Wednesday, August 31, 2005

NYT: Don't bash Bush...OK, do over!

The Old Gray Hag, aka the New York Times, pulls a great John Kerry, in a single sentence:
But this seems like the wrong moment to dwell on fault-finding, or even to point out that it took what may become the worst natural disaster in American history to pry President Bush out of his vacation.
Emphasis mine. Ignoring the obvious point that (1) presidents are NEVER truly on vacation (on call at a moment's notice) and (2) no one is in DC right now (Democrats or Republicans), this sentence illustrates that the NYT (and their brethren in the MSM) are so hopelessly liberal that even when they call for calm and insist on a moratorium on finger-pointing...they can't help themselves, putting in one more dig at Bush. They simply cannot resist the template!

Translation: "Don't point fingers. BUSH SUCKS! Oops... Uh, OK, starting over...beginning...NOW!"

Nope, no liberal media bias.

Where are the kind, generous, compassionate liberals?

Don't liberals fancy themselves as generous and compassionate people? True, they mean with other people's money, but still...

I surmised yesterday that a large number of liberals cared more about Africa's AID problem and about Asia when it was hit by tsunamis last year than they care about (red states) Louisiana and Mississippi. Libs were screaming for help for the Africans and Asians (rightfully so), but I wonder why no such screams have come from their pieholes for their countrymen along the Gulf Coast.

Well, great minds think alike. The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy makes a similar, albeit funnier, explanation:
Lastly, with Hurricane Katrina rapidly becoming America's version of the Tsunami of Southeast Asia, I'd hope celebrities would be lining up to donate some of their millions. I don't think it's happened yet. That "right-leaning" company, Walmart has, though. Maybe that turned the Liberal Elite off.

I can hear Paris and Cameron and Gwyneth now: "Ugh, Walmart people are dirty. We can't be associated with them!"

You can be sure that when Africa needs help again, George Clooney and his marry musicians will quickly assemble Live Aid 45, even though they never asked for it. The arrogant condescension by the lefties thus continues.
Ouch...the evil capitalist oppressor Wal-Mart is even stepping up to help!

AIDS in Africa? A concert to raise money and awareness. Tsunamis in Asia? High profile appearances and charity drives by liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike. Hurricane devastates the Gulf Coast? Liberals take their time, implying a not-so-subtle "Screw you, you inbred hicks! That'll teach you to have a culture contrary to ours! And you remember that during the next election cycle, too!" I'm certain that they will remember, indeed.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Cindy Sheehan hates the Blue Angels

You have to laugh at the moonbats now, more than ever. They hitched their wagon to this mare, and she's got a bum leg! However, they've invested too much political capital in this nutjob that they have to ride her until she drops. Hat tip to a few sources, especially Moonbattery.

Now, the media whore grieving mother has a new agenda: stopping the Blue Angels from performing. No doubt she will work tirelessly in this endeavor for her dear Casey, who (I'm sure she'll tell us when she channels his spirit again, John Edwards style) was mortified by their repugnant existence. I mean, surely Casey would want the Blue Angels to be grounded until this capitalistic, imperialistic, Bushitlerburton war ends!

Oh, yeah...the story:
The woman leading protests against President Bush's conduct of the Iraq war will protest a Blue Angels air show in Brunswick, Maine, next month.

Bruce Gagnon (GAHNG'-yuhn) of Maine Veterans for Peace says Cindy Sheehan will be the featured guest at a protest outside the Brunswick Naval Air Station on September tenth.
Who are the Maine Veterans for Peace, and why the hostility to the Blue Angels? From their own words:
to protest the false god idolatry of the Blue Angels Air Show, whose "ooh-&-aah"performances have one purpose: to promote badly-lagging military recruitment (sic) to protest the obscene waste of American tax dollars to stage these Blue Angels' multi-million dollar extravaganzas
Any money that the left can't give to winos or welfare moms is wasted, I suppose.

In addition to Mother Moonbat, this "veterans" group will also have a guest speaker named Kathy Kelly. Click the link to her name to see some of the anti-American drivel she's spewed over the years. One anti-US and pro-UN pearl of wisdom: "The UN's relationship to the US is that of a battered woman to an abusive partner."

I don't know how to break it to these "beacons of brilliance", but Americans adore the Blue Angels, so their moonbat message is likely not to be received well (nor covered by the national MSM much, either)! They might as well tell all kindergarten students that Santa isn't real, while they're at it.

Defending Sheehan at this point is like defending the alcoholic aunt in your family by telling people that she's not AS DRUNK as she usually is!

Didn't take long for the MSM to run with their kooks

You'd think that a catastrophe like Katrina's damage would bring everyone together to help. You'd be wrong. Libs just want to bitch and bellyache. Remember how everyone came together when Sumatra was rocked by tsunamis? I guess liberals are all for coming together to help another (non-evil, non-imperialist) country, but once damage like that hits America...well, screw those rednecks! Besides, Louisiana and Mississippi are red states anyway, right? Probably serves them right, huh moonbats?

Yesterday I documented how the moonbats were already pegging Hurricane Katrina on Bush. Part of the liberal blogs' talking points went like this: "Too many Louisiana National Guardsmen are in Iraq, and as a result, Louisiana is ill-prepared and underequipped with the necessary emergency personnel." Problem is, that's not true:
"Only about half of available forces are mobilized in Louisiana and forces are available from neighboring states if needed," said Lt. Col. Mike Milord, a spokesman at National Guard headquarters outside Washington.

Some 3,500 Army National Guardsmen from Louisiana were deployed to help hurricane victims and another 3,000 were on standby.

Anyway, last night the MSM picked up the leftist blogosphere ravings and ran with it:

LARRY KING: Do you have adequate National Guard members? Because I know you have a lot of National Guard forces in Iraq.

PAULA ZAHN: With so many National Guard troops involved in Iraq, thousands of civilian volunteers are now stepping up to the plate.

WENDELL GOLER: Critics have warned the National Guard deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have left states with too few troops to respond to emergencies.

LESTER HOLT: Interesting to note that of the 11,000 National Guard members in Louisiana, about 3,000 are currently deployed in Iraq.

Interesting, isn't it? When the blogosphere exposed "See? B.S." lies and forgeries last year, the MSM had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the story. Now, the nutbar blogs run with some talking points, and the MSM is all over it like Janet Reno on a Waco church. Also, as V th K notes at Moonbattery, the press and the left (again, pardon the redundancy) is now convinced that the National Guard is anything other than the "club for shiftless playboys" that they were portrayed as merely one year ago. liberal media bias.

The "Iraq never had WMD" lie

These three sites should refute that nonsense. Too bad the administration has done a pisspoor job of explaining this to the masses.

If you read ONLY one of these (please read all three...they're not long), read the first one. As Neal Boortz explains: "Here you will read that the United Nations was having a bit of a fit because the United States secretly shipped 4000 pounds of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 highly radioactive items from Iraq to the US a month earlier. The transfer of this material was made to keep it out of the hands of terrorists."

Uranium? You mean the one that the MSM keeps telling us Bush lied about Iraq trying to obtain in his state of the union speech? liberal media bias.

"It's not about me!"

Mother Moonbat Sheehan, quoted on Brit Hume's show on Fox News:
"Years from now, when your children read about Camp Casey in the history books, you can say you met Casey's mom!"
Wow...looks like someone has a Messiah complex and other delusions of grandeur, hmm? Then again, with the leftist army and adulating press (pardon the redundancy) at Crawford, there's little wonder from where such self-adoration derived.

But remember, folks...this isn't about her! Nosireebob...It's about Casey!

Dems' "Virtual Victory" tour

The following is satire, but it's so fake that you'd swear it came from the MSM (Mainstream Media):
Encouraged by their close loss in this week's special election for a vacant House seat in Ohio, the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has mapped a 50-state "virtual victory" strategy for 2006 and 2008.

"It feels so good to almost win," said DNC chairman Howard Dean. "We now believe we can rally our base around the hope of down-to-the-wire losses in traditionally Republican districts coast-to-coast."

While the concept of virtual victory is familiar to the party that nearly won the presidency in 2000 and 2004, this is the first time the DNC will stake millions of dollars on advertising explicitly promoting narrow defeats. The ad campaign is tentatively titled "Close Counts."

"People need something to believe in," said Mr. Dean. "And while it's tough to believe that a party with no coherent platform can return to power, most progressives still believe this is the party of the little guy. Of course, the little guy usually loses, but we want our major donors to be able to say, in the words of Maxwell Smart, 'missed it by that much.'"
I noticed in last year's presidential election, Kerry adopted the same strategy Gore adopted in 2000 (screw the South, lobby the Midwest)...with the same results. Isn't the definition of insanity "Doing the same things over and over, but expecting different results"?

Monday, August 29, 2005

Hurricane Katrina is Bush's fault?

That didn't take long, did it?

Leftist bloggers jumped on the "Blame Bush" bandwagon faster than Barney Frank on a Key West cruise ship. From NewsMax:
A handful of liberal bloggers have wasted no time politicizing the Hurricane Katrina disaster, alleging that the Iraq war has stripped New Orleans of National Guard protection and blasting President Bush for not dealing with global warming.

"So far today, I've looked at Global Warming and Katrina and the crisis resulting from Louisiana's National Guard being in Iraq instead of defending their state," complains the "Swing State" blog.
They go on to complain that Bush is on vacation. It's a lost cause to explain to these nimrods that a President is never on vacation. After all, whether he's in D.C. or Texas, he's still not in New Orleans...right? Then again, I'm sure that these dope-smoking unemployable halfwits wish Bush was in "the Big Easy" (for those of you in blue states, "the Big Easy" is a nickname for New Orleans, not for Bill Clinton).

Pic of the day, part II

The gift that keeps on giving. Hat tip to Little Green Footballs.

Here's the picture that the MSM is running with, of such a spontaneous and touching moment at Camp Casey:Zooming out, we see the MSM swarm of a clearly manufactured event:

Anyone suddenly get reminded of the footage of Bill Clinton walking on the beach at Normandy and (as sheer luck would have it) seeing rocks not native to that beach that he "spontaneously" formed into a commemorative cross? As with this photo-op, the press ate the Clinton photo-op up like Michael Moore at a Chinese buffet.

Able Danger

I haven't commented on this yet because I wanted to see how this played out. There are still a lot of questions about Able Danger, but we may begin seeing answers soon. Here's a link to a story about Able Danger: what it is, and where it's going. Excerpt:
The Senate Intelligence Committee has contacted the White House asking whether it has a copy of a pre-9/11 chart put together by the Able Danger military intelligence team that identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist threat.

Time magazine reports that the Committee "last week drafted a letter asking the White House for a copy" of the politically explosive chart, which Congressman Curt Weldon said he gave to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley two weeks after the 9/11 attacks.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) has been at the forefront of this matter, and he's been madder than Jesse Jackson in a room full of broken TV cameras. He thinks the 9/11 Commission will be discredited (not hard to imagine) for this:
"The 9/11 Commission is trying to spin this because they're embarrassed at what's coming out," Weldon told the Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" morning show.

"In two weeks with two staffers, I've uncovered more in this regard than they did with 80 staffers and $15 million of taxpayers' money!"

The Pennsylvania Republican said the truth would come out in hearings planned for this fall:

"This information will ultimately end up in a hearing. Senator Specter is preparing a hearing in the judiciary committee. I talked to Speaker Hastert yesterday on the House side. We will bring people in under oath, and they will swear and they will answer the questions."
Seems that 9/11 Commission Member Jamie Gorelick (rhymes with "derelict", ironically enough) was instrumental in erecting (and enforcing) the "wall" that prevented info sharing between agencies during her stay as Reno's Deputy AG during those "wonderful, peaceful" Clinton years. Perhaps the Commission was trying to protect one of its own by sitting on these Able Danger documents?

Or perhaps Able Danger is all puff with no substance, and Curt Weldon is trying to sell some books. You be the judge.

Pic of the day

Hat tip to Van Helsing at Moonbattery for this telling pic:

Sometimes, words are simply unnecessary when you have pictures.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

How Sunnis in Iraq are like Democrats in America

I read this AP story about how Iraq has drafted a constitution, but the Sunni minority have rejected it. I noticed a parallel with American Democrats.

For one, Sunnis are the minority part of the population. Where in the hell do they get off trying to keep the country from progressing towards freedom? I know that they enjoyed power-related privileges when Saddam's rape rooms were open for business, and they miss those privileges deeply. They beamed with pride as one of their own tortured and brutalized the country for three decades. I guess it is to be expected that they are a tad bit resentful that those "good ol' days" are no more.

So instead of helping forge an iraq where they would at least have some say-so in the direction of the country...they want to obstruct. They want to hold their breath and turn blue. They want to pick up their ball and go home. They think they need to be consulted in order to bestow legitimacy to the new constitution. Basically, they'd rather their own country go down the tubes than to succeed under the rule of someone other than themselves.

Basically, these characteristics sound like those of American Democrats. Or the elected ones anyway.

See, it seems like American Democrats detest George W. Bush and Republicans so much that they can stomach a number of American defeats if those defeats portray their opposition poorly. Iraq has problems, Afghanistan has problems, Social Security has problems, national security and intelligence have problems...but hey! Let's just elect Democrats FIRST, then go back and fix those problems! Sure, by the time Dems regain power, I could be dead (we ALL could be dead by then via a smuggled-in nuclear bomb or airborne lethal virus)...but at least Bush and Republicans will look bad!

Sunnis boycotted Iraqi elections in January, to try to cast a pall of illegitimacy over the elections. Do you think if Democrats in this country boycotted the polls here on Election Day that such a boycott would make the American public perceive the new leaders as illegitimate? No, quite the contrary: Americans would see the winner with 70%+ and think "Wow...this guy's got a mandate!" And by "mandate", I don't mean Barney Frank's plans for this weekend.

Wow. What if Democrats boycotted elections here? Man, would I pay big bucks to make that a reality here in this country or what?

Friday, August 26, 2005

Scoreboard: Thune 1, Liberals 0

John Thune, who dethroned the detached Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle in the South Dakota Senate race last year, has been ridiculed in the press lately, even by conservative columnist Bob Novak. Why? Because South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force Base was on the Pentagon's list to be closed.

Yessiree, the libs were getting as giddy as a bunch of NOW members watching a k.d. lang concert held at Lickensplit's Sushi House at the thought of Thune suffering such an embarrassment. They had pretty much already counted his Senate seat falling back into Democrat hands in 2010.

Well, while no one knows what the rest of Thune's Senate term will hold, we do know this: he pulled off a huge win in this, his first year as South Dakota Senator. Ellsworth will not be closing! The BRAC commission rejected the Pentagon's recommendation for that base's closure.

When he told South Dakota that he had the ear of the important people in D.C., he obviously wasn't kidding. Thune defeated Dasshole in part because he claimed that he would be better positioned to help save the base (since no one in the Bush administration liked Dasshole at all, rendering Little Tommy politically neutered)...and in part because South Dakota is a conservative state and Dasshole was a D.C. liberal leopard who tried to hide his spots. It didn't work. But I digress...

"Limited government" GOP?

Why am I a libertarian instead of a Republican? Well, for one, this:
Reagan made a show of his veto. It was a symbolic stroke against government waste, against the Democrats’ tradition of, for example, diverting every federal highway through West Virginia, then naming it after Sen. Robert Byrd.

Fast-forward to 2005. Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. Early on a Saturday morning in August — the day of the week, and the month of the year, least likely to attract media attention — President Bush signed into law a highway bill passed by his own party with more than 6,000 earmarked projects.

Bush signed the bill after sternly telling his party he'd veto any highway bill that spent more than $256 billion. He promptly "adjusted" that figure to $284 billion after complaints from party leaders. The bill Bush ultimately signed came at a price of $286 billion, $295 billion if you count a few provisions disguised to make the bill look cheaper than it actually is. Not exactly holding the line.
What happens when one of their own actually tries to enforce the party's purported limited government ideology? Not pretty:
Consider the case of Sen. Tom Coburn, another of the few in Congress willing to stand up to unrestrained spending. After a six-year career fighting waste in the House, Coburn won election to the Senate, and began putting administrative holds on his colleagues' wasteful projects. That didn't sit well with his fellow Republicans. Coburn's own party soon filed an ethics complaint against him.

His transgression? Coburn continues his medical practice in Oklahoma in addition to his duties as a U.S. senator. That apparently, is a violation of Senate ethics. Diverting millions of taxpayer dollars to pet projects that bear one's name and help one get reelected is not an ethical violation, but practicing medicine is.
How utterly shameless these Republican porkers can be!
But perhaps the single member of Congress most afflicted with arrogance-of-power syndrome is Virginia Rep. Tom Davis. Davis headed up the GOP's campaign to retain control of the House in 2004, and today chairs the House Government Reform Committee. Earlier this spring, it was Davis' committee that began investigating the use of steroids in Major League Baseball. Of course, Congress has no constitutional authority to tell a private organization what its rules ought to be. No matter. When MLB asked Davis what jurisdiction he had to hold hearings, Davis sent a letter in reply asserting that his committee has jurisdiction “at any time, over any matter.” Any time, any matter. So much for limited government. And this from the chair of the committee in charge of keeping government in check!
Other examples abound in the story.

Greed, arrogance, and power drunkenness have no party alliance.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Image problems

I received an e-mail from a moonbat asshat who thought that vile invective was an effective way to get me to see his/her/its point of view. I mentioned it in a prior post's comments. I've reflected on this, and I think that I've found the #1 underlying problem moonbats have had lately: their messengers.

The best candidate they offered last year to convince the American electorate to dump Bush and move in a different direction? John F'ing Kerry, an effete elitist northeastern liberal who actually did vote for stuff before he didn't.

The best person chosen to be the leader of their party? The unhinged, screaming, laughable Dr. Howard "Primal Scream" Dean, who goes to red states and insults God, guns, and Southern values.

The best person to get out their anti-war message? Cindy Sheehan, a grieving mother who has shown herself to be a political opportunist, who doubts that Osama bin Laden slaughtered 3,000+ of her countrymen (see prior post), who has admitted to not wanting to meet the President for fear that her 15 minutes of fame will come to a screeching halt, who has been exposed as a liar on multiple occasions in what she did and did not say, and who public opinion polls now show is more unlikeable than likeable. Now, she's got David Duke and other neo-Nazi groups (on their way to Crawford now) in her corner...strange bedfellows! Yeah, that's gonna help the anti-war cause!

So call me names all you want to, moonbats. But I'm not the one with the image problem here, now am I?

To quote Van Helsing of Moonbattery: "Here we see the grieving Mother Sheehan, mourning yesterday at a Texas airport. You can easily see that no amount of adulation by the media can offset the grief that tears at her noble soul."

Sheehan doubts bin Laden behind 9/11

From National Review:
When asked by reporters, Sheehan said she believes that while she supports the continued hunt for Osama bin Laden she believes the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan and “stop bombing innocent people.” She also described Osama bin Laden as being “allegedly” behind the attacks of 9/11.
Rumor has it that she also believes that her son is "allegedly" dead, her husband is "allegedly" leaving her moonbat ass, London was "allegedly" attacked on 7/7, and the Patriots "allegedly" won the last Super Bowl. Anyone want to bet that the press buries this story like Bill Clinton buries Cuban stogies in Monica's...uh, blue dress?

Un-freakin'-believable. OK, allegedly un-freakin'-believable.

Moonbats besiege wounded veterans

OK, moonbats, let's hear your hollow claims that you "support the troops but not the war"! Observe:
The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.


Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."
I gather that the wounded veteran, Mr. Pannell, doesn't feel "honored" by these "patriots"? The response from these "patriots" is apparently "Screw you, you ignorant babykiller! We'll 'honor' you any way we damned well please!"

By the way, who is Code Pink?
Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.
Don't look for the MSM to report this stuff, knowing full well that the sight of these moonbats will enrage the American public. But not to liberal media bias!

Stephie in 1997: Assassinate Saddam

Nary a peep from the MSM on this trip down Memory Lane. While everyone gets hot and bothered over the dimwit Robertson's assertion that we should assassinate Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, time seems to have eased the memory of a Clinton official (and current ABC host) advocating the same thing for a different dictator. Hint: said dictator is one who the left thinks we should have left alone and in power two years ago.
But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.

Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.

His headlined? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."

"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."

Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.
The article explains how Stephie would have advised Clinton how not to violate "international principles", saying that "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral." This statement should send bloodcurdling shrieks of horror from the pieholes of righteously indignant liberals who are angry at Bush for ignoring the French and the Germans. Here's guessing that had Clinton done the very thing that Stephie proposed, the left would have defended the decision vigorously.

Anywhere in the MSM that you'll see this comparison? liberal media bias.

ACLU Lawyers Volunteer to Get Their Heads Sawed Off

This is the headline at one of the most hilarious satirical blogs I've seen, called The People's Cube. Here is the link to the satirical story, an excerpt of which follows:
Getting one's head sawed off might seem like reason for concern, but in fact, ACLU lawyers turning themselves over to their Guantanamo clients for this purpose have gone a long way in addressing Taliban dissatisfaction with the camp's amenities like poor wi-fi reception.

In an unprecedented display of compassion, volunteers from the ACLU and Amnesty International are lining up to get their heads sawed off by disgruntled Taliban prisoners. This new spirit of international caring has its genesis in the Human Shields tradition.


Another point of optimism is that United States Senator Richard "Dick" Durbin has enthusiastically volunteered to have his head sawed off. "Not even Pol Pot denied his victims three telephone lines in each room, secure remote printing, ergonomic chairs, a microwave, and a whirlpool. Not even the Nazis denied their victims in-room movie channels. Therefore, as a gesture to our guests, and a symbol from America to the world, I will proudly march into a cell and plead with the guests to please saw my head off. They are our customers, and our customers are always right."
Nice to see that when the ACLU isn't tying up our courts trying to get IRS non-profit statuses removed from churches, they're assuaging their liberal guilt by allowing themselves to be decapitated!

For those of you in blue states, the above story is satire, which means it's not really true.

NYT doing its best MoveOn propaganda

Hat tip to the The Neolibertarian Network for this post.

See if this sounds familiar to you:

A military officer gives an interview to a reporter for the MSM (in this case, the Old Gray Hag, New York Times). The officer gives a positive assessment of a certain development in the war, and the reporter rushes to print with a negative slant. You almost have to wonder if the reporter was listening to the interview, or if he had his story already typed up and was just going through the motions. I mean, chances are that the reporter wouldn't have even wasted time talking to the officer if not for the Jayson Blair "made-up sources" scandal. So now the reporter actually has to get off of his duff and pretend to interview the wretched babykiller military officer! Story:
Last year, senior leaders of the Army became aware of technological developments which make it possible to improve the "Interceptor" body armor worn by our troops.`

The "Interceptor" consists of a vest, two SAPI (small arms protective insert) plates worn in the front and the back, and "backing" material around the plates. The plates are made of boronic carbide, the second hardest substance known to man (only diamonds are harder) but fairly light weight.

The plates will shatter a standard rifle bullet, and the backing catches the bullet fragments to prevent injuries from shrapnel.


Yet though the specifications weren't set until early in January, new plates were being manufactured — and delivery begun to U.S. troops — in March. Those familiar with the Pentagon's procurement process recognize this as lightning speed.


Here's how the story was presented by Moss in the New York Times Aug. 14th: "For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks of insurgents.


Americans are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, because all news about Iraq is presented as bad news, even when it isn't.
The leftists today want bad news from Iraq, because their hatred for Bush overrides the love of their own country (for those that actually love their country).

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Radio host fired for offending terrorists, hired by station valuing free speech

By now, many of you know the story. Michael Graham, talk radio host in the belly of the beast, Washington, D.C. (no offense to my dear friend and D.C. resident Kira!), was fired for saying less than flattering things about Islam that pro-terror group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) found offensive. Graham's story is here, an excerpt follows:
I was fired, according to the termination letter I received from ABC Radio, for "offensive" comments I made on the air regarding Islam and terrorism. Coincidentally, all of the comments deemed offensive by the Council of American-Islamic Relations were listed in my ABC disciplinary memo.

I was also fired, according to ABC management, for my refusal to apologize for said comments. They further ordered me to agree to "additional outreach efforts" to those “offended” by my opinions. Would I be flipping burgers at the local mosque? Singing "Kumbaya" with CAIR? Hugs for Hamas? Management wouldn't say.


...few public advocacy groups have as little legitimacy or credibility as the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Some of their members have been jailed for terrorism. Others have been deported. They are still reluctant to criticize Hamas and Hezbollah, and it took them three weeks after 9/11 to condemn Al Qaeda!


Getting drummed out of talk radio by CAIR is like being chased out of your junior-high teacher's job by the guys at the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
Graham also notes how his crime was offending a minority group, and that had he said something disparaging about Christianity (such as calling the Catholic Church a haven for pedophiles, or calling the Christian faith a terror-sponsoring organization because of abortion-clinic and Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph), he would still be in D.C. today. He offended the P.C. gods deities/druids, and for that, he must have his head sawed off by the blackhoods on the altar of "sensitivity."

Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. A station in Los Angeles, KFI-AM, has picked him up. "KFI has an extended offer for Michael Graham to fill in at the station because KFI still values free speech," says KFI producer, Robin Bertolucci. Shame on ABC-Disney for having no such policy. Disney can have "Gay Days" at their theme parks, due to their "committment to diversity", but the catchphrase rings hollow in light of their lack of committment to said "diversity" when it comes to opinions on their radio networks.

The "chickenhawk" argument by moonbats

We've seen that used here a few times, haven't we, folks? The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up. If, on the other hand, you believe that America should disengage from all foreign wars, you may feel free not to serve in the military.

Moonbats now, all of a sudden, have a "love" for the military the way that an abused woman has a "love" for her shack-up drunk boyfriend. Ben Shapiro has an excellent, excellent column. Excerpt:
The media salivation over military mother Cindy Sheehan has renewed talk of a "chickenhawk" contingent controlling American foreign policy. According to the left, which has latched onto Sheehan more tightly than a barnacle latches onto a whale, the only people qualified to speak about American foreign policy are pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. Everyone else must shut up.


Representative democracy requires people to vote on foreign policy, whether or not they have served in the military, just as it requires people to vote on police policy whether or not they have served on the police force. The Constitution grants the president power as commander in chief, whether or not he has served in the military, and grants Congress power over the purse strings, whether or not any member has served in the military. Our system is built on the foundational idea that all Americans have a common stake in defining foreign policy -- foreign policy isn't the exclusive domain of military members.
Funny how moonbats were OK with Clinton, who actively avoided military service and whose avoidance of said service elicited giggles from moonbats akin to teenage girls at a Justin Timberlake concert, being the Commander-in-Chief. Actually, how does the left really see the military, and vice versa?
Of course, despite their multitudinous statements about how military men and women know the costs of war best, the last thing in the world the left wants is for the military to control foreign policy. Despite the left's implicit assumption that any soldier who sees live fire immediately transforms into Mahatma Gandhi, military members, by and large, are hawks. A Military Times poll in late 2003 showed that 57 percent of those surveyed considered themselves Republicans, and only 13 percent considered themselves Democrats. Among officers, the numbers were even more disparate: 66 percent Republican, and 9 percent Democrat. Certain Democrats in 2000 attempted to block the votes of thousands of military members in Florida. Despite all of John Kerry's posturing, military members and their families trusted President Bush by a 69-24 margin, according to an October 2004 poll by National Annenberg Election Survey.

In truth, the left would regard military control of foreign policy as an unmitigated disaster. In the view of those like Michael Moore, the only good American soldiers are those who are unemployed or dead. ... Dead American soldiers are good since they can be used as pawns by foreign policy doves: body bag pictures and grieving mothers -- all of it undermines American morale and support for strong foreign policy. ... The leftist claim that soldiers are victims means that they are boobs and ignoramuses, incapable of choosing a lifestyle that risks death in defense of American freedoms.

Implicitly, then, the "chickenhawk" argument rejects all options aside from civilian pacifist control of American foreign policy. If all soldiers are victims, too stupid or ignorant to make up their own minds about joining the military, how can we trust them with foreign policy? And according to the "chickenhawk" argument, civilian hawks cannot control foreign policy. The only ones left are complete pacifist loons like Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington. How convenient!
Part I of Shapiro's "chickenhawk un-American" column is here. Best quote: "If they [American soldiers] fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism."

I guess I should stop cheering for the Jacksonville Jaguars. After all, I've never played for them.

CBS News squelched Sheehan's "Islamofascists are freedom fighters" comment

I'm really trying to stay away from the Cindy Sheehan thing. But every time I turn around, something new pops up. This time, it's another abdication of responsibility from the MSM...not surprisingly, CBS (aka "See? B.S.").

Speaking earlier this month to a reporter for CBS News, she actually called the Islamic terrorists "freedom fighters." The very bastards that slaughtered her son. Of course, the MSM will neglect to report this because such a nutbar statement would undermine her credibility, and the MSM has hooked their horses to the Sheehan wagon. Nope, the media will focus on nutbar statements by Pat Robertson, but ignore those by their media darling Jihad Cindy.
Sheehan's comments were recorded on video by Veterans for Peace, a group pushing for Bush's impeachment. (Editor's note: The video of Cindy Sheehan is approximately 30 minutes long, and requires several minutes to load, even with a high-speed connection.)


"But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country."


"What's her problem then?" asked one messageboard poster on "Her son was killed by a 'freedom fighter.' She should be proud."
Wow. Innocent people, Cindy? The ones blowing up Iraqi kids who accept candy from soldiers, or who try to kill people for having the unmitigated gall to vote?

President Bush said after 9/11 that you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. Unfortunately for the memory of the brave Casey Sheehan, his own mother has chosen the latter. But don't take my word for it:
Sheehan referred to her son, Casey, not as a war hero, but rather a war victim.

"If I was thinking straight, which I wasn't, I never would have allowed a military funeral, and I wouldn't have buried him in his uniform," Sheehan said.
No doubt that the moonbats will smear me (like I give a wet fart on a dry January Monday) for accurately pointing out Jihad Cindy's own words. She's a media darling because she fits the MSM template of anti-Bush and anti-war. Yet CBS' Mark Knoller gets a quote straight from the horse's mouth (amongst a gaggle of other reporters), and sits on it? Fake documents...leading headline news. Direct quote...(yawn). liberal media bias.

MSM portrays crazy Robertson as reflective of the right

The MSM on Tuesday jumped all over Pat Robertson's Monday suggestion that Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated soon, in order to avoid a costly war down the road. Stupid comments, Pat, especially from a Christian leader. Hell, the only thing stupider is the MSM's reaction to it. From Newsbusters:
All three broadcast network evening newscasts featured full stories, with ABC's World News Tonight making it the lead. Anchor Charles Gibson snidely forwarded: "A popular Christian broadcaster says assassination is the way to deal with one world leader who criticizes the U.S. Some ask, 'is this Pat Robertson's definition of Christian love?'" CBS played a clip of Donald Rumsfeld dismissing Robertson as just another example of how "private citizens say all kinds of things all the time," and Gloria Borger then countered by touting Robertson's prominence: "But Robertson is not just any private citizen. He's a former Republican presidential candidate with a large evangelical following."


Robertson "may have no clout with the Bush administration, but you wouldn't know that from watching CNN today," FNC's Brit Hume noted in reviewing the competing cable network's all-day obsession -- a focus which continued into the evening with Robertson leading the 7pm EDT Anderson Cooper 360 (hosted by Heidi Collins), the 8pm EDT Paula Zahn Now and the 10pm EDT NewsNight with Aaron Brown who tried to hold the whole religious right culpable as he asserted that "political leaders worried it makes the so-called Christian Right seem neither Christian nor right." Robertson was also the first topic covered by MSNBC's 7pm Hardball with Chris Matthews and 8pm Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
The press hopes they can take the comments of a foolish old man and tie them to represent Republicans, libertarians, Christians, or any other right-of-center group whose existence offends the left. However, unlike how the left embraces their kooks, the right usually denounces theirs. liberal media bias.

A loss for P.C.

Political correctness just took one in the derriere, courtesy of the Florida State Seminoles!

Seminole Nation came through, bombarding the NCAA with angry phone calls, faxes, e-mails, and letters. The NCAA admitted that they were not expecting that level of reaction. See, when a tiny but vocal minority got a hold of their ear, the NCAA thought they were hearing from a majority. They were wrong.

The NCAA has removed Florida State University from its list of schools with "offensive" and "abusive" mascots. They correctly noted what we've been shouting for years: the unique relationship that the university has with the Seminole Tribe of Florida is a thing of respect, not degradation. It is irrelevant what a bunch of white liberals or non-Seminoles think of the mascot. The day that the Seminole Tribe of Florida thinks that the usage is wrong, that will be the day that the university should drop the mascot.

Fortunately, a bunch of politically-correct outsider do-gooders won't be making that call. Score one...for the good guys!

Go Seminoles!

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

AP headline: "High Court Protects Kids of Calif. Gays"

The story is here, but I think the headline is poorly worded. The story is about how the California (where else?) Supreme Court ruled that "estranged" gay/lesbian couples who have kids together via the wonders of modern medical technology (or however they do it) are treated as divorcing parents when it comes to child support. Issues of your own opinions on gay marriage or parenting aside, here's what I find interesting:

1. The headline. "High Court Protects Kids of Calif. Gays"? What about the article implies that this is about child protection? Since when does child support equal child protection? Don't get me wrong, I'm 1,000% in favor of child support when couples split, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it "child protection", be it hetero or homo couples.

2. The reaction of the anti-gay marriage side. "Today's ruling defies logic and common sense by saying that children can have two moms," said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. "That policy establishes that moms and dads as a unit are irrelevant when it comes to raising children." Huh?

Whether Staver likes it or not, the fact is that children do live in two-mom or two-dad households. Is that wrong? Maybe and maybe not (I'm not trying to Kerry this'll see where I'm going), but the fact is that these arrangements exist! If they exist, they must be acknowledged as a household that has children, and irrespective of any harm (perceived or real) to the kids growing up in such a household, the fact is that it is not illegal in California (and other states).

Thus, if children are lawfully living with two parental units, how does it harm society in saying that in the event of a split, one parent must provide child support for the kids that he/she legally shared with someone else? Honestly, I am offended that the gay parents who resist paying support try arguing that since they weren't legally married, they weren't legally parents and thus aren't legally liable for supporting children they agreed to! I mean, you can't say "We just want to be the same as everyone else" and then say "Uh...except here!"

For the record, I fully support civil unions for gays, and I oppose gay marriage. Marriage, in my view, is a religiously-binding act (even if atheists get for them). However, I also think that the federal government should not get involved in the gay marriage debate. Nothing in the Constitution says that it's the federal government's job to meddle with marriage, hetero or otherwise. The states are taking care of it, and with the exception of MA, no state has signed onto the idea of gay marriage as of yet.

Maybe you agree with all, some, or none of what I wrote. As always, I welcome your comments!

Monday, August 22, 2005

Another lying moonbat organization

Unhinged, far-left, conspiracy theory kooks at Media Matters for America have stepped in some dog squeeze, it seems. From the Media Report:
The left-wing organization Media Matters (MMFA) appears to have been caught red-handed in an ugly and false smear attack against Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media (AIM) and president of America's Survival, Inc. In an August 19, 2005, item entitled, "AIM's Kincaid posted 'letter' from Afghan ambassador thanking him for petition to extradite Newsweek's Isikoff," Media Matters clearly implies that Kincaid fabricated a letter from an Afghan ambassador. However, every indication reveals that Kincaid did no such thing.

Media Matters posted the following in the item's first paragraph:
Accuracy in Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid has posted a "letter" on his America's Survival Inc. website that he claims to have received from Afghan ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad. The "letter" thanks Kincaid for sending a petition to the ambassador calling for the extradition of Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff to Afghanistan. But the "letter" from the ambassador, which makes reference to "the over six hundred supporters" who purportedly signed petitions calling for Isikoff's extradition, bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself, cut-and-paste job.
By putting quotation marks around the word letter, by saying the "letter" was one that "he claims to have received," and by asserting that it "bears all the hallmarks of a do-it-yourself, cut-and-paste job," the implication from Media Matters could not be more clear: Kincaid posted a bogus letter. Another paragraph also analyzes the formatting (i.e., html, gif) of the letter.

The truth? Less than one day later, Kincaid posted scanned images (.pdf) of the actual letter and the actual envelope in which it was received. Kincaid also posted a public statement denouncing Media Matters for their "false and defamatory charge."

What's astonishing about their ugly attack, as Kincaid points out, is that Media Matters could have verified the authenticity of the letter with one simple phone call or correspondence. Instead, they simply went out and besmirched the guy!

This shameful episode reveals a vicious and callous nature of the people at Media Matters. It also obliterates any remaining shred of the organization's credibility.
With the lies from NARAL, Air America, CBS (aka "See? B.S."), Newsweak, and now MMFA (aka "Manufacuring, Making up, and Faking Accounts"), this is beginning to become quite comical.

How to translate leftist war-speak

Nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan. Really.

Real Clear Politics has a great post about how to translate leftist terms when defining the war:
To be antiwar can mean one of two things: you may be opposed to all war or you might just be opposed to a war in particular. A Democratic party fitting the first definition would never win another national election in this country again. Ever.

Thus many on the left who make up the base of the Democratic party have gone to great lengths to say they support the use of U.S. military force under appropriate circumstances (like, say, Afghanistan) and that their objections are confined to this president and the war in Iraq.

But if you take some of the arguments this group (which spans the "netroots" crowd at Daily Kos all the way to the New York Times op-ed page) has marshalled against President Bush and recast them in generic terms, you'll see they read like a list of "out clauses" tucked inside a "We Support the Use of U.S. Military Force" contract:

The Chickenhawk Clause: No administration official may be involved in planning or supporting a war effort unless they have served in the military. (This clause applies to members of the public as well).

The Shared Sacrifice Clause: Wars may not be conducted unless a vast majority of the public share in some sort of common sacrifice which will most likely take the form of increasing the tax burden on the public.

The Elite Sacrifice Clause: Wars may not be conducted unless 1) all military age children among the highest ranking civilian and military officials in the country are forced to serve and 2) a certain (but as yet undefined) percentage of combat deaths must come from soldiers with "privileged" backgrounds.

The Grieving Parent Clause: Mothers and fathers of soldiers killed in action are given "absolute" moral authority. Therefore wars may be fought only until the mother or father of a soldier killed in action objects to either the policy or the leadership of the administration.

The Presidential Vacation Clause: During the course of any conflict where U.S. soldiers are in harm's way, presidents are not allowed to take vacation but instead must remain at the White House "burning the midnight oil" to demonstrate military personnel are a priority.

The War Profiteering Clause: The Pentagon is allowed to hire private contractors to assist in military logistics and reconstruction projects provided that 1) no member of the administration has ever had any contact with the company and 2) the company is not allowed to make a profit.

Of course, one of the primary requirements for the left to support U.S. military force is winning the approval of the UN Security Council. Taken together these requirements would seem to make it almost impossible for the left to support U.S. military action under any circumstance. Or will all these rules not apply when Hillary or some other Democrat is sitting in the White House?

Interesting theory (and good news) on oil prices

Good news? What, you just saved a bunch of money on your car insurance by switching to Geico?

No, there may be an upcoming silver lining on all this high gas prices ordeal. Steve Chapman's column is short, encouraging, and worth reading. Excerpt:
The going rate has been pushed up in the last couple of years by rising fuel consumption. But Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research Inc., says global demand has fallen short of predictions this year. Not only that, but crude oil inventories have been expanding in the U.S., which should help push prices down.

It turns out the law of supply and demand has not been repealed: When the price of oil rises, people consume less than they would otherwise. The longer oil remains expensive, the more people will look for ways to conserve it. Already, car buyers are flocking to gas-stingy hybrids, which were once regarded as the equivalent of living in a yurt.

Lynch expects prices to drop to $40 a barrel by the end of the year, if not sooner. He's not alone: The Russian government has drafted its 2006 budget assuming that's all it will get for its oil. That would bring gas prices down in the range of $2 a gallon.
Emphasis mine. While $2 a gallon as the national average still sucks, I think we all begrudgingly acknowledge that the days of cheap gas are long gone. Plus, $2 per gallon is much, much better than we have right now. Four year ago, I shrieked when gas hit $1.75, and who wouldn't give Hillary Clinton's left wing to return to those prices again?

Granted, all of this is just theory, but it sounds like it has valid logical points. We'll see soon enough.

Brits foil al Qaeda sarin gas plot

From the AP:
Scotland Yard believes it thwarted an al-Qaida sarin gas attack on the British Parliament, according to an internal police document.

The plot to unleash the deadly nerve gas on the House of Commons was hatched last year and uncovered through decoded e-mails on computers seized from terror suspects in Britain and Pakistan, the Sunday Times reported, citing the police memo it obtained.
Good for the Brits! They didn't wait to clear their findings with CAIR, the ACLU, or MoveOn first!

Let's see how long it takes until the moonbats blame this attempt at mass murder on Bush or Blair. You know, the usual: "If they had just left those poor ol' Islamofascists alone, then there would be no need to kill innocent British civilians and tourists, now would there?"

Pic of the day

Yes, I promise to resume other topics of conversation after this picture (and yes, the director is Michael Moore):

Sunday, August 21, 2005

NYT puff piece about Gore TV

The Old Gray Hag, aka the New York Times, has puffed up Air, America...since its inception. From what I understand, both of Air America's listeners appreciated the plugs that the Times gave say nothing about the Times running interference for AA over their current theft-of-a-charity scandal.

Well, now the Times is getting all orgasmic...or should I say "Gore-gasmic"... over the new Gore TV network called Current TV. Yes, the inventor of the Internet has found a stunningly supportive publication in the Times. By the way, for those of you in blue states, the prior sentence was riddled with sarcasm, since no one in their proper mind (notice the saying "right mind" means "proper"?) expected anything less from the Times. Story here.

For a serious piece of reporting submitted to Current TV for their line-up, click here for the short 1:03 video. Dude, it's like, uh, you know, all about crazy stuff in Gaza, fer sure (or is it "fo' shizzle, my dizzle"?)...and it's like, uh, all about Gaza.

Sheehan-Kerry alliance

Thanks to Van Helsing at Moonbattery for giving me this chuckle about Cindy Sheehan before I turn in this evening:
In related news, the grieving woman's agent said that tonight's vigil will include an appearance by Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, who will throw her son's military medals over the fence at the Bush ranch.

Show's over, Cindy...and America is glad

Cindy Sheehan heads home. For good? For that publicity-hound moonbat, I doubt it. For her sake, she should stay there.

"Her" sake? Yes, because it looks like more Americans have grown tired of her and her anti-military, anti-Semitic rants. An AOL poll (granted, unscientific) asks the following two questions:
Asked: "Do you agree with Sheehan's views?" Cindy's supporters trail her critics, 56 to 44 percent, with nearly 290,000 Americans responding to the technically unscientific survey.

Asked, "Do you agree with Sheehan's tactics?" Cindy faired even worse, losing that contest 59 to 44 percent.
A more scientific poll, taken by Rasmussen Reports, reveals that there are still slightly more people who view her unfavorably than those who view her favorable: 38% unfavorable, 35% favorable, and I'm assuming the remainder were political moderates and were waiting to see which way the public opinion polls settled. However, as Rasmussen points out, "In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see."

Van Helsing has a great post at his Moonbattery blog about how other Americans who lost children in Iraq are reclaiming their children's name from the "Sheehanistas":
Sheehan's handlers thought it would be effective propaganda to stick crosses in the ground, decorated with the names of fallen American soldiers, thereby drafting these heroes into the antiwar movement, just as Sheehan drafted her own son.

But not all relatives are willing to trade the honor of their love ones' sacrifice for an opportunity to poke their country in the eye. Some are traveling to Crawford to remove the crosses with their relatives' names. Matt and Toni Matula lost their Marine son in Iraq last year. Here's what Matt Matula had to say on KXAN, after going to Crawford to stand up for his son:
He's not a victim, he's a hero. ... I went there and had Matthew's name taken off of there. It's fine for people to grieve their own way. It aggravates me to see them using other people's names to further their cause.
No doubt that the moonbats will call these people "chickenhawks" for supporting the war efforts without signing up themselves. A "pro-military" moonbat is like a vegetarian cattler farmer...they just don't exist.

More and more counter-Sheehan protests are emerging, yet I doubt we'll see Chris Matthews, Keith Blabberman, or the rest of the MSM out covering these such counter-protests. Of course, that's not because there's any liberal media bias or anything...

Saturday, August 20, 2005

Some people never learn

Well, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer sometimes, but hey...I'm from Tennessee, so cut me some slack! :-P

See, I had this post some time ago: link. It explains an Internet rule of etiquette known as Godwin's Law. Something about resorting to "So-and-so is like Hitler", etc. Basically for shock value, since the position is 99.99% of the time logically untenable. In short, once you've resorted to that line during the course of political discourse, you have proven yourself to be intellectually vacuous and incapable of logical debate. The proper course of action is to either ban or ignore the perpetrator.

Well, we had a perp. Some moonbat in Colorado named Steve Bremner, not to be confused with the conservative Steve who usually posts here. Anwho, Stevie B. got the newspaper-up, back-facing-forward treatment from me. I do not require anyone else to ignore him, but I do adivse it. ManicNole, Steve, etc., followed my lead, after trying fruitlessly to carry on a logical conversation with him.

Anyway, he re-emerged under a new name (as he did several times before), but this time, he got the best of yours truly (see opening paragraph for intellectual disclaimer!). I acknowledged him, not realizing it was him. Sure, I could have checked his URL, but didn't. I got lazy, forgetting that he was like a case of herpes...never completely gone.

So, I banned his IP. Sure, he can get another IP. And I'll ban that one. And the next one he gets. Et cetera. Folks, as all of you know (and my liberal friends Joshua, James, and Lisa Renee can attest to this), I don't censor here. You are free and encouraged to speak your mind, even in intense and passionate disagreement. But keep it civil. It's all I ask. Sarcasm is allowed (yeah, no kidding!) and encouraged, especially if done so humorously. Even paranoid moonbat ravings are allowed...hell, that adds to the fun, since we make fun of the poor asshat relentlessly! However, gratuitous references to Hiter, Taliban, etc., render you useless to the dialogue here.

Who says? I do. Now, on with the show...

Friday, August 19, 2005

Subscribe today to Limousine Liberal

CBS News turns to interns for help

No, not the way Bill Clinton turns to interns for help. Instead, CBS News has grown tired of lagging behind everybody else in evening news ratings, so they're looking to their interns for some fresh ideas. Story here.

Well, you'll be pleased to know that the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS) has planted a "mole" at CBS News. Our mole, who shall remain nameless so as not to jeopardize his/her/its mission, has presented the following list of ideas to CBS News President Andrew Heyward and CBS chief executive Les Moonves:

1. Remove Howard Dean from speed dial.

2. Remove Hillary Clinton from speed dial.

3. Try using genuine proof and not forgeries when doing investigative work...which brings me to #4, which is...

4. Do investigative work. Rummaging around for dirt on SCOTUS nominess' adopted children does not count...I don't care if the New York Times is doing it.

5. Interviewing five Democrats, one Vermont socialist, and John McCain does not qualify as "balance."

6. may have more members (about 2.5 million) than you have viewers, but that does not make them representative of America. A cursory glance at their lack of success anywhere will reveal this self-evident truth.

7. A pro-war mother who has lost a child in Iraq should get as much face time as an anti-war mother who has lost a child in Iraq.

8. It is perfectly acceptable to refer to Islamic terrorists as "terrorists." Americans will understand you.

9. If you insist on pointing out that a conservative person or organization is conservative, you must also insist on pointing out that a liberal person or organization is liberal. You and your brethren have failed to do so. This is part of that "balance" thing.

10. Finally, inject some personality into the reporting, so at least if you ignore everything else, you'll at least be bubbly when you lie and report in a biased manner!

No word back from our mole as to the reaction he/she/it received from CBS brass. If you have any suggestions, please pass them on so I can Morse Code them to our mole. Stay tuned!

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Air, America

Thanks to Kira Zalan for pointing me to Michelle Malkin's Air America update. Malkin updates her blog frequently, so here are two links: first and second. Don't be surprised if there's a third (or more) after you read this.

Looks like AA is having financial troubles. OK, we knew don't steal from poor inner-city kids and Alzheimer's patients unless you're really hard up. Well, it runs much deeper.
A lawsuit filed by an owner of radio stations claims that the transfer of ownership of the Air America radio network from Progress Media to Piquant LLC in May 2004 was a "sham" intended to maintain the network's assets while deceiving its creditors, according to documents posted on a blog yesterday.

In the suit, which was filed in state Supreme Court at Manhattan in May, Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, a radio station owner with affiliates across the country, is seeking more than $255,000 it claims it is owed by the current owners of Air America, Piquant LLC. Multicultural's complaint, as posted on the blog of Michelle Malkin, a conservative commentator, states that the station owner is trying to enforce a judgment in its favor last November, in which the court ordered Air America's owners to pay it that amount.
Does anyone other than yours truly see the delicious irony of a station that pimps race to convince people to subscribe to their way of thinking has screwed (a) a "multicultural" radio broadcasting company and (b) the poor inner-city (i.e. predominantly minority) children?

There's also some insight as to why the MSM is ignoring the leftie network's troubles.
Why are you so relentlessly pursuing the Air America story?

Simple: It's newsworthy and national journalists aren't covering it. The hype about Air America upon its launch last year, from the New York Times on down, was overwhelming. But where are all the mainstream media cheerleaders now as reality caves in on the beleaguered liberal radio network? Political, financial, entertainment and media reporters should be all over this. But the silence is deafening. So, blogs are filling the void.

Why do you think the mainstream media isn't picking up on it? I seem to recall that Hugh Hewitt thought one explanation might be that Air America is a network with so few listeners that it's seen by the rest of the media as inconsequential.

I think it's partly ideological bias, partly ego, partly turf protection. Liberal journalists touted Air America as the left-wing radio alternative that would bring down Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio. It was a pipe dream. They don't want to see it fail. They don't want to acknowledge they were wrong. And they sure as heck don't want to be forced to admit that a bunch of rabble-rousing bloggers beat them to the story and shamed them into covering it.
Pretty much bullseye, I'd say. The NYT has ignored the story as well as Barnie Frank ignores scantily-clad buxom women. But sit down for this feeble explanation from the Old Gray Hag as to why it has failed to report on the story thus far:
[I]t seems to me that this story is still unfolding, and The Times, for the sake of all its readers, needs to get to the bottom of any improper conduct and assess Air America's future.
Right...because the NYT doesn't run stories based on innuendos or unless they have all the facts and the story goes through to completion, because to do so would be irresponsible! Right...and Michael Moore is a serious svelt and studly filmmaker whose work is 100% fact, not fiction.

But at least the Hag isn't liberal. Nosireebob, Ombudsman Byrone Calame "has proof. He called the editors who ignored the Air America story, and they denied that liberal bias was the reason. So the Times is not liberal. Time to go back to the divan." liberal media bias.

Cindy's profanity-laced tirade

I don't wanna talk about Cindy freakin' Sheehan. But I would be remiss if I didn't at least put a link here in case you were interested. She had a profanity-laced tirade at San Francisco State University (big surprise) last year. Something about some f-bombs (she's been hanging around John Kerry too long), impeaching W, the DC dog-dung scooper, and all of D.C. (Sidebar: Kira, run and hide!)

Anyway, tell me again how she's just a grieving mother and not some moonbat publicity hound.

Some people shouldn't breed

Quote from an AP story:
Kenny Jones brought his 6-year-old daughter, Scouten, to a vigil in Portland, Ore.

"I was raised to believe that war is no solution," Jones said.
Then you were raised as an idiot, sir. American Revolution, Civil War, WWI, WW II...any of this ringing a bell?

"Her mother and I are raising her that way, too."
Oh, good...ruin the poor girl's education and chances at life before she even has a fair shot. No doubt you'll beam with pride when she cashes her first welfare check.

UPDATE: More New London pile-on

Hat tip to Kira Zalan for bringing this to my attention.

It seems that after New London, CT, kicked these poor and middle-income families out of their homes (and had their larceny sanctioned by the liberal wing of the Supreme Court), the city decided to pile on them in other ways.

For one, the "fair market value" that they want to pay the homeowners are figures used from the year 2000...not today. I don't have to tell you how the prices of homes have risen exponentially since 2000, do I? After all, since 2000 was the year the city decided to seize the land, that's the year they want to use. How in the hell is a displaced resident supposed to buy a house in today's market with 2000's selling rate (and knowing how eminant domain works, the compensation amount would be a pittance even at 2000's selling rate)?

Also, since the residents had the unmitigated gall to actually fight for their own homes, that meant that the city had to stall its plans to begin development. So the city is going to charge...back rent! From the Fairfield County Weekly:
New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.
Surely my friends who saw nothing wrong with the confiscation most certainly have a big problem with New London's latest actions, right? Well, New London took their heartlessness and lack of shame one step further:
And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenants -- some residents' only form of income -- would also have to be paid to the city.

With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies , NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.
That's what happens when government is empowered at the expense of individuals.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Leahy: Roberts too extreme

Sen., Leahy...called John Roberts "extreme right-wing" as he read from his pre-written comments, likely dating back to the O'Connor retirement. I imagine those comments were written with a ______________ for the name of the nominee, and that blank is now filled in with John Roberts' name.

Anywho, here's Senator Depends, from the AP:
Firing his broadside one day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, Leahy said Roberts' views were "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy and access to justice."
Damn...looks like Leaky's got the GOP figured out! Too bad the electorate keeps re-electing such sadistic bastards...if only the "sheeple" knew better! Continuing:
He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.

"Those papers that we have paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party, then and now," Leahy said in his statement.
Emphasis mine. It's safe to say that one may infer that Leahy doesn't consider abortion to be a tragedy. Whether pro-choice or pro-life, isn't it a given that anyone lacking in depravity thinks abortion is a tragedy, one way or the other? Well, Leaky thinks that such a mentality is "far right"! And how extreme is it to oppose affirmative action, when the vast majority of Americans oppose it? Typical leftist myopia and detachment.

By the way, reading the story, you'll see that Senator Depends met with Ralph Neas, moonbat leader of the moonbat organization People For The American Way (which, incidentally, are not). Methinks he got his marching orders from said moonbat: "Senator, if you know what's good for you, you'll fight this Roberts guy or we'll take our tinfoil hats elsewhere!" Yes, ol' Ralphie was afraid that Leaky and the Dems' were going to "pull a French" and surrender on the Roberts nomination.

Justice Breyer now target of eminant domain campaign

As was pointed out here and elsewhere recently, SCOTUS Justice David Souter, who sided with the majority in the shameful Kelo v. New London decision where the SCOTUS ruled that your home is yours only at the leisure of your local government who may want to someday give it to a wealthy developer for "economic development", is the target of a campaign to have his residence in Weare, NH, taken away via eminant domain. The "public use" for his property? The "Lost Liberty Hotel", for starters.

Well, another co-conspirator in the left's decision to empower government and the wealthy over less influential Americans is now in the crosshairs: Justice Stephen Breyer. From World Net Daily:
Justice Stephen Breyer has joined his high-court colleague David Souter in feeling the wrath of the public, specifically the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, which wants the city of Plainfield, N.H., to seize Breyer's 167-acre vacation retreat by eminent domain.

In its place, Libertarians hope to see a "Constitution Park" featuring monuments celebrating the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.

"The point is: What goes around, comes around," party spokesman Mike Lorrey told the Concord Monitor. "This is a way of saying, 'You're going to be held to your own standard.'"
Is it unreasonable to demand that elite, effete pols be held to the same standards as the rest of us? More specifically, if the liberal majority in Kelo felt that some poor people in New London, CT, deserved to have their homes and lands confiscated from them, then surely their consistency demands that they acquiesce in the confiscation of their own property. For comfort, they can read their own rulings again and see if they still believe their own tripe.

Here's hoping that my Libertarian brethren in NH succeed in BOTH of these lesson-teaching endeavors.

Shouldn't liberals SUPPORT the war on terror?

I've stated here and elsewhere that many (if not most) liberals are so seething with hatred of George W. Bush that they actually root for American failure in the war on terror, especially in Iraq. Well, apparently some liberals see the folly of that mindset and lay out why the war on terror should be a war that liberals should support. It doesn't have to do with patriotism, but with reasons seen in the excerpt below:
The jihadist campaign is not some generic explosion of terrorism, but rather a calculated attack on all that liberals hold dear: tolerance, diversity, women's rights, the fundamental freedoms and protections of democracy, even trade unionism. In short, liberal values. That's why the liberal left makes a profound mistake if it concedes this war to George W. Bush and the right.
Hat tip to my friend Lisa Renee at Liberal Common Sense, who posted her thoughts on this and thus brought it to my attention.

Here's guessing that most liberals will reject this advice out of their insatiable quest to see Bush suffer a political defeat, even if it means victory to the bloodthirsty savages who want them (and all of us) dead.

Sidebar: I do find it ironic that the column came from the DLC magazine, since the DLC fancies itself to be a group of "centrist" Democrats, yet the column seems to be a rallying cry for liberals. After all, DLC Democrats run from the label "liberal" as fast as Ted Kennedy running from an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting! Be that as it may, I find the column to be incredibly thoughful and well-written. Read it,'s short.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Washington comPost backs out of 9/11 event

From the AP. Try not to drink anything when you get to the emphasis (added by me):
The Washington Post is withdrawing its offer of free advertising for an organized event by the Defense Department to memorialize the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the newspaper announced.

The Post backed out of the agreement after critics said the event, scheduled to take place four years after the attacks that hit New York and Washington and resulted in the crash of a commercial airliner over western Pennsylvania, would have a pro-war slant and that support of the event by the newspaper would compromise the Post's journalistic integrity.
I'll wait for you to wipe the tears of laughter from your eyes. OK, continuing:
"The Post has a code of conduct that says employees should avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest," said Rick Ehrmann, a Local representative for the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild. "In this case The Post was sponsoring the Pentagon's Freedom Walk, which ties the attack on Sept. 11 to the Iraq war, and of course, The Post's reporters have proven ... that there is no connection between the two, that that link is false."
Of course, any moonbat who reads ALL (not just selected Bobbitized snippets) of the 9/11 commission's report, as well as this piece of brilliance by Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard, knows that there indeed was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda...thus an indirect connection to 9/11.

That aside, the comPost's reputed "journalistic integrity" can be seen in my prior post about how an article (not a column, but a "news" article) went out of its way to advise liberals and the Democratic Party to keep running the Roberts-NARAL ad...despite knowing it was a baldfaced lie. Yessiree, we sure would hate to compromise that level of "journalistic integrity" by associating the comPost with a patriotic event, wouldn't we? liberal media bias.

I think I'm finally fed up with her

I've tried to stop talking about Cindy Sheehan and her vigil for her dead heroic son Casey. And while I've questioned her motives, I've done so respectfully because of her grief of having lost a child. Well, I'm tired of being diplomatic about her.

She's revealed herself to be nothing more than a publicity hound. She said she'll go away if the President meets with her (again). He's already met with her. Hell, some heads of state meet the President less than she did! But she told Keith Blabbermouth (see my prior post) that she hopes he doesn't meet with her, since it would render the anti-war protest null and void. She'd stop being a media darling, and she's addicted to the attention she's getting right now.

She's also weighed in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Neal Boortz reports rumors (unsubstantiated as of this moment) that she wanted to weigh in on global warming. I thought this was just a peace protest to meet with Bush over her dead son! I swear, for a mere "grieving mother", she sure sounds like a mouthpiece of the left, doesn't she?

My pal Van Helsing has a great post at Moonbattery on who is financing this "protest": Gold Star Families for Peace, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out and the Crawford Peace House. Also, she talked with John Conyers and Maxine Waters, two moonbat legislators from the left.

From Cindy's journal:
I couldn't walk through Camp Casey or the Crawford Peace House today without hugging people and getting my picture taken. Now I know how Mickey Mouse feels at Disneyland.
There. That should remove any remaining doubts as to what's important to her: she wants to feel like a rock star!

Monday, August 15, 2005

Bill Clinton's CD collection?

Story here.

Here's a few songs that I think would be included:

Barry White - "Can't Get Enough of Your Love"
Marvin Gaye - "Sexual Healing"
Stray Cats - "Sexy and Seventeen"
Marvin Gaye - "Let's Get It On"
George Michael - "I Want Your Sex"

Word has it that his favorite group is Barenaked Ladies, but this has not been verified.

Open post, so feel free to add additional songs you think would be in the Clinton Collection.

I hate to pile on, but...

I'm gonna. It's my blog. I can do that.

Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who lost her son Casey in Iraq last year, has been camped outside of Bush's Crawford ranch with the MoveOn moonbats. She's now declaring three things of note:

1. She's not going to pay taxes until her son is reanimated;
2. She's a foreign policy expert, which may have come about while fraternizing with some granola-eating tree-hugging MoveOn hippie retread named Moonbeam...or some anti-Semites instead.
3. She doesn't want to meet with the president, despite public declarations to the contrary.

"My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me and we'll put this war on trial." Again, Bush did not kill her son...Islamic terrorists did. She seems to have more contempt towards Bush than the actual murderers who took her baby. I'm sorry, but that's incredibly irrational. And don't pay your taxes, for all I care. The IRS will worry about that, not me.

Also, as to her foreign policy expertise: "You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares. Wow...that sounds an awful lot like al Qaeda's own Al-Jazeera public statements.

Well, if Bush would just meet with her, everything would be fine, right? Maybe, if not for the fact that she told the little-watched MSNBC show Countdown with Keith Blabberman that she hopes he doesn't meet with her (that would effectively kill her 15 minutes of fame):
OLBERMANN: Last question. It‘s pure politics. The nature of the media coverage you‘re getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn‘t it really better if President Bush doesn‘t meet with you?

SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it‘s great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don‘t want to give them any hints. And I think that‘s something they‘ve probably already thought about.
Unfortunately, she's tarnishing Casey's memory and embarrassing herself with these little escapades. She is enjoying her 15 minutes of fame at her family's expense. As Sol obseves: "Cindy's sacrifice is unfathomable, but as an adult responsible for her own actions, her politics and public statements are open to critique because she has (enthusiastically - ed.) put them out there."

Japan apologizes...for WWII aggression

For the love of God (insert non-Judeo-Christian deity here), are we ever gonna get past this "apologize for historic injustices" mentality? I thought it was only politically correct limp-spined Western cultures that felt the need to apologize for ancient grievances inflicted upon others. Alas, the Japanese fall prey to the P.C. gods/goddesses, too.

Good grief, people, it was over 60 years ago! It's safe to say that we have looooooooooonnnnnnnggggggg since moved beyond the hostilities of that era!

Anyway, depressing story here.

Washington comPost: NARAL ad shouldn't have been pulled

NARAL's communications director loses his, disgrace. NARAL pulls the ad due to massive public backlash, a sizeable chunk of which came from within the Democratic Party. Yet here is D.C.'s "premier" paper (and I use that term loosely) losing its mind over the shame that NARAL is rightfully experiencing. From the Washington comPost:
The decision by the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America to pull an incendiary ad attacking President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court has produced a fresh round of recriminations within the Democratic Party and a return to a nagging question: Has the opposition lost its nerve?

When conservatives complained about the ad -- which suggested that nominee John G. Roberts Jr. condoned violence against abortion clinics -- a number of prominent liberals joined in the criticism and elected Democrats ran for cover rather than defend the ad, which was dropped.
The last paragraph implies that the comPost thought the ad should have been defended.

My pal Van Helsing at (a blog that outlines the daily antics of the moonbat wing of liberalism, with which the comPost clearly belongs) had an excellent analysis of the comPost article (which read more like a column...surprise, surprise):
The Post then went on to huff righteously that Republicans never backed away from the Swiftboat Vets' allegations regarding the phoniness of John Kerry's loudly touted war hero status. The obvious difference — that the NARAL ad was indisputably false and the Vets' allegations weren't — was pointedly not acknowledged.

"Republicans don't mind running an ad that's entirely false, but Democrats have never learned, and I'm not sure many of them want to learn, how to play that kind of politics," opined Robert Shrum — who is to Karl Rove what Al Franken is to Rush Limbaugh. The ad had to be pulled because "they weren't getting support from any substantial quarter." (I guess the James Byrd commercial in 2000, which tied Bush to the racists who chained Byrd to a truck and dragged him to his death, doesn't ring any memory bells, huh Bob or comPost? - ed.)

The fact that the ad was vicious and false was not seen as relevant by either Shrum or the Post.


Displaying the Left's remarkable talent for moral equivalence, WaPo then compared Karl Rove's pointing out the obvious fact that liberals don't exactly have their heart in the War on Terror with Dick Durbin's comparison of US troops with genocidal Nazis and communists. Rove didn't apologize (why on earth would he?), whereas Durbin supposedly did (whether it was really an apology is debatable; mainly he blubbered like a baby in an attempt to portray himself as a victim). Without a hint of irony, the Compost attempted to spin this as evidence that Republicans won't play nice like Democrats.

While Lanny Davis shows some awareness of the reality out there beyond leftist rhetoric, other Democrats cling desperately to the empty and increasingly absurd snobbery that has to serve their party in the place of self-respect.

"The problem is our politically impractical insistence on always residing on the moral high ground," sniffed Kerry advisor Jim Jordan. "A large part of our ethos goes to what we perceive to be moral superiority and the sad truth is in politics that's sometimes inconvenient."

A more radical disconnect from reality would be difficult to imagine.
Wow. Comparing a commercial that implies sympathy with abortion clinic bombers with a commercial that questions a presidential candidates' war credentials! Maybe you like the Swift Boat commercials and maybe you didn't. Maybe you believed them or maybe you didn't. But does any fair-minded individual see any comparison between the commercials? I mean, if Swift Boat commercials said that Kerry had "cut off ears, cut off limbs"...oh, wait. Never mind. Kerry said that about others, though he never actually saw any of it. OK, like Dick Durbin did, that was a bad analogy. Then again, so was the comPost comparison of commercials.

Anyway, you get the point.