Housecleaning at Crush Liberalism

Some blogs, such as Michelle Malkin's, once allowed comments and subsequently stopped, after moonbats began degrading the quality of public discourse. Some blogs, such as the Kos kooks, actually thrive off of moonbat guano and wouldn't exist without their droppings.

This one that is currently occupying your time, though, has always strived to dissuade moonbats and other nutbars from commenting. As the title bar states, "Thoughtful lefties welcome, moonbats are encouraged to drink Clinton Kool-Aid and flutter away." I'd like to think my regular "thoughtful" liberal visitors know that their contributions are welcome here, even if there is intense political disagreement on the positions. The 'bats, on the other hand, are not welcome.

Well, clearly the education system in this country just isn't what it used to be, because evidently reading is no longer being taught. Some people just can't seem to read the "flutter away" part. I suppose I should be somewhat thankful that this blog has become a "moonbat magnet" of sorts. After all, it's a sign that (a) I am getting under their skin, enough to make them get out of the welfare line long enough to hunt-and-peck profanity- (and insantity-) laced screeds; and (b) I must have finally "arrived" in the blogosphere.

I suppose that's to be expected, if you think about it. I mean, while I'm clearly nowhere near the levels of Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, or scores of other mega-popular blogs, I've come a long way since mid-2004 when I first started this thing: three-time mention on Slate, mention on CBS News' Blogophile, honorable mention on Open Media Group, and even a recipient of The Wide Awakes Radio Network host (and parody master) The Nose On Your Face's "Fake Quote of the Day" Award. Baby steps, my friends, baby steps.

Anywho, my point...my point? Oh, yeah...my point! As a result of the growing popularity of this blog (and I am thankful to all of you non-moonbats who have contributed, either by comments or just simply reading my drivel), I must strive to improve the product here to keep it moving in the right direction (no pun intended). Part of that endeavor means that I have to be more thorough about "taking out the trash"...specifically, the useless comments and commenters. I want my readers to be able to enjoy the dialog here, and it's hard for them to do that if they are subjected to a barrage of moonbat droppings.

Therefore, for now and the foreseeable future, comments will be moderated. Quite simply, that means that you will leave comments as you always do, but they will not immediately appear. They will not appear until I approve them. I will try my best to approve them as quickly as possible, keeping my comments administration tool (Haloscan) open all the time, and checking in periodically to approve/reject comments. With the exception of overnight hours, possibly holidays and weekends, and the always irritating ISP outage, there shouldn't be too many times that your comments will be pending for hours at a time. So please...unless you are a moonbat, do NOT stop commenting!

I'm a big boy. Rude and useless nutbar comments don't bother me. However, I know that they bother you, as many of you have told me. Me, I can delete them after only reading a couple of words or seeing who the sender is. If comment moderation is enabled, their pap will never see your eyes. This blog will be all the better for it.

That is all. Proceed as usual! :-)

Photo of the day

Ignoring the fact that this was taken at the aforementioned "Death to Israel" moonbat rally in Salt Lake City, and thus horribly out of place, one has to wonder what they taught in this poor sap's high school biology class:

Yeah...hands off of this man's uterus, Bushitler McCheneyburton! Go get your own, you neocon scum!

"Protesters iz dumm!"

Not enough protestors? Hire the homeless!

A "Death to Israel" moonbat rally in Salt Lake City was apparently going to be a little short of, shall we say, "photo-op" agitators...er, "protestors". Rather than import some out-of-staters, why not turn to the local "urban outdoorsmen"? From the Salt Lake Tribune:

One thing is undeniable today, Utahns are following these protests and rallies very closely. At the noon hour, a group of dusty construction workers are buying lunch at the 7-Eleven on Third West.

"I wonder what happened at that Death to Israel rally," says one. "What was that all about?"

When the hardhats learn that the organizer of the Death to Israel rally is offering $10 an hour to the homeless to be "surrogate protesters," they shake their heads.

"Better than minimum wage to sell your soul," says one.

Better than the packs of smokes that Gore handed out to the homeless in Wisconsin in 2000 to buy votes, too! These days, being a "domicile-challenged American" has its advantages at times, doesn't it?

Irony of the day

If you haven't heard, the CBS show Survivor is planning a season where the castaways are separated by their ethnicities. Many people are outraged. The New York Post shines a light on one such group:

Yesterday, members of the council's Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus (BLAC) met with the press to complain about - of all things - classifying individuals by race and/or ethnic origins.

The issue is an upcoming TV-reality series that will divide up contestants based on ethnicity.

Yeah, that's a pretty obnoxious notion. But if the council members feel that it's repugnant for TV producers to classify people by race - and, again, we agree that it is - then why have they formed a race-driven cliques like BLAC?

The council is hardly unique in this respect. But that doesn't make it right.

Just ironic.

Ironic indeed. However, here's guessing that the irony is completely lost on BLAC and other such racially-identified groups.

Pink slips in the Inbox?

No, this isn't an article about Barney Frank's fashion tastes. It's about a personnel move from Radio Shack that is, to say the least, pretty damned dehumanizing. From Breitbart/AP:

RadioShack Corp. notified about 400 workers by e-mail that they were being dismissed immediately as part of planned job cuts.

Employees at the Fort Worth headquarters got messages Tuesday morning saying: "The work force reduction notification is currently in progress. Unfortunately, your position is one that has been eliminated."

Company officials had told employees in a series of meetings that layoff notices would be delivered electronically, spokeswoman Kay Jackson said. She said employees were invited to ask questions before Tuesday's notification on a company intranet site.

Derrick D'Souza, a management professor at the University of North Texas, said he had never heard of such a large number of terminated employees being notified electronically. He said it could be seen as dehumanizing to employees.

"If I put myself in their shoes, I'd say, 'Didn't they have a few minutes to tell me?'" D'Souza said.

While I do not dispute the legality of this move by Radio Shack, I guess I'm still from a different era when it comes to human resources. I think that if you're going to lay people off (or just flat out fire them), bring them in and let them know face-to-face. If you fear some kind of confrontation, then have security in there. A little decency in such a sensitive situation doesn't seem to be too much to expect...does it?

UN "demands" of Israel?

Kofi Annan "renewed his demands Wednesday that Israel immediately lift its sea and air blockade of Lebanon."

Israel said "Kiss my tuchus!"

Notice how Kofi seems more concerned with Israel abiding by the "cease-fire agreement" than he is with the Lezbos abiding by the same deal? If Israel doesn't watch it, she may find out the hard way that the UN will enforce its resolutions with the same famous iron-fist approach to which we're accustomed from them! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

Kennedrunk laments Bush reaction to Katrina

From the moonbatosphere:

Americans still remember vividly the scenes from a year ago when Hurricane Katrina swept away entire communities, sent thousands of families for shelter in the Super Dome, and left hundreds of thousands more homeless and jobless. Americans throughout the land were moved to help in any way they could - sending donations and aid and volunteering to meet the needs of our fellow citizens. We responded because that's what Americans do. We care for our country, help our neighbors, and lend a hand to those in need.

However, as we all painfully know, the Administration did not live up to those values in our government's response to the crisis. Our fellow citizens were facing the worst devastation imaginable, and FEMA was nowhere to be found. The President stayed on his Texas ranch for days after the storm. Instead of joining local leaders in responding to the tragedy, he chose to fly over New Orleans for a brief look from Air Force One, well above the suffering below.

Are my eyes deceiving me, or is Uncle Teddy accusing Bush of...pulling a Chappaquiddick?

Kennedy is lamenting the suffering of people "below" while Bush did nothing, pondering his options, walking along the streets (or, in this case, flying the skies) while impervious to the plight of the submerged? This Chivas-induced chutzpah is quite a sight to behold!

MSM knew there was no Plame crime, but didn't care

The damage from the Plamegate non-affair has been done, thanks to the willing accomplices of the left...aka the MSM. As the Godfather notes:

Real damage to real people, to a real country, during time of war, and it was done on purpose, and I cannot stress this enough. The whole thing is scandalous to me. It reeks of a purposeful fraud because these people that are reporting all of this about Bush and Cheney and Rove and Scooter Libby had to know that it was Armitage, they had to know.

They couldn't possibly not know, not during the whole two-year period. They might not have known during the first four months, but at some point during this they had to know that it was Armitage and yet it didn't matter, didn't fit the template. So cast it aside. Armitage isn't talking so what do we got to lose by reporting that it's Rove or that Fitzgerald thinks it's Rove or that Fitzgerald is going to indict Rove?
...
But there is an interesting story here by our old buddy Nedra Pickler in the Associated Press. This is the last little bit here on the Plamegate story. "Karl Rove was not 'frog-marched' out of the White House in handcuffs as his detractors had hoped, but the past year was certainly a low point for President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist." Why? Why was it a low point? Nothing Rove did made it a low point. Not one darn thing that Rove did made it a low point, Nedra. You had a bona fide media scandal here that targeted people who had nothing to do with it, and most of you in the Drive-By Media knew it all along.

"A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months, then he was forced to surrender a key policy role in a move that raised questions about his authority in the White House. Rove fell under a legal cloud after a grand jury began investigating the leak." That just infuriates me. The investigation was pointless as well! The investigation -- you know what? There would not have been a crime were it not for the investigation! The only crime in this whole thing, unless you want to say Armitage committed one. (laughing) The only crime occurred as a result of the investigation which should not have happened in the first place once the justice department found out it was Armitage. What's the point? Why go any further with it?

The whole thing was who leaked her name to Novak. Answer: Richard Armitage and his buddy, Colin Powell. I would love to know his involvement in this, too. I really would. You know, Armitage is the kind of guy that would take a bullet. But I, ladies and gentlemen, am not going to speculate about things I don't know. I'm sharing my curiosity with you, but I am making no claims. This whole thing is ridiculous. It is worse than an example of how the media can poison the minds of the population. Staking out Karl Rove at his home, following him home from the White House, seeing if he stopped off at a phone booth, you know, change into the Superman suit and go destroy somebody else at the CIA or what have you, all the while the people doing the investigation knew it was Armitage!

How soon until the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) demand that Armitage be "frog-marched" out in handcuffs, hmm?

Ray Robison illustrates how the damage had been done:

But what was the real damage and is it calculable? Interestingly enough, there are numbers that show what the damage was to the President’s credibility. Polling Report has a page devoted to the Plame leak case. Let’s review:

ABC/Washington Post asked in September of 2003:

"The U.S. Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether someone in the White House broke the law by identifying a former diplomat's wife as an undercover CIA agent. The former diplomat claims this was done to punish him for criticizing U.S. policy on Iraq. Have you heard or read anything about this situation, or not?"

09/03 Yes- 68% No - 32%

So over two-thirds of American’s had heard the allegation. Now compare that to the recent survey that indicated how few people could name two SCOTUS justices at only 24%. I bet Ford and Coca-Cola would love that kind of market exposure.

So how effective was the marketing of this lie? The same poll asked:

"Just your best guess, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that someone in the White House leaked this classified information: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely?"
Very Likely - 34%
Somewhat Likely - 38%
Somewhat Unlikely - 13%
Very Unlikely - 10%
No Opinion - 5%

That’s right, the reporting was so damning that 72% of American’s indicated they believed the White House did it. Close to three-quarters of the United States populace were duped by the media reporting that the Bush Administration had done it in retaliation.
...
So 78% of Americans heard that George Bush personally leaked documents to undermine war critics. Of course, the fact that it is not a leak since the President has de-classification authority was not included in the question. The really interesting part is now that we know for sure that the administration didn’t go after Plame, how did people determine that these documents indicated the President did it? In other words, they were all just going off media reports that were wrong.
...
A phenomenal 63% of the public believed the President acted at least unethically based on mainstream media reporting.
...
...Another CNN poll reported that only a staggering 10% of the public believed the Bush administration was innocent on this matter.

Now contrast this to coverage of the Lewinski scandel in which President Clinton actually admitted to committing wrongdoing (eventually). Polling report

"As a result of his actions in the Monica Lewinsky investigation, do you think Bill Clinton should lose his license to practice law, or should he keep his license to practice law?"

58% of respondents indicated in May of 2000 that a lawyer should keep his law license even after committing perjury.

This is a phenomenal indicator of the power of the media to create a news story, form the reporting template, and hammer it in until it becomes ingrained as fact. Of course, it goes without saying the media owes some balanced coverage to offset the political damage the Plame affair created. Riiiiggghhhtttt.

Not holding my breath for that kind of balance, Ray.

Nope...no liberal media bias!

How to "fast" properly

From Indepundit, talking with a Code Pinko:

Next, I ask Carrie how she's coping on her "Troops Home Fast" hunger strike. (audio)

“So, the last time I ate was on the Third of July...”
“Hungry?”

“...No, not really. I’m occasionally a little bored with fruit juice and water. And I also allow myself, occasionally, wine or some beer. A couple of nights ago, it was Amelia’s birthday, and we were down on the Eastern Shore, and they were eating lobster and soft-shell crab. I had beer... (laughs) and water.”

I never realized one could drink beer during a hunger strike.

I might have to try that sometime.

Commenter Skul (who leaves great comments here, too) made the following humorous comment:

"Dang!! I'm starting my hunger strike just as soon as I get home from work. Oh boy!"

Happy Hour = Fasting...cool!

Karr cleared

Now that John Mark Karr appears to be nothing more than a wannabe killer who wanted his 15 minutes of fame in the sickest of ways, he is no longer facing charges for murdering JonBenet Ramsey. Talk about another black eye for the Boulder D.A.! Neal Boortz has an interesting theory about why Karr really wanted to be charged:

The strange slender pasty man will not be charged with the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It's back to square one. The vindication claimed for the family of JonBenet is gone. John Mark Karr will not be prosecuted for the murder. In a few days he'll be off to Sonoma County, California to face some misdemeanor child pornography charges.

This still looks like an elaborate jailbreak to me.

Here's Mark Karr in Thailand. He's just been fired from a teaching job. Perhaps he feared that he was facing charges in Thailand involving his sexual obsession with children. How hard is it to figure out that you would much rather face misdemeanor charges in California than who-knows-how-many years in a Thai jail? So .... confess to JonBenet's murder, get a taxpayer-funded ride back to the U.S. while sipping on champagne and gobbling prawns, then give up the DNA sample, watch the case fall apart, and head to California to face your misdemeanor charge. Plus .. he gets all the publicity and fame he so badly wanted! He was even talking about Johnny Depp playing him in a movie!

Do you want a ridiculous quote? Well try this one from Seth Temin, identified by some as Karr's defense attorney: "We're deeply distressed by the fact that they took this man and dragged him here from Bangkok, Thailand, with no forensic evidence confirming the allegations against him and no independent factors leading to a presumption he did anything wrong." Yeah, right. I'll tell you what Temin is deeply distressed about. He's not going to have a high-profile case to try, that's what. Karr wanted to be dragged here from Bangkok. All part of the plan.

I think that Colorado Gov. Bill Owens got it about right when he slammed the prosecutors for wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars to bring this creep back to Colorado with so little evidence. The very day Karr's name surfaced it seemed clear that what we had was a publicity seeking sicko with no real connection to the case. Owens thinks that Mary Lacy, the district attorney "should be held accountable for the most extravagant and expensive DNA test in Colorado history."

Yeah ... like that's going to happen.

My hope is that we've now heard the last from the strange slender pasty man.

Quick news bites

Clowns killed. Don't worry...not our CLOWNS!

Ernesto heading my way. When is Bushitler McRummyburton going to do something about these kinds of illegal aliens??

Moonbat mayor of Salt Lake City in cherry-red Utah catching hell for bringing in Cindy She-hag for anti-soldier...er, "anti-war"...protest. Says he won't run for another term. Go figure.

The Plamegate fiasco is over, back where it started...nowhere. It was a dog-and-pony show, orchestrated by the left and special persecutor...er, "prosecutor"...Patrick Fitzgerald. When you've got uber-liberal David Cornhole of The Nation jumping on Fitz, you know that the proverbial shark has been jumped. My leftie friends will need to hook onto a different conspiracy theory, but take solace in the fact that the moonbatosphere has plenty.

Kofi Annan is persona non grata in Lebanon. If the Lezbos knew that Kofi shared their "disdain" (to be euphemistic) for Jews, they'd cut the guy some slack.

School officials and SWAT team rescue school from...burrito?

I may have officially just seen it all. From MSNBC:

A call about a possible weapon at a middle school prompted police to put armed officers on rooftops, close nearby streets and lock down the school. All over a giant burrito.

Someone called authorities Thursday after seeing a boy carrying something long and wrapped into Marshall Junior High. (Don't even go there, you pervs! - Ed.)

The drama ended two hours later when the suspicious item was identified as a 30-inch burrito filled with steak, guacamole, lettuce, salsa and jalapeños and wrapped inside tin foil and a white T-shirt.

Hilarity ensues.

In the meantime, more than 30 parents, alerted by a radio report, descended on the school. Visibly shaken, they gathered around in a semicircle, straining their necks, awaiting news.

"There needs to be security before the kids walk through the door," said Heather Black, whose son attends the school.

What, a "burrito bomb squad"? Don't these people know that a burrito is a weapon only after it has been eaten?

For the love of God, this woman must lose!

Today's "this woman must lose" post isn't about Shrillary or Pe-loser, but about a Republican. Specifically, about Katherine Harris. From Newsmax:

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

The Florida Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.

News flash, Rep. Hairbrained: abortion is already legal. Gay marriage has been written into several states' constitutions. Settle down with the melodrama, OK?

I agree with one thing: there is no "separation of church and state", my friends. It's not in the Constitution, nor is it in the Declaration of Independence. I've read the First Amendment a million times, and it's not in there. I may be nitpicking here, but I cringe whenever I read "the constitution's wall separating church and state"! There is no such thing.

Having said that, I think it's safe to say that we are in a theocracy-free country where each of us are allowed to send our souls to Hell, if we see fit. "Sin" is already legal: we are free (i.e. legally allowed) to engage in fornication, adultery, swearing, cohabitating (i.e. shacking up), viewing of p0rn, drinking to excess, eating to excess, etc. Is Harris suggesting that each of those freedoms be legislatively revoked?

While we're at it, I'd like to know if she thinks that Jewish legislators plan on writing "sin" into law, or if they are incapable of proper governance? I'm obviously not the only one who wonders that:

Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans who called them offensive and not representative of the party.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who is Jewish, told the Orlando Sentinel that she was "disgusted" by the comments.

While Congresswoman Schultz may or may not have been merely posturing politically, I must concur with her expressed sentiments.

Republicans have been avoiding Harris like Hillary avoids Arkansas. We Floridians have to pray that Harris is defeated in the primary, because she absolutely cannot beat Bill Nelson in the Senate race this November. The good news is that Harris has primary opponents. The bad news is that they are unknowns who may splinter the votes enough to hand Harris the party's nomination. The somewhat unpopular and very vulnerable Nelson is thanking his lucky stars that Harris is in this race.

Why you shouldn't vote for Dems, the GOP, or Libertarians

In case you can't really think of a decent reason to vote for a candidate or his/her particular party, at least have some ammo on why you'd vote against a party, right? Well, that's the sentiment from Neal Boortz:

Why you shouldn't vote Republican

They have absolutely no fiscal discipline whatsoever. No congress has ever blown money on vote-buying programs quite like the current Republican congress has.

There are far too many Republicans who want to take their personal religious blueprints for behavior and make them law.

The seem unwilling to press the advantage when it is theirs to press.

They're prudes.

Stem cell research.

Donald Wildmon

The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.

Democrats think that it's odd that the jails are so full while our crime rate is going down.

The Medicare Prescription Drug benefit for the Gimme Generation.

If they had their way, Terri Schiavo's soul would still not be at rest.

They pay more attention to K Street than they do to the American workers and businessmen carrying the load.

They can't even protect America's borders.

Do you want your kids to come home from a government school and tell you that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Why you shouldn't vote Democrat

They clearly will not defend America from Islamic Fascism ... not now ... not until the price of that defense is catastrophic.

They think terrorism is a law enforcement problem.

Their war against individualism.

They think America is great because of its government.

They seem to think that income is distributed, not earned.

They promote class warfare.

They have almost single-handedly destroyed black culture in America.

Hillary Clinton.

They're joined at the hip with teacher's unions.

Taxes can never be too high for Democrats.

They fully intend to destroy talk radio.

Their love of mob rule.

The fully intend to turn illegal aliens into Democrat voters.

Like the Republicans; they refuse to protect America's borders

Why your shouldn't vote Libertarian

With over 50% of the American people harboring strong libertarian feelings, they can't manage to mount a viable third-party campaign. How would they manage to govern?

Not only will they not defend America's borders, they don't really think the borders need defending.

Though philosophically they're right, they fail to see that their "legalize drugs" agenda isn't exactly a winner with the American people.

They never jumped on eminent domain abuse as the party agenda. People will react when they think their property rights are being threatened .... and the Libertarians couldn't take advantage of this.

Have you seen the way some of the people at their convention dress?

I don't necessarily agree with 100% of these things, but overall, I concur. I actually prefer to vote for a candidate or a party rather than against them, but as I've noted before, it's awfully tough to do that these days. If campaign slogans were required to adhere to "truth in advertising" laws, a reasonable slogan would be "Vote for us, because while we really do suck...we suck much less than they do!"

Breaking news! I have figured out how to end the war on terror!

The kidnapped Fox News reporter and photographer have been released, and they are alive. How did they secure their release? Observe:

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told Fox. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

By Allah, that's it! All we infidels have to do is abandon our own religions (or lack of religions) and convert to Islam! Hell, bring the troops home right now from everywhere! No sense fighting with our new brothers, right?

Think about the benefits, my friends. I mean, aside from the obvious bennies, like the virgins (or plateful of grapes, depending on your interpretation). If we all become Muslims, then Al Qaeda isn't going to want us dead anymore! Hey, Israel, that goes for you, too. To heck with your religion...I mean, it's only served to paint a big target on your collective backs. Just by converting to Islam, the entire Middle East that has wanted you dead for six decades will immediately become your best buds! Ditch the yarmulkes, don the turbans, put your servile wenches in burqas...instant peace!

Our newly found Muslim brothers can help us with goons like Castro and Chavez, too. Piss us off too much, and we'll be sending our scimitar-toting decapitating Muslim mafia goons over to Cuba and Venezuela to take care of business, supreme Islam style! Are you listening, Kim Jong-Il?

Now if you folks will excuse me, I need to go procure a non-flushed Koran and get better acquainted with my new religion. I guess I won't be needing that Bible thingee. Sorry, Jesus, but Allah has my back (and my head) on this one. For my kind readers, feel free to comment...but if you tick me off, then you'd better convert, too, before I put your dome in a knapsack!

For those of you on the left, this entire post was sarcasm.

Pelosi: Trust me, I'm a bitch...plus other gems

From Time's puff-piece on Nancy Pe-loser:

When Frost, who is now out of Congress, unsuccessfully ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee last year, Pelosi repeatedly rebuffed his attempts to get her support. While she declines to discuss those conflicts, Pelosi told Time, "Anybody who's ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me."

That warning implicitly extends to the American electorate, too.

By the way, for any person who insists that Nancy is not a liberal (and yes, I've heard a couple of talking heads try to peddle that hogwash), just take her own word for it:

The 66-year-old San Francisco lawmaker is an aggressive, hyperpartisan liberal pol who is the Democrats' version of Tom DeLay, minus the ethical and legal problems of the former Republican House leader (yeah, she's squeaky clean! - Ed.) .
...
Once in Congress, she was embraced especially by liberal Democrats. She opposed the Gulf War and in a 1996 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle said, "I pride myself in being called a liberal" and "I don't consider myself a moderate." In 2001, on the strength of the votes of party progressives, Pelosi won an intense battle with Maryland's Steny Hoyer, who is more centrist, to be the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

Remember this when Democrats try to pooh-pooh attempts to (accurately) portray their party and their leadership as being coastal leftist elites.

Also, ideas? Aw, ideas-schmideas!

So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. (Funny how they were singing a different tune under Bubba just a few years ago. Maybe that Kerry flip-flopping thing is endemic to the whole party? - Ed.) Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. "Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member.

Personally, I think "never" is a great time for Democrats to impose their solutions on America, but I'm going to hazard a guess that Americans actually want to know what Dems stand for other than "Bush sucks."

I'm furious at how the so-called "conservative" politicians are running the country right now, but "Speaker Pelosi" almost single-handedly guarantees that I will do my part to...as much as I hate to do it...keep the "drunken sailor" (for those of you on the left, that is not a reference to Ted Kennedy) party in charge of things.

French being...French?

I swear, these guys are just way to easy to ridicule. Caption from al-Reuters:

A French United Nations vehicle drives past a poster of Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in Tyre, in southern Lebanon, August 26, 2006.
REUTERS/Ammar Awad

The photo attached to the caption?

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that a white flag that the Frenchies are toting? I know, al-Reuters has been guilty of rampant staging and photoshopping lately, but for some reason, I'm thinking that this pic's legit.

The French...aw, to heck with it! Why beat a dead horse?

USA to Israel: Don't use bombs that we gave you!

Our leaders can be downright stupid sometimes. From the NYT:

The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.

The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said, “We have heard the allegations that these munitions were used, and we are seeking more information.” He declined to comment further.

Why even bother giving Israel bombs, then? I mean, if it's going to piss off leaders of countries who already hate us, it sure would suck for them to hate us even more, huh?

It's OK for America to use American bombs to strike terrorists. But by God (insert preferred deity here), let Israel use our bombs to strike at terrorists, and those Jew bastards must PAY! Also, America gives Israel arms for self-defense in a part of the world where they're surrounded by camel-humping jihadists who want them dead...and such arming is bad! But Syria and Iran can ship arms to terrorist groups hell bent on the destruction of Israel and the West...and the "international community" is quieter than a Dixie Chicks concert in Memphis!

Continuing:

The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations (such as Hezbollah and Hamas? - Ed.) in southern Lebanon, the officials said.

We...are relying on reports from...the United Freakin' Nations?? Yeah, now there is an objective source!

Finally, we see the NYT being...well, the NYT:

Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.

Sorry to beat that dead horse, but it bears emphasizing.

Negotiating with the enemy?

Though technically a "joke", the following parable could easily apply in trying to appease Islamofascism:

A man was out hunting for bears one day, and soon came across a large, trophy sized bear. He raised his rifle and took careful aim. Just as he was about to pull the trigger, the bear turned and began to speak to him!

"Isn't it better to talk than to shoot? What do you want? Let's negotiate the matter," said the bear.

Lowering his rifle in shock, the hunter thought a second, and then replied, "I want a fur coat."

"Good," said the bear, "that is a negotiable item. I only want a full stomach, so let us sit down and negotiate a compromise."

They sat down to negotiate and after a time the bear walked away, alone. The negotiations had been successful.

The bear had a full stomach, and the hunter had his fur coat!

Maybe the hunter didn't "concede" enough? LOL!

"FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Abortion Pill"

I believe this headline is completely misleading. I'll elaborate in a second. Anyway, the article:

Women may buy the morning-after pill without a prescription — but only with proof they're 18 or older, federal health officials ruled Thursday, capping a contentious 3-year effort to ease access to the emergency contraceptive.

Girls 17 and younger still will need a doctor's note to buy the pills, called Plan B, the Food and Drug Administration told manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The compromise decision is a partial victory for women's advocacy and medical groups that say eliminating sales restrictions could cut in half the nation's 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies.

The pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills. When a woman takes the pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex, they can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.

"If she already is pregnant" and "the pills have no effect", then she can't be aborting the baby by taking the "ineffective" pills, now can she?

Look, whether one likes it or not, abortion is legal. A woman who is legally an adult can choose to have an abortion, right? If she can have an abortion, then she can have a pill that keeps her from getting pregnant in the first place (and thus avoiding the "need" for an abortion in the future). Given the choice of an after-the-fact contraception or an after-the-fact abortion, which would seemingly be the preferable approach?

Here's where I have a problem:

Plan B's maker was disappointed that the FDA imposed the age restriction and pledged to continue trying to get the agency to try to eliminate it.

"While we still feel that Plan B should be available to a broader age group without a prescription, we are pleased that the agency has determined that Plan B is safe and effective for use by those 18 years of age and older as an over-the-counter product," said Bruce L. Downey, Barr's chairman.

As a condition of approval, Barr agreed to track whether pharmacists are enforcing the age restriction, by, among other things, sending anonymous shoppers to buy Plan B. The FDA said that Barr is to conduct that formal tracking at least twice in the first year of sales and annually thereafter, and report stores that break the rules to their state pharmacy licensing boards.

Let's get this straight, people: underage girls should not be having abortions or taking medications without parental consent! I find it appalling that the drug manufacturer is going to press ahead with letting teenie boppers make that kind of decision without their parents' input. Barr should shut the hell up and be thankful he got the approval that he did, savor the victory, and leave 16-year-olds the hell alone.

Sidebar: this is great news for perverts like Scott Ritter, who can now purchase Plan B for any 16-year-olds he may fear having impregnated!

They're worth how much?

From San Jose:

The city of San Jose agreed to pay nearly $800,000 to the Hells Angels motorcycle club to settle claims police needlessly killed three dogs during raids on club members' homes.

Ninety officers participated in the raids on the club's San Jose headquarters and nine members' homes following a 1997 killing at a strip club.

Steve Tausan, a bouncer and Hells Angels member, was later acquitted of murder and none of the bikers whose homes were targeted was ever charged.

In a lawsuit, the club claimed the dogs were killed after police refused to give owners and caretakers a chance to secure the animals.

"We sincerely hope the city will engage in changes to its policy and training to make sure that this doesn't happen again," said Karen Snell, one of the club's lawyers, after the settlement was announced Tuesday.

San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle said the city was forced to settle because an appeals court ruled shooting the dogs violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

"Given the totality of the circumstances and the court's decision, it's a decision we can live with," Doyle said.

I mean, I understand how people can get attached to their dogs. But $800,000 for three dogs? That's $266,666.67 per dog! I knew b#tches could be expensive, but I had no idea! :-D

29-year-old woman eager to be "de-flowered"

Not political, but entertaining, this should be filed under "stuff I couldn't make up if I tried", OK? From FNC:

"Congratulations, you're 30," she can handle.

"Congratulations, you're 30 and you're still not getting any action," was more than she could stand.

An impending birthday has caused many a rational person to do something a little out of the ordinary. Some people buy a sports car. Others get themselves a significantly younger significant other. Sarah DiMuro decided she needs to get it on — for the first time ever.

DiMuro, a self-proclaimed 29-year-old virgin, says she wants to lose her virginity before her 30th birthday on Nov. 7, and she's enlisted Jane magazine to aid her in her quest to get busy, the New York Daily News reports.

"I'm a little bit anxious about all of this," DiMuro said. "I guess this is why my stomach hurts so much. I never went all the way before because I didn't feel right — I just didn't."

Has she been stuck in a time warp? I mean, "went all the way"? I don't think I've heard it put that way since The Breakfast Club...21 years ago! Anywho, continuing:

Once DiMuro, who says she didn't have her first kiss until she was 23, decided what needed to be … uh … done, she arranged to have her blog detailing her blind dating quest to snag Mr. Right Now published in Jane.

But her mission to do the deed attracted the attention of more than just the magazine and its readers.

"The Insider" had arranged to have a camera crew at her first blind date, and rumor has it that "Today" expressed interest in her spicy story.

"Me, I haven't done so much with my life in terms of social stuff. So this is my adventure — with a kind of scientific method," DiMuro said.

I've seen her picture, though I don't feel like linking to it, so if you're that curious, Google her name and you'll find it. She's not bad looking at all.

For fear of alienating the Harem, I shall keep my juvenile observations and comments to myself...but just this once! LOL!

New glossary

I've decided to post a glossary of terms to be found here at CL that may be useful for new and old visitors alike. The glossary is here, and a permalink will be put in my profile.

Of course, suggestions for new/edited terms are welcome and will be duly considered. :)

Quote of the day

From Rudy Giuliani:

Rudy Giuliani took a swipe at a potential rival for the White House in 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton, saying a Clinton candidacy would energize Republican voters and campaign contributors.

"Hillary probably has the distinction of being the best fund-raiser for the Democratic Party – and the best fund-raiser for the Republican Party,” the former New York City mayor declared.

Yours truly on CBS News!

Your humble host's blog has been mentioned (along with some heavy hitters) on CBS News' Blogophile segment. I am honored that Ms. McNamara was kind enough to link to my post about Mikie the Hutt's propaganda video being used by bloodlusting camel jockeys (affectionately known by al-Reuters as "militants" and "insurgents") in Iraq.

Thanks again to CBS News for the link...much appreciated!

Islamofascists release video and transcript of adbucted camera crew

From the Beeb:

A previously unknown militant (sic) group has released a video of two Western journalists who were kidnapped in the Gaza Strip nine days ago.

Olaf Wiig, 36, and Steve Centanni, 60, of US channel Fox News, were shown telling their families they were in "fairly good health".

A fax from the "Holy Jihad Brigades" to news agencies demanded the US release "Muslim prisoners" within 72 hours.

The video was sent to the Qatar-based TV news channel al-Jazeera TV. (Boy, the jihadists sure feel comfy enough to send correspondence to their contacts at the "independent" and "unbiased" al-Jazeera Terrorvision Network, don't they? - Ed.)

The two men were kidnapped in Gaza City on 14 August. The footage shows the two men seated on the ground side-by-side and cross-legged, in an apparently darkened room, dressed in tracksuits.

Call for pressure

"We're in fairly good condition, we're alive and well," Mr Centanni, a US citizen and a Fox News reporter, says in the video.

"Just want to let you know I'm here and alive and give my love to my family and friends and ask you to do anything you can to try to help us get out of here."

He adds that the two men have been given access to clean water, showers, toilets, food and clothing.

Mr Wiig, a cameraman from New Zealand, asks his family and supporters to apply pressure for their release on the Palestinian government in Gaza and the West Bank.

"To my family, I love you all. Please don't worry, I'll do all the worrying for us," Mr Wiig says.

The group also issued pictures of the journalists' identity cards, and, in a separate statement faxed to news agencies, called for a prisoner release within three days.

"We will give you one chance that will not be repeated - the liberation of Muslims detained in American prisons in exchange for the detainees in our hands," the statement read.

"We give you a deadline of 72 hours starting from today at noon to decide."

The group did not say what would happen to the two journalists if the US did not meet their demand.

"If you implement our conditions we will implement our promise, otherwise you will have to wait," the statement said.

"The group did not say what would happen to the two journalists if the US did not meet their demand"? If history is any indicator, they will be decapitated on video, and the tape will wind up in the hands of...you guessed it...al-Jazeera.

For some recent leftist commenters here: these are the savages you think we should be negotiating with, gentlemen!

Liberal activist judge in NSA surveillance case: gross conflict of interest

From the New York Slimes:

The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

The group, Judicial Watch, a conservative organization here that found the connection, said the link posed a possible conflict for the judge, Anna Taylor Diggs, and called for further investigation.

“The system relies on judges to exercise good judgment, and we need more information and more explanation about what the court’s involvement was in support of the A.C.L.U.,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which gained attention in the 1990’s for ethics accusations against President Bill Clinton.

Two observations here:

1. If this isn't a gross conflict of interest by Judge Taylor, then I'm a ham sandwich; and

2. Notice how the Slimes calls Judicial Watch a "conservative organization"? Whenever Judicial Watch sues or goes after a Republican target, the MSM suddenly extends them credibility by referring to them as a nonpartisan "watchdog group." Yet let the target of JW be a leftist, and they magically morph back into a partisan "conservative organization." Proof here. Nope, no liberal media bias! Or, in the case of the Detroit Free Press, just pull a John Kerry and characterize JW as both conservative AND nonpartisan.

Anywho, continuing:

Questions about a possible conflict of interest appear likely to raise new concerns. The Web site for the group that supported the A.C.L.U., the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan in Detroit, lists Judge Taylor as its secretary and a trustee. It indicates that trustees make all financing decisions for the organization, whose assets exceed $350 million and which gives grants for a variety of community projects.

Judge Taylor declined to comment on the matter on Tuesday, and the foundation did not respond to a message for comment on what role if any she had in awarding the civil liberties grants.
...
Federal law requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing a case if their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned” based on factors like a financial or personal relationship with a party in the case.

"Reasonably" be questioned? Well, to paraphrase the master of word parsing Bill Clinton, I suppose it depends on what the meaning of the word "reasonably" is. Observe:

Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University, said he did not think there were grounds for Judge Taylor to remove herself from the case.

“The question is whether her impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’’ Professor Gillers said, “and the fact that she sits on the board of a group that gives money to the plaintiff for an otherwise unrelated endeavor would not in my mind raise reasonable questions about her partiality on the issue of warrantless wiretapping.”

But he said it would have been wise for Judge Taylor to disclose the issue to the participants in the case. “If there’s any doubt,” Professor Gillers said, “disclose, because it avoids suspicion later.”

Wow...just, wow! "The fact that she sits on the board of a group that gives money to the plaintiff" means that questioning her partiality is unreasonable?? Amazing. But if it is "unreasonable" to think she may be partial to a plaintiff that she raises money for, then why does this pinhead professor think she should have disclosed anything? I mean, she didn't do anything wrong or "unreasonable", right?

All this means is that Judge Taylor's activist ruling will be overturned sooner rather than later, and now there are multiple grounds on which the overturning can be based. Given this woman's track record of conflicts of interest and unethical behavior, one has to wonder why she hasn't been removed from the bench yet.

By the way, if you want to read the whole NYT story (you sadistic bastards! LOL!) but don't want to register with the Slimes just to read it, remember to use BugMeNot.

Judge Taylor showing her handiwork...

America's real enemy: hotel porn!

Some people have no freakin' lives. From Newsmax:

Pornographic movies now seem nearly as pervasive in America's hotel rooms as tiny shampoo bottles, and the lodging industry shows little concern as conservative activists rev up a protest campaign aimed at triggering a federal crackdown.

A coalition of 13 conservative groups — including the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America — took out full-page ads in some editions of USA Today earlier this month urging the Justice Department and FBI to investigate whether some of the pay-per-view movies widely available in hotels violate federal and state obscenity laws.
...
"These are places that you take your family — these are respectable institutions," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "Anything that brings porn into the mainstream is a concern. It just desensitizes people."

Precise statistics on in-room adult entertainment are hard to come by. By some estimates, adult movies are available in roughly 40 percent of the nation's hotels, representing more than 1.5 million rooms. Industry analysts suggest that these adult offerings generate 60 to 80 percent of total in-room entertainment revenue — several hundred million dollars a year.
...
Both Kathy Shepard of Hilton and Roger Conner of Marriott said the bulk of their hotels are operated by franchise-holders who make their own decisions about in-room programming. They made clear, however, that their companies consider adult movies to be an acceptable option because they can be ignored or blocked out by guests not wishing to view them.

"Really ultraconservative groups try to target the hotels in their zest to eliminate porn," Shepard said. "In their zest to have their personal morals prevail, they're eliminating choice for others."

Conner said none of the programing offered by Marriott is illegal, and he depicted adult movies as a standard part of today's hotel business.

"In-room movies are a revenue stream," he said. "This is a business matter."

Geez, what is it about the ultra-conservatives that make them obsess about people's sexual proclivities? To me, this has nothing to do with whether or not adult movies have any redeeming value. This is much simpler than that: porn is, for better or worse, a legal product (provided consenting adults are involved, of course) that hotel patrons (as well as the general public) can watch or ignore at their own choosing, and that hotel owners can choose to carry or not carry. When I go to hotels, I choose not to watch any PPV movies, especially adult movies. If the couple in the room next to me wants to watch it, it's no skin off my back.

Is adult entertainment a scourge of society, lacking in values and morals? Sure. However, like abortion, it is legal whether anyone likes it or not. Can porn be addictive? Absolutely! But so can cigarettes and alcohol, and I don't see huge efforts to outright ban those legal activities.

While I have no problem with family values groups letting people know what hotels do not carry adult movies, I have a huge problem with them trying to force all hotels to adhere to their narrow views. As I've stated before, we live in a country where people are free to damn their souls to Hell, if they wish.

Brownie must be doing one heckuva job!

From al-Reuters:

One year after Hurricane Katrina, the United States remains unprepared for a major natural disaster, and the Bush administration has failed to learn the lessons of that catastrophe, former Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown said on Tuesday.

Brown led FEMA's response to Katrina when the storm devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after making landfall on August 29. It killed 1,339 people and caused $80 billion in damage, making it the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history.

But Brown was forced to resign from the Department of Homeland Security agency amid the disastrously slow government response, just days after President George W. Bush's infamous accolade, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

"Rather than address the systemic problems that existed within the Department of Homeland Security, we're now addressing superficial things," Brown told Reuters in a telephone interview from his Boulder, Colorado, office.

"As long as you have those inequities in terms of budget and response and everything else, FEMA will always be the stepchild," said Brown, who is now a private consultant specializing in disaster management.

Last year Brown was ridiculed as a symbol of government incompetence. But his reputation was enhanced by the release in March of videotapes of Katrina-planning meetings that showed him, engaged and informed, warning Bush about the storm.

So there you have it! The MSM and most in the punditry accused Brown of being a bumbling idiot and supremely underqualified to be the top dawg at FEMA. Yet now, because he has come out swinging against the Bush administration, he is magically transformed into a "disaster management consultant" expert?

Considering that "Brownie" has gotten the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy) on his side and thus transformed himself from incompetent boob to media darling, and considering that he has suckered clients into paying top dollar for his now-famous "disaster management" skills, it is safe to say that "Brownie" is indeed doing a "heckuva job" these days!

And you thought the left was all about "choice"?

Liberals love to fancy themselves as being "pro-choice", so long as the choice isn't related to where your kids go to school, how to spend your own money, how to spend your tax dollars, etc. Well, now in CT, they want to impede your choice of political candidates. From the Washington comPost:

Critics of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot.

Staffers for the senator from Connecticut, who lost the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, called both efforts dirty politics. The senator filed as an independent candidate a day after the loss, running under the new Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

A group whose members describe themselves as peace activists asked Sharon Ferrucci, Democratic registrar of voters in New Haven, to remove Lieberman from the party, arguing that he cannot be a Democrat while running under another party's banner.

I don't have a problem with Joe being removed from the Democratic Party, since he isn't running as a Democrat anymore. If he's running in a new party, whether an established third party or a new one, the fact is that while he may be philosophically a Democrat, he's not a technical Democrat anymore.

But getting him removed from the ballot? What could possibly be the reasoning behind that maneuver?

Lieberman, popular among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, led Lamont by 12 percentage points in a recent statewide poll, with Republican Alan Schlesinger far behind.

I see. So the rationale behind preventing ALL voters in CT to have another electoral choice isn't based in principle, but on a profound fear of losing! Thanks for the clarification.

Finally:

John Orman, a Democrat who gave up a challenge to Lieberman last year, argued in complaints filed with the state Monday that the senator should be kept off the Nov. 7 ballot.

Orman, a Fairfield University professor of political science, accused Lieberman of creating "a fake political party" and added: "He's doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot."

As opposed to the more scrupulous Orman, who's doing anything he can to keep Joe's name off the ballot? I'm not familiar with CT state law, so I don't know what possible grounds Orman could argue that a candidate who has collected the required signatures by the required deadline for appearing on the ballot should be excluded...the comPost doesn't tell us. I am, however, familiar with Dems' contempt for the electoral process when it's politically advantageous for them to be so contemptuous.

Hurricane season BELOW normal?

This makes for a good follow-up to yesterday's post about the glacier melt being unrelated to global "warming". From Weatherstreet:

What a difference a year makes. After the record-breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the 2006 season is now below normal.

As of yesterday (20 August) three tropical storms will have formed in the Atlantic in an "average" year, which is the same number that have formed this year so far. Because of multi-year averaging, that means that today (August 21) slightly more than three storms would have formed, making this year (statistically speaking) just below normal.

In the hurricane category, this year is decidedly below normal, with no hurricanes so far, while by this date 1.5 hurricanes have formed in the average of years 1944 though 2005.

Reason for the Season?: Cooler Sea Surface Temperatures
Part of the reason for the slow season is that tropical western Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are running about normal, if not slightly below normal (see graphic below, which shows SST departures from normal).

In contrast, at the same time last year SSTs in the same region were running well above normal.

The cooler SSTs in the Atlantic are not an isolated anomaly. In a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years.

Global Warming?
The slow hurricane season and the cooling sea surface temperatures might be somewhat surprising to the public. Media reports over the last year have suggested that, since global warming will only get worse, and last year's hurricane activity was supposedly due to global warming, this season might well be as bad as last season. But it appears that Mother Nature might have other plans.

The Rest of the Hurricane Season
With only 3 named storms compared to 9 on this date last year, it is nearly impossible at this late date to have a season anywhere near as busy as last season, which totaled 27 by the end of the year. The most recent prediction from the National Weather Service (see first graphic, above) is for there to be 12 to 15 named storms by December -- only half of last year's total. It now looks like that prediction might be too generous.

While it is still possible for this hurricane season to end up above normal in activity and reach that forecast, each day that passes without so much as a tropical 'depression' makes that target less and less likely.

Since "experts" were predicting a very active hurricane season this year (based, in part, on their weather models), one must wonder:

(1) How long do these people continue to earn a pyacheck to be wrong, and at what point do we stop calling them "experts"?;

(2) If their models that were forecasting meteorological events for ONE YEAR were wrong, what makes us think that they can accurately predict meteorological events 5-100 years away?;

(3) Will the environuts finally shut the hell up about global "warming" and hurricanes?

"We are different, like Hitler was different"?

Thanks to Kira for passing this on. Words can barely describe the idiocy on display here, from al-Reuters:

A new restaurant in India's financial hub, named after Adolf Hitler and promoted with posters showing the German leader and Nazi swastikas, has infuriated the country's small Jewish community.

'Hitler's Cross', which opened last week, serves up a wide range of continental fare and a big helping of controversy, thanks to a name the owners say they chose to stand out among hundreds of Mumbai eateries.

"We wanted to be different. This is one name that will stay in people's minds," owner Punit Shablok told Reuters.

"We are not promoting Hitler. But we want to tell people we are different in the way he was different."

Really? The owners of the restaurant are engagine in that "quirk" (or "difference") of genocide of Jews and gays? Well, I think I'll be passing on the curried chicken...after all, is it really chicken, or scorched Jew? Continuing:

But India's remaining Jews -- most migrated to Israel and the West over the years -- say they are outraged by the gimmick.

"This signifies a severe lack of awareness of the agony of millions of Jews caused by one man," said Jonathan Solomon, chairman of the Indian Jewish Federation, the community's umbrella organization.

"We are going to stop this deification of Hitler," he said without elaborating.

The small restaurant, its interior done out in the Nazi colors of red, white and black, also has a lounge for smoking the exotic Indian water pipe or "hookah."

Posters line the road leading up to it, featuring a red swastika carved in the name of the eatery. One slogan reads: "From Small Bites to Mega Joys."

A huge portrait of a stern-looking Fuehrer greets visitors at the door. The cross in the restaurant's name refers to the swastika that symbolized the Nazi regime.

"This place is not about wars or crimes, but where people come to relax and enjoy a meal," said restaurant manager Fatima Kabani, adding that they were planning to turn the eatery's name into a brand with more branches in Mumbai.

The swastika has its roots in ancient Indian Hindu tradition and remains a sacred symbol for Hindus. Nazi theorists appropriated it to bolster their central hypothesis of the Aryan origins of the German people.

"Where people come to relax and enjoy a meal"? Sure! I mean, to hell with the sounds of a steel drum band or a smooth jazz hit, or the sight of the sun setting over the ocean's horizon; I can think of few things more serene than kicking back with some tandoori chicken and a cup of hookah while peering into the enchanting gaze of Der Fuehrer! For those of you on the left, (a) that was sarcasm, and (b) "Der Fuehrer" refers to Hitler and not Bush...and yes, they are two different people.

Based on their recent "reporting", one can assume that al-Reuters shares the same pro-Hitler sentiment.

Negotiating with terrorists

How would talks with al Qaeda go? According to the Godfather, something like this:

It's dangerous because these are people that genuinely want to wipe us out, and there's a significant portion of our population that does not realize that. Look it, let me try another analogy with you. Let's say that we're going to negotiate with -- pick a terrorist group -- Al-Qaeda. What's Al-Qaeda's sworn mission? (See, you gotta have courage to admit this, though.)

Al-Qaeda's sworn mission is to kill us. That is the mission of militant Islam. It's to wipe out infidels, and we are the worst of all because we are Christian and we are Western. Okay. We're going to negotiate with these people. Their starting point is: you're dead. "We're not stopping 'til you're dead."

What's our counter? Do we say, "Uh, okay. How about, will you let us live for 50 years?"

"No. We're going to wipe you out in 30."

"Okay, well, uh, will you only take an arm from each of us for the first 50 years?"

"Nope. We're going to kill you all as soon as we can."

"No, no, no, no. That's not fair! We're negotiating with you. Will you settle for two arms and let us live?"

"Nope. Our mission is to kill you, infidel."

"Okay, uh, how about an arm and a leg and let us live for 50 years?"

"No! We are not compromising."

"Okay, how about if you kill half of us, the Republicans? If we give you the Republicans, will you --"

"No! We are going to kill all of you."

My point is, where do you negotiate with this? How do you negotiate with people whose objective is to kill you, Ms. Blumner? I'm sorry. I know it's a hard, cold reality we all have to face here, ladies and gentlemen.

"Well, how about if we let you have the Republicans and Mel Gibson?"

"No, we are going to kill every one of you, and you will be first."

That's how John Kerry would do it. How do you negotiate with that, folks? On what threshold or basis is there reason for any kind of settlement?

Iran planning Aug. 22 attack on Israel?

From Crosswalk:

August 22 could usher in an apocalyptic period in the Middle East thanks to some belligerent action on the part of the Iranian regime. Or maybe not.

As Tuesday approaches, the Internet is running hot with speculation about what Tuesday may bring, ranging from a new refusal by Iran to shut down its controversial uranium-enrichment activities to an attack -- even a nuclear attack -- against Israel.
...
But others are less sanguine, noting that the date is significant in Islam, for several reasons.

It coincides with the Islamic calendar date Rajab 28, the day Jerusalem fell to the Islamic warrior Saladin, in October 1187. Many Muslims regard Saladin's victory as a high point in Islamic history, and just weeks ago, Syrian fans of Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah were likening him to the 12th century Kurdish hero.

On the night of August 21-22, Muslims believe Mohammed underwent his "night journey," a trip on a magical steed from Mecca via the "farthest mosque" -- later said to be al-Aqsa in Jerusalem -- and on to heaven and back.

The two-stage journey is known in Islam as the "isla and miraj," and tradition holds that a divine white light appeared over Jerusalem at the time.

"The night of August 21 is a very, very important night in Shi'a Islam," according to Farid Ghadry, a Sunni Muslim and president of the exiled Reform Party of Syria, based in the U.S.

Ghadry claimed that Ahmadinejad would deliver his answer to the international community in the form of a "light in the sky" over the al-Aqsa mosque on the night of Aug. 21-22.

He urged the world to take the date seriously, adding that "nothing happens without a reason in Iran."

Apocalyptic belief

Commenting on Ghadry's interpretation, Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch argued that an Iranian attack on Israel, conventional or nuclear, would "be consistent with Ahmadinejad's oft-repeated denials of Israel's right to exist and recent predictions that its demise was at hand."

"Will he attempt to make good on these threats this year on the anniversary of the miraj, illuminating the night sky over Jerusalem?" Spencer wrote in Front Page magazine. "Will Western powers heed Farid Ghadry's words and move to stop Iran before it is too late?"

An article published by the pan-Arabic media organization al-Bawaba noted Ahmadinejad's adherence to the Shi'ite belief in the 12th imam - also known as the "hidden" imam, Mahdi, who disappeared more than a thousand years ago but has been miraculously kept alive, pending his emergence at a time of global chaos and war.

"Some believe that Imam Mahdi will be returning some time this August, also the time some military experts predict that Iran will be ready to construct its first nuclear weapon," it said.

"Apparently, Ahmadinejad sees himself as an instrument to pave the way for the arrival of Imam Mahdi as well as an important successor to Saladin in terms of the liberation of Jerusalem."

Not to worry. Mike Wallace has told us that Ahmadinejad is a cool guy, so I don't see what all the hubbub is about!

Glaciers melting...for 100 years?

From Breitbart/AFP:

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said.

"We studied 95 percent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.

"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930, and the increase recorded since 1995 has sped up the ice melt," he said.

The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future.

The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said.

The study also showed new results on galloping glaciers, the name given to glaciers that surge very quickly for a few years, up to 50 meters a day, before advancing more slowly at a rate of 20 meters per year," he said.

"We have identified, thanks to new analyses of aerials photographs and satellite images, almost four times more galloping glaciers, or 75 compared to just 20 in previous estimates," he said.

The two authors of the study were to present their results on Monday at a conference in Cambridge, England on the impact of global warming on glaciers.

The "impact of global warming on glaciers" apparently is nil. Then again, maybe Bush went back in time in his Rovian time machine and kicked off his global "warming" generator a century ago! Damn that evil genius!

Sen. Heinz-Kerry: Joe's a new Cheney

Quoth Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam):

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., blasted a fellow Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, for continuing his bid in the Connecticut Senate race despite a narrow loss to newcomer Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary earlier this month.

"I'm concerned that [Lieberman] is making a Republican case," Kerry told ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance.

Kerry accused the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate of "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," on the issue of Iraq.

Really...a "new Cheney"? Can anyone tell me where Cheney called for resignation of Don Rumsfeld like Joe just did? Why, if Joe's not careful, he's gonna damage those "Karl Rove lap dog" credentials the left bestowed upon him! Continuing:

"Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut," Kerry added, insisting Lieberman's stance on Iraq, "shows you just why he got in trouble with the Democrats there."

Actually, it would have been more accurate had Sen. Ketchup said that Joe was out of step with the Democrats of Connecticut. See, the plurality of CT voters are unaffiliated, which means they couldn't vote in the Democratic primary. These unaffiliated (and Republican) voters will be able to vote in the general election in November, and polls right now (subject to change, of course) show the independent Joe ahead of the Democrat Ned the Nutbar 53% - 41%.

Debunking the myth that "the terrorist knew they were being listened to"

Thanks to Chrome Dome for alerting me to this. Patterico has an excellent piece that refutes the left's meme that the terrorists already knew about the surveillance program:

After the New York Times told us about the NSA’s secret surveillance program, leftists confidently told us that the disclosure could not possibly have harmed our national security.

As we learned yesterday, that’s not what the people who have been talking to the terrorists say.

For months, lefties like Glenn Greenwald have confidently maintained that the disclosures of the NSA program did not harm national security. For example, Greenwald said this:

It is not even theoretically possible that disclosure of the illegal nature of the eavesdropping could endanger national security such that the Times was warranted in helping the Administration to conceal this patent law- breaking. Everyone, presumably including terrorists, assumed the Administration has been eavesdropping on conversations of those whom it suspects of engaging in terrorism.

and this:

Just as they did with the NSA eavesdropping program — where the Times, after a year-long delay, disclosed only the existence of the program but not its operational details — the media goes out of its way to avoid disclosure of any operational details or other information would could [sic] result in national security harm.

In other words, lefties like Greenwald said, terrorists would not change their methods of international communication simply because they read about the NSA surveillance program in the New York Times.

But we learned something different in yesterday’s travesty of a court opinion on the NSA surveillance program.

According to the plaintiffs — lawyers, scholars, journalists, and others who communicate internationally with terrorists — the disclosure of the surveillance program has caused terrorists to discontinue international telephone and e-mail communications:

Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [”Terrorist Surveillance Program”] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations.

In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations, and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients. All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.

Let me put that into plain English: terrorists and their associates will no longer communicate with these plaintiffs via e-mail and telephone — in other words, ways that the government could monitor under the surveillance program — because the terrorists are aware of the surveillance program. It’s not the Terrorist Surveillance Program itself that has caused terrorists to cease these international communications. It’s the fact that the terrorists now know about it.

Greenwald and other lefties say that terrorists had always assumed their communications were being monitored, but these plaintiffs say otherwise. They say that, for a period of time, they communicated freely with these terrorists — but then along came revelations of the TSP, and their telephone and Internet communications with these suspected terrorists ceased.

Now: if terrorists will no longer communicate with lawyers, scholars, and journalists . . . do you think they may also have ceased their telephone and Internet communications with fellow terrorists?

Of course they have. Which means that the government is no longer monitoring those telephone or e-mail communications. The terrorists have had to find other ways to communicate — ways that the government may not be able to monitor as easily, or at all.

The terrorists have adapted. And we can thank our friends at the New York Times.

Unless the plaintiffs were all lying, this is solid evidence that the NSA disclosures by the New York Times have indeed harmed our national security.

Ain't that a damned shame? I mean, if you can't get a terrorist to talk with a lawyer, or a scholar, or a reporter...just who in the hell can you get an Islamofascist bloodlusting camel-humper to talk to? What is this world coming to? Damn that George Bush! For those of you on the left, this paragraph was sarcasm.

It's a tragedy of huge proportions that these people can freely admit to communicating with terrorism suspects, and not only be free from incarceration, but free to sue on behalf of their "constitutional right" to communicate with terrorists who want this country destroyed! The only thing more disgusting than such chutzpah was that they got an American (by birth, anyway) judge to agree with their perverted point of view!

Cease-fire, schmeace-fire

What are the Hezbos up to? No good:

Lebanese political forces seeking to disarm Hizbullah have not been able to prepare themselves for a new round of talks with the Shiite
group and the Lebanese army is too weak to impose an arms embargo on Hizbulah.

Hizbullah and its Iranian and Syrian patrons feel that with the international community is determined to monitor the Lebanese-Syrian border to curtail arms smuggling from Syria and have intensified their efforts to rearm the group in the short time left before international observers deploy along the border.

The efforts focus on replenishing Hizbullah's secret arms storage depots with antitank and antiaircraft missiles, and long-range missiles.

Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been dispatched to Syria and Lebanon to rehabilitate Hizbullah.

A rehabilitated Hizbullah can undermine the Lebanese army and the beefed up UN peacekeeping force and prepare the group for a second round of fighting with Israel.

Iran isn't being hostile...they're just trying to guarantee that Israel...what did the commenter call it? Oh, right..."plays fair", right?

Yet Kofi Table blames...you guessed it...Israel. I suppose Israel trying to stop future terrorist attacks from the Hezbos is called "unfair play." Boy, it sure does make genoicide against Jews damned near impossible when said Jews have the gall to fight back...or, "play unfairly."

Un-freakin'-believable.

OH has a "sore loser" law that CT doesn't

Ohio has what is known as a "sore loser" law. No, it doesn't have anything to do with the paranoid moonbat asshat conspiracy theories of Diebold machines and Kerry's loss in 2004. From Ohio.com:

Republicans disagreed over whether the "sore loser" law would apply to state Sen. Joy Padgett, who announced her candidacy hours after Ney said Monday he would abandon his race for a seventh term. Ney is under scrutiny for his ties to Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist at the center of a congressional corruption scandal. He denies all wrongdoing and has not been charged.

State law generally bars politicians who lose a primary from entering the general election during the same year. Padgett was on the losing ticket for governor in the Republican primary in May. The office of Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who won the governor's primary, is now considering whether the law applies in this case.

In other words, if a politician loses his party's primary, he can't enter the general election as an independent (or other party) under most circumstances. I'm guessing that right about now, Democrats and the nutroots who got Ned Lamont nominated in Connecticut wish that CT had a similar law on the books. Unfortunately for them, CT has no such law.

"Iraqi group uses Michael Moore film to mock Bush"

Thanks to KG for the tip. Check it out: Mikie Moore is an inspiration to jihadist propagandists everywhere! From the perfector of "fauxtos", al-Reuters:

An Iraqi militant group has produced an elaborate video of what it said were attacks on U.S. troops, in the latest example of the increasingly sophisticated propaganda war being waged by Iraqi insurgents.

"The Code of Silence" was posted on the Internet by the Rashedeen Army, thought to be a relatively small Sunni group which has produced videos in the past of attacks it claims to have carried out.

At almost an hour in length, it is the longest and most professionally made of recent postings by mainly Sunni militant and insurgent groups fighting the U.S.-backed government.


The U.S. military said earlier this week that recent intelligence indicated al Qaeda in Iraq was refining its strategy by producing propaganda and adding a political base to its violent campaign of suicide bombings.

Lifting scenes from Michael Moore's anti-war film "Fahrenheit 9/11", Rashedeen's narrator taunts President Bush in softly spoken English over graphic images of Humvees being blown up by roadside bombs, and purportedly dead U.S. troops.

It was not possible to verify when the documentary was made or the authenticity of any of the images portrayed by Rashedeen, whose name means Army of the Rightly Guided.

At one point, the documentary cuts to a scene from Moore's 2004 award-winning film where he lobbies on the steps of the U.S. Congress in Washington.

"After all, there are honest and influential guys in America and if Mr Moore can talk to you like that, so can I," the Rashedeen narrator says.

Why does the bloodlusting camel jockey include "honest and influential guys in America" and "Mr. Moore" in the same sentence? Anywho, major props go to Michael the Hutt for playing a feature role in a terrorist organization's propaganda movie. You, sir, must be proud!

Can we question their patriotism yet?

More cases of "peace activists gone violent"...but with monks?

I couldn't make this up if I tried. From the Washington comPost:

An anti-violence demonstration in Colombo, Sri Lanka went Jerry Springer, Thursday, when hard-line monks stormed the stage of their pro-peace brethren. First the speaker and a hardliner went at it, punches were exchanged, and then it was on, with robes, fists, and monks flying across stage. The "peace protest" had been organized to find non-violent solutions to the 20 year civil war between Buddhists and Tamil Tiger rebels; and since today's brawl consisted mostly of Buddhist on Buddhist violence it sounds like they're moving in the right direction.

I'm confessing my ignorance here: what is a "hard-line monk"?

Follow-up to liberal judge's ruling on surveillance: legal standing ignored?

In legal terms, "standing" is where you actually have a direct legal stake in the outcome of a court case. For example, I cannot sue OJ Simpson in court for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman because I have no standing in the case. I'm not related to them, and I don't even know them. Ron Goldman's father did indeed have standing, so he did sue OJ. If you have no standing, the case is to be dismissed.

Anyway, as a follow-up to my post yesterday about ruling from the liberal judge appointed by Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter, there comes this bit of legal analysis that I hadn't considered. From FNC via Newsbusters:

On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, correspondent Bret Baier mentioned that Judge Taylor was a Carter appointee, and the show also gave attention to the debate over whether the plaintiffs in the case had standing to file their lawsuit. During the Fox All Stars segment, Fortune Magazine's Nina Easton talked about feedback she had received that the "legal reasoning on it was thin," and addressed the issue of standing: "And this question of the standing of these folks you're talking about, the scholars and the journalists and so on, and whether they actually had standing to bring this suit, well, she [Judge Taylor] wrestled with some of those questions, but then she dismissed the other concerns, saying, well, if they don't have standing, then who's going to keep the President, who's going to keep the President, hold his feet to the fire and who's going to let courts come in and hold him accountable? It's like, well, I gotta give him standing, and so I thought that was extremely telling."

That's why it appears even more likely that the b#tch's ruling is destined to be overturned: the plaintiffs had no legal standing. Their calls and e-mails hadn't been monitored by the feds, so they didn't have standing. The most basic requirement for a case to be heard by a judge, and the stupid woman botched it. Actually, "botched" implies a mistake, so allow me to correct it to "ignored"! The ruling can be overturned on the standing issue alone, without even ruling on the constitutionality of the surveillance program. It can be, but only time will tell if it will be.

Jimmah's a dipsh#t

I have tried to avoid Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter like Bubba avoids Hillary, but I can't. I've got to comment on this moronic piece of Georgia trash because I can't take this sh#t anymore.

In a recent interview, Jimmy the Dhimmit was kissing a little Euro-ass when he invoked his predictable anti-American and anti-Semitic talking points...not to mention his sheer ignorance of history, both recent and not-as-recent. Here are some excerpts from the interview with kraut rag Der Spiegel:

We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

Ignoring the obvious financial indicators, such as 4.8% unemployment (which means those rich bastards are screwing the poor by...hiring them?) and a 15% growth in GDP, I wonder why anyone would extend credibility to a man who gave us interest rates near 20%, top marginal tax rates over 70%, 18% inflation, and record oil prices when adjusted for inflation? Not to mention gasoline shortages and rationing. Hell, Carter was the reason for the term "misery index", which basically quantified just how bad things were under him. Continuing:

Der Spiegel: "You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?"

Really? We were never hated by the Arab world prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003? I could have sworn some bad sh#t happened on 9/11/2001. Let's see, lemme get my slide rule here...carry the one...ah, yes, here we go: 9/11/2001 was an act of Arab hatred that predated (for those of you on the left, that means "came before") the invasion of Iraq!

Well, Bush must have really pissed off the Arab world for the whole nine months he had been in office prior to 9/11! However, I'm having a hard time seeing how all of the acts of Arab hatred (and they were legion) that occurred during the Clinton years and well before could be attributed to Bush. I know, I know, it's all Bush's fault, but I'd just like to hear how. Also, could someone remind me who got the problems with Iran started in the first damned place that boiled over into the Iranian hostage crisis for 444 days? His name rhymes with "Dhimmi Farter", right? I know the left would like to pretend that Arab terrorism didn't happen until AFTER 9/11 and Bush started it...but they can't have it that way. Carter's reply:

No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

How about replacing the word "Lebanon" with "Hezbollah" and "unjustified" with "long overdue", and we might finally be able to agree on something? It's as if the left refuses to acknowledge that Hezbollah had done anything wrong. After all, what's a couple of dead Jew soldiers...a good start to Carter and his ilk, right? Continuing:

I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.

Yeah, it's not as if terrorists hell bent on Israel's destruction are located there, right? According to Jimmy the Dhimmi, the Jews should just take their attacks, shut up, and wait to die...'twould do us all a favor, right Jimmah?

What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

Perhaps there's a reason that 10,000 terrorists or criminals are in Israeli prisons...oui? And Jimmah can't even bring himself to say "Hezbollah"...he uses the al-Reuters term "militants"! Good grief!

Carter is heralded for the Camp David acords, whereby Egypt agreed to leave Israel the hell alone and vice versa. Well, whoopty-freakin-do! Israel had militarily sodomized Egypt, and Egypt didn't want to be Israel's bitch anymore...so they agreed to not get their asses kicked by Israel in the future if Israel would agree to refrain from implementing said ass-kicking. That's a success? "We promise to stop being your punching bag if you'll just give us back Sinai!" Color me unimpressed. We see just how much "peace" there has been in the Middle East since then, huh? As for peace between Israel and Egypt, I'll concede it's been relatively peaceful...as a result of Egypt losing militarily to Israel. The best way to achieve peace is thoroughly and decisively kicking your opponent's ass (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

I find a Spiegel catalog more informative than der Spiegel, and I find more wisdom (and assertiveness) out of my neighbor's chihuahua than I do out of Jimmy the Dhimmi. Is it any wonder that the man lost 44 states in 1980? Geez, what is it with the left lionizing its losers anyway?