her what she thought of the alleged Rove outrage, she offered only, "I'm nodding."

No doubt while remembering her husband's pardon of Mr. Morison.

Maybe Bill Clinton should be "frog-marched" from the White House in handcuffs? And I'm not talking about some kinky game he plays with interns, either.

No, I'm not advocating arresting Bill Clinton. I'm just illustrating absurdity (the Rove non-issue) with the absurd.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned

If it were, would much change? No, according to USA Today columnist Laura Vanderkam. Excellent reading, so check it out!

My view: if it were overturned, no state would ban it. Even in the reddest of red states, the support just isn't there. Or at least there just isn't a groundswell of public outcry. Sure, some states would implement certain restrictions: parental notification for minors, no late-term or partial-birth abortions, etc. But I really doubt there'd be an outright ban.

Periodic clarification

I will periodically publish this clarification, since (a) I occasionally get e-mail from liberals who don't read my profile to the right; and (b) this clarification will fall off this main page after a few days of posting.

The site is called "Crush Liberalism", and NOT "Crush Liberals", OK? Read this tidbit to the right, in my profile (underneath that ugly mug of mine):

Liberals are not evil; however, their ideology has proven to be a demonstrable failure and incredibly harmful when administered on the body politic.

As occasional or regular liberals to this site know, their input is always welcome. Be civil (though an occasional smart-#ss remark is welcome, especially if it's funny...I can appreciate good humor!). If you are some MoveOn or PETA moonbat, or otherwise are a paranoid #sshat devoid of logic and rely solely on invective, then you will likely get flamed and/or ignored...at the very least, you will be publicly ridiculed. Thoughtful liberals are welcome to post their views anytime. Yes, there are thoughtful liberals, and I am fortunate to have a few of them who happen here from time to time. You guys (and gals) know who you are! :)

Also, please do not tell me about the history of liberalism. I know it well. I acknowledge that over the years in this country (and even worldwide), what is conservative today used to be liberal many moons ago, and vice versa. The terms I use here are assumed to be in today's accepted context and vernacular.

So, in summary, I'd like to say that my aim is to make modern American liberalism impotent in the arena of public policy (and clearly, I alone cannot do this). I could fill reams (uh-huh-huh...I said "ream"!) of paper that explain where modern American liberalism has failed miserably. Therefore, it is liberalism that I'm trying to neutralize and NOT liberals. Libs are people. I may find them wrong and misguided, but you'll be hard-pressed to find where I have ever advocated violence or anything remotely similar to it against a liberal. I think it was Sean Hannity who once said "Liberals can be wrong, but let them be wrong on the golf course, or at the dinner table", etc. Just don't let them be wrong while in public office.

Finally, because I am a libertarian, I do tilt right-of-center. Like my profile says, I'm not a conservative because I find both conservatism and liberalism to be ideologically inconsistent. If you like, I can tell you where I disagree with conservatives on a number of issues, votes, etc. A recent new visitor to the site (welcome, Lisa! Oops...I outed her! heheh!) describes herself as a "liberal libertarian", and I know what she means...I'm probably a libertarian with a small hint of conservative. Libertarians believe in small government with enumerated powers...unlike anarchists, who believe in no government at all.

All in all, I just have obsessive-compulsive disorder when it comes to the rule of law and abiding by (NOT reinventing) the Constitution. I also believe that all of us are entitled to life, liberty, and property and can only have those rights infringed upon by due process. The smaller the government is, the more free this nation's citizens are.

There. That's who I am, and that's what this site does.

bin Laden tried to kill cokeheads

From Drudge:

PAPER: Bin Laden Had Plan To Sell Poisoned Cocaine To Americans In 2002
Tue Jul 26 2005 09:43:35 ET

Osama bin Laden tried to buy a massive amount of cocaine, spike it with poison and sell it in the United States, hoping to kill thousands of Americans one year after the 9/11 attacks, the NEW YORK POST reported on Tuesday.

The evil plot failed when the Colombian drug lords bin Laden approached decided it would be bad for their business - and, possibly, for their own health, according to law-enforcement sources familiar with the Drug Enforcement Administration's probe of the aborted transaction.

The feds were told of the scheme earlier this year, but its existence had never been made public.

The Post has reviewed a document detailing the DEA's findings in the matter, in addition to interviewing sources familiar with the case.

Damn, imagine the boredom that would have resulted from that. I mean, with half of Hollywood and the music industry wiped out, just what in the hell would the rest of us have done for entertainment?

"The Smell of Fear"

Absolutely the best piece I've ever read about Islamic terrorism. PLEASE read it (it's not very long). Link to story here, excerpt follows:

The ultimate targets of the London bombings were not, of course, human beings. Rather, they were a set of governmental policies that the terrorists hoped to change by separating political leaders from the support of their shaken citizenry. Despite this distinction, however, the underlying psychological principles involved in investigating such crimes remain the same as they would were we studying a mass- or serial-murder case, of which terrorists are in many respects the politicized version. Is this to say that the four young men suspected of being the instruments of terror on this occasion can be classified as clinical sociopaths? We will likely be unable to answer that question with certainty, now that they are dead. What we can focus on, however, are the motivations and perversities of the vastly more dangerous Islamist clerics and terrorist organizers who sought out youthful pawns and instilled in them a theology of murder.

Many political analysts have long been anxious to exclude terrorists from psychological profiling. Some fear that such scrutiny undermines the rationalization that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" (as indeed it does - just ask Reuters - ed.), while others worry that focus on the mental pathologies of terrorists will detract from whatever legitimacy their causes may hold--just as the psychosis of Hitler overshadowed Germany's grievances about excessive war reparations. But Hitler did not redress injustices against his nation, he prostituted them to his megalomaniacal visions. In the same way, the preachers of Islamist terror are less interested in securing prosperity and dignity for their peoples than they are in finding new communities of human instruments that they can enlist in their demented campaign to turn History's clock back.

The article also gives examples at how trying to negotiate with terrorists, such as Spain's election of an anti-war socialist so as not to further piss off the terrorists that had just killed a bunch of their citizens, has always backfired. In short, it shoots to hell this notion that terrorists have a grievance that, if assuaged, would just make them start playing more nicely with those of us in the civilized world.

"Sociopaths revel most in assaulting terrified, submissive victims." If Howard Dean and the MoveOn moonbats had their way, we would be said submissives.

Hubbub over Roberts' involvement with the Federalist Society

OK, I admit that I'm not fully aware of the activities of the Federal Society (of which it has been alleged, in a disparaging context, that SCOTUS Justice John Roberts was a member). I went to their web site, which obviously will shine themselves in the brightest light. Here's what I found:

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

At first blush, it seems like an admirable organization. I dug deeper into the site, and I didn't read anything that caused me undue alarm or stress. Quite the opposite.

So why is it a big deal if Roberts is, was, or has ever been a member? Roberts says he wasn't, but if he was, why doesn't he just say so? Is he afraid that the Senate Democrats and their allies in the MSM will paint him as some kind of extremist? If so, he's worrying over nothing. I doubt seriously that he has to worry about being Borked.

I do see why the left would flip out like Ted Kennedy upon hearing the words "Last call!" Look at the emphasized words above. Those words are anathema to liberal politicians, the MoveOn crowd, etc. Neal Boortz sums it up best:

Remember, we are supposed to be at war against individualism in this country ... Ted Kennedy told us so! So if we have a Supreme Court nominee who is a member of an organization that not only supports the idea of individualism, but that believes that individual citizens can make better choices for themselves then can government ... why, that's just about as close to blasphemy as you can get ... for a liberal! People just have to understand that government is there to relieve them of the oppressive responsibilities that go with actually go with being a practicing individual! Everybody knows that individuals should not try to make important decisions and chooses for themselves ... this crucial task should be left to government!

Clearly, not all liberals feel this way...but a vocal chunk do.

If anyone knows what's wrong with the Federalist Society (do they advocate women not working, stay home barefoot and pregnant while the menfolk bring home the bacon, etc.?), feel free to post what you know or have heard. Admittedly, I know only what they have on their web site.

Dem Lt. Guv of PA crashes Marine's funeral, tells grieving kin he died for nothing

I'll just put the story here for you to read for yourself:

The family of a Marine who was killed in Iraq is furious with Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll for showing up uninvited at his funeral this week, handing out her business card and then saying "our government" is against the war.

Rhonda Goodrich of Indiana, Pa., said yesterday that a funeral was held Tuesday at a church in Carnegie for her brother-in-law, Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, 32.

She said he "died bravely and courageously in Iraq on July 10, serving his country."

In a phone interview, Goodrich said the funeral service was packed with people "who wanted to tell his family how Joe had impacted their lives."

Then, suddenly, "one uninvited guest made an appearance, Catherine Baker Knoll."

She sat down next to a Goodrich family member and, during the distribution of communion, said, "Who are you?" Then she handed the family member one of her business cards, which Goodrich said she still has.

"Knoll felt this was an appropriate time to campaign and impose her will on us," Goodrich said. "I am amazed and disgusted Knoll finds a Marine funeral a prime place to campaign."

Goodrich said she is positive that Knoll was not invited to the funeral, which was jammed with Marines in dress uniform and police officers, because the fallen Marine had been a policeman in McKeesport and Indiana County.

"Our family deserves an apology," Rhonda Goodrich said. "Here you have a soldier who was killed -- dying for his country -- in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey's death."

What really upset the family, Goodrich said, is that Knoll said, 'I want you to know our government is against this war,'" Goodrich said.

She said she is going to seek an answer from Gov. Ed Rendell's administration if it opposes the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Knoll was traveling yesterday, away from the Capitol, and couldn't be reached. But an aide said she "extends condolences to all families who have lost loved ones" serving in the military.

Without having talked to her, the aide, who asked not to be named, said, "The family members of fallen soldiers are in our hearts and prayers. Our prayers go out to their loved ones in their hour of grief."

Asked to comment on Goodrich's complaints about Knoll's conduct at the funeral, the aide said that "would be inappropriate."

Any more "inappropriate" than what Troll...er, Knoll...did? To Governor Rendell's credit, he apologized for the crassness and has asked Troll to do the same.

Hillary makeover in effect

Hillary's moving to the center. Huge surprise there, huh? She's supporting John Roberts for USSC nominee, no doubt a move that will infuriate the NAGs (National Association of Gals) and the MoveOn kooks. But those are two groups she can afford to marginalize, since (a) they rarely impact elections and (b) what else are they gonna do...vote Republican? Fat chance.

Anyway, the AP is rushing to tell us what a "moderate" Her Highness is. Full story here, excerpt follows:

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is cementing her ties to moderate voters, reaching out to centrists that some of her backers argue Clinton never really abandoned.

Clinton scheduled a high-profile speech Monday to the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group that helped pave Bill Clinton's path to the White House. The hundreds of activists gathered for the group's annual meeting made her appearance its centerpiece.

John Kerry and Tom Daschle, two well-defined liberals, also were active in the DLC. Yet here's the MSM, assuming that membership in the DLC necessarily makes a Democrat "centrist."

Does she need to move to the center (or convince people that's what she's doing) in order to be re-elected Senator next year? Hardly. Unless she runs against Rudy Giuliani, that's a race that she's got locked up. So why pretend to be a centrist if she doesn't have higher plans? Because...well, she has higher plans!

She's not dumb, folks. She has seen what happens when liberals are successfully exposed as such (Dukakis, Gore, Cleland, Daschle, Kerry, etc.). She will do her damndest (as will her protectors in the MSM) to make sure she is not accurately portrayed as such.

I'd be a lot less hostile to politicians that would simply admit being liberal and stop trying to hide from the label. While Dennis Kucinich was a monumental loser in the primaries, I have some modicum of respect for him for at least being honest about his views. However, I'm not so naive as to think that such honesty is rewarded at the ballot box...thus the perceived need to deceive.

Technological advances

Not political, but I would be remiss if I didn't share this with you. Hat tip to Neal Boortz:

Hispandering

It's a term I've heard and adopted into my vernacular. It's simple: pandering to Hispanics. Specifically relating to immigration...rather, illegal immigration.

Read this AP story, an excerpt of which follows:

A guest-worker program is favored by many Latinos and by businesses, many of them major GOP donors that depend on a steady flow of workers from Mexico and other countries. The White House effort is aimed at satisfying these groups while promoting tougher border security enforcement. The latter focus is an attempt to mollify a vocal bloc of cultural conservatives in the GOP — some in the House leadership — who argue that undocumented workers present a security threat and take some jobs that could be filled by Americans.

Count me as part of the latter group, namely the security issue. The "taking jobs" issue doesn't resonate with me. Jobs are earned. Employers hire who they see fit, though it makes perfect legal and logical sense that they should be foribidden from hiring people who are here illegally.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has been one of the most vocal (and common sense) voices about the security threat posed by loose immigration laws. He's often mischaracterized in the press (what? A Republican mischaracterized in the MSM? No way!) as wanting to lock down the borders. He simply wants legal immigration, which the vast majority of Americans support. Tancredo sees Bush's (and other Republicans') motives:

Tancredo accused the administration of forging an alliance with business executives who view migrants as a path to greater profits.

"They know this has nothing to do with Hispanic votes," he said. "They're trying to cover what their real motive is, which is to supply [business] with cheap labor, to not close the spigot of cheap labor…. But they've lost in Congress. They've lost the public. And now they're in damage control."

Tancredo asserted that Bush was in a bad spot politically, caught between public opinion favoring restrictive immigration policies and corporate interests that want looser policies. He said the apparent plans being laid by the new coalition seem to contrast with the message Bush gave to House leaders during a recent White House meeting: that the borders must be secured.

"I think he is trying to figure out a way to triangulate here," Tancredo said.

Tancredo's right about everything: business interests, public opinion, and the balancing act Bush (and others) are trying to do. For Bush's bravery in fighting Islamic terrorism, he sure can be a p#ssy when it comes to dealing with the immigration issue.

It's damned simple, black or white (no shades of gray): legal immigration is to be encouraged, illegal immigration is to be discouraged. Period. I know that the 9/11 hijackers came here legally, though I believe that many of them had expired student visas. I also know that illegal immigrants are hard workers who just want a better life for themselves and their families. That's why they should come here legally.

The point is that irrespective of 9/11, illegal immigration is a problem, and it is a potential (and preventable) security threat. There just is NO excuse for not respecting our laws. If you want open borders, then by God, abolish the INS and open them up...and best of luck with your re-election efforts if you suggest such a solution! However, as long as we have an INS and immigration laws, they should both be allowed to serve their purpose.

Soldiers give Ted Kennedy a piece of their mind

This is awesome! Story here:

Soldiers from Massachusetts and Hawaii who work at the U.S. military detention facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gave visiting home-state senators a piece of their mind last week.

Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, met with several soldiers during a visit led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican.

Pentagon officials said soldiers criticized the harsh comments made recently by Senate Democrats.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, last month invoked widespread military outrage when he compared Guantanamo to the prison labor systems used by communist tyrant Josef Stalin, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler.

"They got stiff reactions from those home-state soldiers," one official told us. "The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag."

A spokesman for Mr. Kennedy had no comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Akaka confirmed that the senator met with soldiers from Hawaii but did not recall receiving any complaints during the meeting.

Both senators made no mention of the incident in press statements after the visit. Mr. Kennedy, in his statement, said that he is "impressed with the courtesies and professionalism of the men and women in our armed forces."

Mr. Kennedy has been a leading advocate for closing the prison facility. Mr. Akaka in April voted for an amendment that would have cut funds for the prison.

Those damned liars in the military! The Senator says no one complained, so who are you going to believe: a politician who voted to cut funds for their mission, or those gung-ho amateur goose-stepping jackbooted brownshirts in our armed forces?

I can believe it if Teddy didn't remember it, though. Years of alcohol abuse and flagrant disregard for the truth will do that to you. The overpowering stench of brandy breath (more powerful than Taliban B.O. or al Qaeda flatulence, I'm told) gave him away.

Huh?

This isn't liberal or conservative or libertarian. This is just one of those "Huh?" stories:

Roman Polanski has been awarded £50,000 libel damages from a magazine which said he propositioned a woman shortly after his wife was murdered in 1969.

(snip...)

Outside court, Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter said: "I find it amazing that a man who lives in France can sue a magazine that is published in America in a British courtroom.

"As a father of four children, one of whom is a 12-year-old daughter, I find it equally outrageous that this story is considered defamatory, given the fact that Mr Polanski cannot be here because he slept with a 13-year-old girl a quarter of a century ago."

Sidebar: Note how Vanity Fair uses the CBS defense? "Vanity Fair publisher Conde Nast had conceded the article was inaccurate, but said the gist of it held true."

A man on the run from the American legal system for sleeping with a 13-year-old can evade justice in American courtrooms, gain access to European civil courts, and win a civil suit against an American publication!

Tell me again why we need to be like the Europeans?

Hatch: Chucky asks "dumbass questions"

I'm not a huge fan of Orrin Hatch. Strike that. I wasn't a huge fan of Orrin Hatch. I think I am now. From NewsMax:

Sen. Charles Schumer's questioning of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was so hostile during Roberts' 2003 appellate court confirmation hearings that Sen. Orrin Hatch blasted his New York colleague for asking "dumbass questions."

In a audioclip of the exchange unearthed Wednesday by ABC Radio host Sean Hannity, the normally mild-mannered Utah Republican complained:

"Some [of Schumer’s questions] I totally disagree with. Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me."

"I am not kidding you," Hatch continued. "I mean, as much as I love and respect [Schumer], I just think that’s true."

Taken aback, the New York Democrat asked if Hatch would like to "revise and extend his remark" - i.e., offer a retraction for the congressional record.

But Hatch refused to back down, telling Schumer:

"No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."

Honestly, I don't know what Schumer's questions were, but I reflexively believe that since he was the one asking them, they probably were "dumbass questions."

Wonder how this affects the Senate comity that the "Gang of 14" wanted to preserve? It's more like "Senate comedy" to me!

Leftists on gay witch hunt

I thought liberals were supposed to be the tolerant ones when it came to gayness? Guess not. Link here, excerpt follows:

Just a caution for my male readers: if there are any extant photos of you from the '70's in plaid pants, better get rid of them now. And it's not just the evidence of questionable fashion sense. Apparently now that's the goods on being gay.

Call it the Mary Cheney Strategy. Call it desperation. Some on the Left have started a "maybe he's gay" whisper campaign against John Roberts.

It started with Manhattan Offender in a post yesterday asking "How Gay is This Guy?" and then he quoted Wikipedia's entry for Judge Roberts. He zeroed in on some really damning evidence from Roberts' youthful past: the all-male boarding school, studying French and Latin (gasp!), being a wrestler and, oh the horror, participating in choir and drama.

Damn. I studied French in college (as a minor), like watching wrestling, sang in the church choir as a kid, and was in the drama club my senior year of high school. I didn't realize that these things made me a pole-smoker. I guess the number of females I've boinked in my life is irrelevant...they were all a cover for my latent gayness. Dammit! I've been outed!

Also, these slimeballs sink even lower than Ted Kennedy's car off a certain bridge. They bring a little boy into it. The moonbats at Kos had some awful comments about John Roberts' son, Jack:

When Roberts thanked his family, he mentioned his son, Jack...Roberts' wife's face fell. It was like a poker tell. I think we should research Jack.

Wow. Digging up dirt on an innocent child, just to score some points against his old man. Have these people no shame?

Does it matter if John Roberts is gay? Does that make him more likely or less likely to adhere to the Constitution, even on gay-related issues like marriage, civil unions, adoption of kids, etc.? I thought the left always told us "Don't ask, don't tell!" I guess that only applies to trivial things like national defense, not monumentally important things like a Supreme Court nominee's toddler.

Conclusion:

The Left didn't learn their lesson when they tried this with Mary Cheney and it backfired. John Roberts may have played Peppermint Patty back in the day, but here and NOW, the Left is playing Lucy with the football.

Knowing my two liberal friends on my blog, I am confident they vehemently condemn the kind of moonbat leftist rhetoric I've described above. I am confident that a good chunk, if not majority, of liberals read this kind of stuff and cringe, knowing it unfairly gives them a black eye.

Liberal professor: Filibuster Roberts

Some pointy-headed law professor at Duke thinks the Dems should filibuster Roberts. It's a damned shame to think that parents are wasting their money sending little Johnny to Duke's law school with this dimwit as a law professor. Full story here, excerpt follows:

Senate Democrats should announce they will filibuster the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court unless he offers convincing assurances that he will not be a far-right conservative in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

His impugning of the two best (i.e. most "strict constructionist" types) justices notwithstanding, it's none of his or anyone else's damned business if the justice is liberal, conservative, libertarian, or socialist. What's important is judicial temperament. If Race Baiter Ginsburg attended American Communist Party meetings but actually interpreted the constitution instead of foisting her usual activism upon us, I wouldn't give a wet fart on a dry January Monday. I wonder how this professor would feel if Senate Republicans said "We refuse to consider a judicial nominee unless he/she proves to us they're not a liberal activist judge in the mold of Ginsburg or Breyer." Here's guessing he'd blow a gasket.

Continuing:

Imagine in the 1950s a nominee who had consistently written briefs urging the overruling or limiting of Brown v. Board of Education. The nominee should have been rejected by the Senate unless he or she could show that the written record was not an accurate reflection of his or her views. That is exactly how the Senate should treat Roberts.

Freakin' unbelievable! Inferring that Roberts would have urged the narrowing of Brown is beyond the pale. And please, don't try to tell me "he was just trying to put Roe v. Wade in context!

Continuing:

It is impossible to overstate the importance of this seat on the Supreme Court. In the last few years, Justice O'Connor has been the fifth vote in 5-4 decisions to strike down laws restricting access to abortion (nothing in Roe v. Wade says abortion can't have certain restrictions), to uphold federal campaign finance laws (stupid ass ruling in clear violation of the First Amendment), to allow colleges and universities to take actions to ensure diversity (NOT a federal role, certainly NOT a compelling government interest, and said programs are clear violations of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment), to invalidate death sentences for ineffective assistance of counsel (I'm pro-death penalty, but you'll get no disagreement out of me about poor counsel...the case should be retried), and to limit the presence of religious symbols on government property (The horror! Oh, by the way, there is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, though I don't lose a wink of sleep over a government employee with some or no religious symbols). Roberts has the chance to change the law in all of these crucial areas.

Emphasis and comments mine. See prior posting on how judges don't get to make (and thus change) law. Continuing:

Senate Democrats should ask probing and detailed questions and make clear: no answers, no confirmation.

Race Baiter Ginsburg declined to answer questions, yet was confirmed overwhelmingly. Oh, that's right...she's a liberal, so that's OK.

Look, I hope the Dems do filibuster Roberts, thus triggering the constitutional option to end judicial filibusters. I just think that while they're not all that smart, Senate Dems aren't all that stupid, either.

Schumer echos Biden: Supreme Court is supposed to make law

I posted a quote by Joe Biden where he had a Freudian slip and said that the USSC is supposed to "make new law" instead of what most normal human beings know, which is that the USSC is supposed to interpret law. Well, it seems Chucky Schumer has made the same Freudian slip. Then again, who says it's Freudian? He may be openly admitting what most liberals believe: get an unaccountable court to implement policies that most Americans wholeheartedly reject and thus can never make it into legislation.

Chucky's quote:

I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is, particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court will decide to answer questions about his views. Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it's even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions. I hope, for the sake of the country, that Judge Roberts understands this and opens questions -- sorry, and answers questions openly, honestly and thoroughly.

Emphasis mine. Chuckster, he's not being nominated for any such position. He's being nominated to be a Supreme Court justice.

It's official: I've seen it all

Headline reads "Hillary Clinton: I Tried to Join the Marines". I'll wait for you to pick yourself up off of the floor, wipe your eyes, and return to your chair. Ready for me to continue? OK.

USA Today's report on Sen. Hillary Clinton's newfound appeal as a possible commander in chief omitted a key part of her resume that proves she's long been a hawk on military and defense issues: her attempt to join the Marines 30 years ago.

Or at least that's what she claimed.

Seated beside her husband, the former first lady recounted her military experience during a 1994 TV interview.

"Gee, now it was probably 19 years ago - in 1975," Mrs. Clinton recalled. "I decided that I was very interested in having some experience in serving in some capacity in the military."

"Because we all love the military so much," Mr. Clinton interjected helpfully.

If her and her hubby "loved the military so much", then I love the French!

Anyone recall boy Clinton's letter stating his loathe for the military? Or her insistence on a uniformed soldier getting out of her sight? Or his half-assed salutes to every Marine he encountered at the steps of Air Force One? What about withholding equipment and support in Somalia that resulted in that tragedy (not to mention furthering Islamic terrorists' belief that America was a cut-and-run nation)? Massive proposed defense spending cuts? Sending troops to a war (Bosnia) where there was no American interest? Using the military as "Meals on Wheels"? Shall I continue?

Yeah, they love the military the way that Ted Kennedy loves blue laws and dry counties.

Dean: Roberts pick a distraction

Howard Dean...the gift that keeps on giving! From NewsMax (all emphasis mine):

DNC chief Howard Dean joined liberal group MoveOn.org in claiming President Bush's nomination of John Roberts was an effort to deflect attention from Plamegate.

Nice job, Howie. Align with proven losers and sink your party's efforts before they have a chance to get started. Continuing:

Late Tuesday Dean issued a statement blasting the Roberts nomination while questioning the timing of the announcement.

It sure is fishy to nominate a Supreme Court justice when a vacancy occurs! It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

Continuing:

"Faced with a growing scandal surrounding the involvement of Deputy White House chief of Staff Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, President Bush announced his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court late this evening," Dean's statement began.

A "growing" scandal? It's going away, because reality has dawned on these people that it was a non-story...as much as they wanted it to be one. It's a disappearing non-scandal, Howie!

Also, It's been proven Plame was not covert. Dean is lying, and he knows he's lying, but when has the left let a little thing like truth get in the way of a good sound bite?

Continuing:

Dean continued: "It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.

Nothing says "This guy is soooo partisan" more than a 99-0 confirmation vote he received just two years ago.

Continuing:

"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court.

Race Baiter Ginsburg? Steven Breyer? Not ideological judicial activists? Right, and I'm a Greenpeace activist with a Nader 2000 sticker on my Yugo!

How Dean managed to escape his handlers is beyond me. I love it, though! Christmas comes early every time he opens his piehole!

CBC Jumps on the "No Such Thing As Terrorism" Bandwagon

Hat tip to Moonbattery for this tidbit:

Following in the less than noble footsteps of their fellow fifth-column dhimmis at Reuters and the BBC, Canada's taxpayer-financed CBC distributed the following memo to their staff regarding use of the word "terrorism":

"Terrorist" and "terrorism": Exercise extreme caution before using either word.

Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an "attack," not as a "terrorist attack." The same applies to the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call "the Sept. 11 attacks" or some similar expression. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)

Imagine the luck we would have had in World War II if the media had been rooting for the Germans to the extent that reporters were discouraged from using words like "Nazi" and "fascist."

Imagine indeed.

Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts

AP story as of an hour or so ago.

I don't care if Bush nominated the universally loved Laura Bush to to USSC. Dems would fight that pick tooth and nail, and Roberts will be no different.

I want to do a little research on my own before I come to my own conclusions about this guy. I recommend you do the same. Don't take DNC or RNC talking points at face value. Do your own research or check multiple sites before drawing a conclusion.

I do know that in 1990, he wrote a brief to the USSC recommending that Roe v. Wade get overturned. "The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

Legally, he is absolutely 100% correct. I'm not saying abortion should be banned. I'm saying that legally speaking, he is right in that the court erred in 1973 in finding that there is a constitutional (i.e. federal) right.

I also know that he said in 2003, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Kerry-like flip-flop? Who knows?

That's why I encourage you to do your own digging. I'll be posting on this over the coming days, I'm sure.

Get a life, people! -- Part II

John McCain makes a cameo appearance in the movie Wedding Crashers. Apparently, there's a great deal of breast exposure in the movie. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm no fan of McCain. I think he's a publicity whore who wants to curry favor with the media to further his presidential ambitions, and his arrogance rivals that of the Clintons and Kennedys.

Having said that, I must admit I got quite a kick out of what McCain told Leno, when asked about his appearance in the movie:

In Washington, I work with boobs every day!

I'm sorry, people, but that's just damned funny! Not to mention highly accurate.

Look, I know he's one of Hollywood's big critics. He's held hearings chastising studios for producing R-rated films and marketing them to teens. Does this make him a hypocrite? Maybe it does, and I don't like hypocrisy at all. So if he catches hell, so be it.

I just think it's much ado about nothing. Don't be a boob, folks! I'll keep you abreast of the situation!

What would we do without the NAACP?

Headline: "NAACP: Court Nominee Should Advocate Civil Rights"

Dammit! I was really hoping for a nominee who would be diametrically opposed to civil rights! You know, a return to the good ol' days of Dred Scott and Jim Crow? Maybe some good clean fun, like forced relegation to the back of the bus or "separate but equal." Well, my dreams are shot to hell if the NAACP gets their way!

Yes, folks...that's sarcasm. I was making fun of the headline. I mean, no one except separatists or other racists are against civil rights. I just find it amusing that when libs and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) make mention of "civil rights", basically they mean pro-affirmative action or pro-quotas or anything else that violates the civil rights of one group "misfortunate" enough to be born of a skin color or gender that doesn't curry favor with the politically correct elitists.

Point to ponder

A 17-year-old Dutch resident of Aruba, Joran van der Sloot, has been detained in connection with Holloway’s disappearance, but no charges have been filed.

Is "van der Sloot" the Dutch equivalent of "Kennedy"?

Probably the last word I'll have on the Rove thing for a while

But this is just too funny:

Get a life, people!

I saw where the newest Harry Potter book sells about a quarter of a million copies per hour! Damn, I'm in the wrong line of work!

Anyway, a number of Bible-thumpers are up in arms over the success of the series. They say it encourages kids to practice witchcraft and sorcery.

For the love of God!

If we look at the numbers, let's stick with an hour's worth of sales. About 250,000 sales of Harry Potter are going to result in exactly how many kids engaging in small furry creature sacrifices, conversion from Christianity to "Merlinism" (or whatever the hell they call it), or any other deviant behavior? I mean, does this conversation occur?

Mom: Come on, little Johnny! It's time to go to church!
Little Johnny: No, Mom. I read Harry Potter last night, so I now I suddenly believe there is no God or Jesus. Oh, and don't go looking for Fido, OK? I needed him for a...shall we say..."special love potion"! Now beat it before I hurl a shrinking incantation your way!!

Get a life, people! And for God's sake, let your kids be kids and have an imagination!

Liberals: GOP wants us dead

Well, you just can't reason with that level of nuanced, deep, intellectual thought processing, now can you? Full story here, excerpt follows:

Young liberals this week flocked to the nation's capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strategist Paul Begala accuse Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich.

Begala was featured at the first-ever Campus Progress National Student Conference, which was designed to provide campus liberals with the tools necessary to fight the conservative movement. The event also drew former President Bill Clinton, for whom Begala once worked as an advisor.

A panel discussion entitled "Winning the War of Ideas" centered on topics discussed in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank and detailed the challenges that Democrats face in persuading voters in the American heartland and elsewhere to embrace their agenda and support their candidates.

Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p***-poor job of defending" the U.S.

Republicans, he said, "want to kill us.

"I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls*** national defense, and we should say that."

You just did say that, Paul. Too damned bad America doesn't trust you jerks to be tough on defense. Nothing says "We're pro-defense" like getting orally serviced by an intern when you're on the phone barking orders out to fight a war in Yugoslavia where there is no clear American interest. Or years of on-the-record cuts to defense spending. Or defending the most vile anti-American sentiments in the world (Sami al Arian, the U.N., the PLO, the ACLU). Or opposition to anti-USSR policies (when the USSR existed), wanting to rely on appeasement. Or fighting against counting military absentee ballots in Florida in 2000 because you're fully aware of how they're voting in the armed forces. Or...well, you get the idea.

I do feel nervous, though, that Paul Begala figured out Republicans. Now he knows their secret: they want liberal Americans to die so they can cut taxes and SS bennies! Run, GOP! He's got you nailed on this one! I tell you, if the electorate ever finds out this "truth", they'll run the GOP out of office for good!

Wait...the left has been running on these same tired lies about killing people, starving children, kicking old geezers out into the streets, etc., ever since they lost power in the 1994 elections. It's got them...where?

By the way, this book What's the Matter with Kansas is written by a Kansas liberal who doesn't understand why Kansas keeps voting for Republicans. It's this type of condescension towards the electorate and ignorance of social issues that will keep the liberals out of power for the foreseeable future.

Pissing contest gets funny

From the Washington Times:

Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, along with Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and three other top Democrats, called for the end of security clearance for anyone "who discloses, or has disclosed, classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information."

"Even a child knows that if a person can't keep a secret, you stop telling him secrets," Mr. Schumer said. (No word if Schumer holds that mentality towards Leaky Leahy - ed.)

Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, called Democrats' amendment "purely a political amendment" and then submitted his own.

It would have stripped clearance from federal officeholders who make "reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on a FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk."

The former is a reference to Mr. Reid, who mentioned the FBI file of one of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, and the latter is a reference to Mr. Durbin, whose comparison of U.S. interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay to Nazi and Soviet regimes was cited in Middle Eastern press, including Al Jazeera.

You go, Frist! Finally, a Republican with some balls to throw this sh#t back on these shameless bastards! Just when I was convinced no Republican Senator had a spine...

Now we ALL know why Rove will be safe!

Because he broke no law? No, something even more obvious than that!

Later in the day, about 100 protesters -- chanting, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Karl Rove has got to go" -- picketed outside the White House while Mr. Bush was in Indiana.

The protesters were organized by the liberal group MoveOn.org, which provided signs that read: "Stop the Cover-up: Fire Karl Rove."

Emphasis mine. See? If MoveOn is trying to get Rove fired, it by default means they'll fail, since as I laid out in a prior post, they fail at everything else they try. Sh#t, if MoveOn lobbied for Christmas to remain on Dec. 25, it would somehow magically move to the 26th instead!

No one knew Plame worked for the CIA?

Hmmm...then how to explain this?

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."

Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.

In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.

So much for the contention that "her neighbors didn't even know" where she worked or what she did. Apparently, they did indeed.

John Kerry outs an actual undercover CIA agent

From NewsMax:

Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the Agency asked that his identity be kept secret.

Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton.

Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?" - according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.
"The answer is yes," the top Democrat continued.

In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent's confidentiality, reverting to the Armstrong's pseudonym.

"As I said," he told Kerry, "I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that."

Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn't secret at the time.

"When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name," the Times said.

Apparently the CIA directive wasn't good enough for Sen. Kerry - who outed Armstrong anyway and later defended the move by saying his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, had also mentioned the name.

And besides, said Kerry, the secret agent's name "had already been in the press."

Interesting, isn't it? Valerie Plame, who isn't an undercover agent, had her name already appearing publicly, and the left gets apoplectic. Yet John F'ing Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) outs an undercover CIA agent, and the media is remarkably silent on this issue. Hell, shouldn't Kerry have his security credentials revokes, or be forced to step down, or be criminally prosecuted for violating the 1982 law that makes his behavior illegal?

Nope...no liberal media bias.

UPDATED: 'NON-PARTISAN' WILSON TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE WITH DEM SENATOR

That "non-partisan" with a huge credibility problem, Joe Wilson, is having a press conference today with that "non-partisan" Democrat from New York, Sen. Chuckie Schumer, to call on the White House to suspend Rove's security clearance.

Wilson was a Clinton appointee, married to a liberal Democrat, and he raised money for Kerry's failed campaign last year. He said before his wife's name was published by Bob Novak that he wanted to see "Rove frog-marched out in handcuffs." He has claimed all along to be "non-partisan."

Which is why he can't hold a press conference without liberal Demorcat Chuckie Schumer...right, Joey?

UPDATED: A liberal visitor here (and he is welcome, as he has always been civil) brought the above correction to my attention. Wilson's comments about Rove came after the publishing of Plame's already publicly available name...though before he knew Rove had mentioned Plame (namelessly, not that it matters) to Matthew Cooper of Time. Unlike the NYT, I print corrections here.

Also, HaloScan has been having maintenance issues this morning, so I'll preview a comment I am going to lay out in more detail. Basically, outlining Wilson's purported "non-partisan" nature:

He campaigned for Kerry in six states, including several campaign speeches.

He contributed $1000 to the Bush 2000 campaign .

He contributed $2000 to the Gore 2000 campaign (couldn't imagine he'd have an axe to grind with the man who gave him a negative return on that investment!).

Wilson also contributed $2,000 to both Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. 'Nuff said right there, huh?

The Washington Times reported (Feb. 14, 2003) that Wilson also accepted a high-level position with the Kerry campaign (wasn't this before the Plame story?)

There's more to the reply, but these are just summaries of the activities of the "non-partisan" Joe Wilson.

New York Times alters politically incorrect Hillary quote

Thanks, NewsMax:

There they go again, making up the news.

The New York Times took a breather yesterday from covering the Karl Rove pseudo-scandal to tout "The Evolution of Hillary Clinton" - a tribute to the ambitious Democrat's newfound voice of moderation.

Among the maneuvers cited by the Old Gray Lady was Mrs. Clinton's purported shift to the right on the hot-button issue of immigration.

Included in the evidence cited by the Times: Hillary's quote to WABC Radio's John Gambling on Feb. 11, 2003, wherein she proclaimed, "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration."

The only problem is, Mrs. Clinton never spoke those words.

Apparently, the Times was offended by what she actually said, which was: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants" - a quote first reported by NewsMax an hour after Clinton uttered it.

The distinction is important, since, in the Times version, Mrs. Clinton is condemning the crime of illegal immigration, while in realty, what Hillary did was state her opposition to the immigrants themselves.

That's not very politically correct. In fact, we'd venture to guess that if a Republican had blurted out that he was "adamantly against illegal immigrants," the Times would undoubtedly condemn the hapless GOP'er as a racist.

Somehow, every other news agency that has picked up Mrs. Clinton's blast at "illegal immigrants" in the ensuing two years - including the Washington Times, the National Review, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and MSNBC - managed to get the quote correct.

Only the folks at America's so-called "paper of record" decided that Hillary's words needed doctoring.

I tell you, when they're not Dowdifying quotes or making up sources like Jayson Blair, they just change the words of their idols to be less damaging.

Nope...no liberal media bias.

CBS News starting a blog

Yes, it looks like "See? B.S." is starting a blog. Scrappleface has the big news (warning for the humor-impaired: satire follows!):

In an effort to bring credibility to a media realm populated by "agenda-driven, rumor-mongering, unedited hacks who blur the line between fact and opinion," CBS News announced today it would launch a 'blog' called 'Public Eye'.

"The word 'blog' -- short for weblog -- has traditionally meant an online journal of commentary on the news which uninformed readers often mistake for actual news," said Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News. "Public Eye will bring legitimacy to the medium the way United Nations involvement legitimizes U.S. foreign policy."

'Public Eye' will differ from the vast majority of news-oriented blogs, Mr. Heyward said, "because it will be written by attractive veteran reporters, dressed in business attire, rather than disgruntled journalist-wannabes, lounging in pajamas."

"The blogosphere should welcome the arrival of this 900-pound gorilla of the news business," he added. "The presence of CBS News in the blog market will breathe new life into a dying beast, and rescue it from extinction. The blogosphere will soon be associated with the trust that Dan Rather and other unbiased CBS journalists have earned over the decades."

Mission Implausible

Ann Coulter's column. Snippets follow:

Karl Rove was right. The real story about Joseph C. Wilson IV was not that Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa; the story was Clown Wilson and his paper-pusher wife, Valerie Plame. By foisting their fantasies of themselves on the country, these two have instigated a massive criminal investigation, the result of which is: The only person who has demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson.

So the obvious solution is to fire Karl Rove.

Clown Wilson thrust himself on the nation in July 2003 when he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times claiming Bush had lied in his State of the Union address. He said Bush was referring to Wilson's own "report" when Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

(snip...)

Driven by that weird obsession liberals have of pretending they are Republicans in order to attack Republicans, Wilson implied he had been sent to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. Among copious other references to Cheney in the op-ed, Wilson said that CIA "officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story" that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, "so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Soon Clown Wilson was going around claiming: "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there."

Dick Cheney responded by saying: "I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back." Clown Wilson's allegation that Cheney had received his (unwritten) "report" was widely repeated as fact by, among others, the New York Times.

(snip...)

So liberals were allowed to puff up Wilson's "report" by claiming Wilson was sent "by the CIA." But – in the traditional liberal definition of "criminal" – Republicans were not allowed to respond by pointing out Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, not by the CIA and certainly not by Dick Cheney.

(snip...)

About a year later, a bipartisan Senate committee heard testimony from a CIA official that it was Wilson's wife who had "offered up" Wilson for the Niger trip. The committee also discovered a Feb. 12, 2002, memo from Wilson's wife gushing that her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines [not to mention lots of French contacts], both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Wilson's response to the production of his wife's memo was: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

Right. Just because his wife said in a memo of recommendation that Wilson was the right man for the job doesn't mean she was recommending him! Uh-huh. And if you ever get a good recommendation from a prior employer, it doesn't mean your prior employer thinks you're hireable, right?

Finally:

Democrats believe that because Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the White House should not have been allowed to mention that it was she who sent him to Niger. But meanwhile, Clown Wilson was free to puff up his apocryphal credentials by implying he had been sent to Niger on an important mission for the vice president by the CIA.

(Sigh) If I could be but half the writer that she is...

Malkin: "SHUT UP AND TEACH"

Hat tip to V the K at Caption This! who brought this to my attention at Moonbattery:

The National Education Association recently had its annual convention, where it called for President Bush to withdraw our troops from Iraq, vowed to defeat the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and resolved to educate about the need for debt cancellation in underdeveloped countries.

And you wonder why Johnny can't read.

Wow. The largest teacher's union seems rather pre-occupied with leftist talking points, when it seems like they should concentrate on...oh, I don't know...education! I know, I know...what the hell have I been smoking?

"Covert" Valerie Plame's name on hubby's public bio

Joe Wilson's bio here. The last paragraph:

He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.

Oh, no! Wilson's company has outed his wife's name! But wait...it must have been Karl Rove who leaked it to Wilson's employers!

In August 2003 - a month after columnist Robert Novak disclosed how former Clinton administration official Joseph Wilson got his assignment to investigate Saddam Hussein's possible acquisition of yellowcake uranium in Niger - Wilson made his agenda clear: to "get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Clearly, Wilson was just doing his job and had no malice in his since-discredited report. Making statements about a burning desire to see Rove go to prison (being the liberal globalist that he is, probably the International Criminal Court) doesn't mean that he has an axe to grind, does it?

Filthy Harry Reid (Dumbass-ocrat, NV): "The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security."

Yep...such an intensely secret "national security" issue that the desk jockey (and not covert agent) Plame's name is on Wilson's bio on the web for all the world to see....not to mention her name and photo in the July issue of Vanity Fair. So did Vanity Fair compromise "national security", Reid?

Insane Clown Pussies

Hat tip to V the K at Caption This!:


1. "Hey! Who photoshopped clown drag all over my leather men p0rn" an enraged Andrew Sullivan demanded to know.

2. One of the bizarre results of John Wayne Gacy's collaboration with Robert Mapplethorpe.

3. Barnum and Bailey had no place for Blocko, The Constipated Clown.

4. "Don't you worry, Mr. Gere, we'll have that gerbil out in no time!"

5. But after a while, you become jaded, and have to resort to all sorts of kink to recapture the ecstasy of that first finger-pull.

6. And the school never again hired 'Molesto the Clown' to demonstrate bad touching again.

7. "Andrew, this may be an awkward time to bring this up, but I think we should see other people."

8. "OK, so a human can survive being dragged through the streets by his own intestines. I owe you a Coke."

9. Some guys'll do anything to get 'low-hangers.'

10. "Hey! Give us back our chihuahua!"

Valerie Plame coverage vs. Juanita Broaddrick coverage?

NewsMax shows the stark contrast in coverage between these two stories:

Which topic should provoke more media interest?

A report that White House advisor Karl Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the wife of showboating Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA - a revelation, by the way, that did nothing to damage her career as a desk-bound analyst, let alone endanger her life.

Or a woman who NBC spent a year trying to convince to detail her allegation that she was raped by the president of the United States.
If you're a member of the White House press corps, clearly the first story is a matter of supreme importance. The presidential rape allegation, on the other hand, is a real yawner.

At yesterday's White House press briefing, reporters peppered Press Secretary Scott McClellan with 48 questions on the Wilson-Plame case - focusing on whether Bush would now fire Rove.

The questioning turned so aggressively hostile that, when McClellan asked a reporter to allow him to finish his answer, the reporter shot back: "No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything."

When President Clinton faced the press on March 19, 1999, however, it was a different story. Only ABC newsman Sam Donaldson dared ask the question that was on everybody's mind.

"Mr. President, when Juanita Broaddrick leveled her charges against you of rape in a nationally televised interview, your attorney David Kendall issued a statement denying them. But shouldn't you speak directly on this matter and reassure the public? And if they are not true, can you tell us what your relationship with Ms. Broaddrick was, if any?"

Clinton's response:

"Well, five weeks ago today -- five weeks ago today, I stood in the Rose Garden after the Senate voted [not to remove me from office] and I told you that I thought I owed it to the American people to give them 100 percent of my time and to focus on their business, and that I would leave to others to decide whether they would follow that lead.

"And that is why I have decided as soon as that vote was over that I would allow all future questions to be answered by my attorneys, and I think I made the right decision. I hope you can understand it. I think the American people do understand it and support it.

"And I think it was the right decision."

Donaldson followed up, asking Clinton, "Why not simply deny it, sir?"

The president instead invoked lawyer David Kendall's denial, explaining, "There's been a statement made by my attorney. He speaks for me, and I think he spoke quite clearly."

And with that, the entire Washington press corps simply dropped the subject, never raising Broaddrick's claim with either Clinton or his then-Senate candidate wife again.

Perhaps Mr. McClellan could begin today's press briefing reminding reporters how cowardly they were when it came to pursuing truly serious allegations of genuine criminality.

Yep, Bill Clinton rapes a woman and says "I'm not gonna talk about it anymore"...and the MSM says "OK, sounds good to us! You got it, sir!" No doubt that an unelected advisor who has committed no crime is much more newsworthy than a then-sitting president's criminal activity in the past.

Nope...no liberal media bias.