Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin. Why think when you can "feel"?
When it involves a Republican like Duke Cunningham? Front page! When it involves a powerful Dem Senator from California? Yawn. From Hot Air:
Hmmmm. What was that about the “culture of corruption?”SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum’s ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.
Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Blum also holds large investments in companies that were selling medical equipment and supplies and real estate leases—often without the benefit of competitive bidding—to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even as the system of medical care for veterans collapsed on his wife’s watch.
As of December 2006, according to SEC filings and www.fedspending.org, three corporations in which Blum’s financial entities own a total of $1 billion in stock won considerable favor from the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs:
# Boston Scientific Corporation: $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies; 85 percent of contracts awarded without benefit of competition.
# Kinetic Concepts Inc.: $12 million, medical equipment and supplies; 28 percent noncompetitively awarded.
# CB Richard Ellis: The Blum-controlled international real estate firm holds congressionally funded contracts to lease office space to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also is involved in redeveloping military bases turned over to the private sector.
Dr. Rusty has a few questions related to this story, and an observation:This is genuine news. Political corruption on a scale as big as Duke Cunningham, and the mainstream press is worried about 8 US attorneys losing their jobs in a completely legal hard-ball political axing-session.
The Culture of Corruption has ‘returned’ - bigger and better than ever before!
Don't act like you didn't see this coming. From Bob Novak:
The new Democratic majority today begins dancing the next phase of the tax-and-spend minuet in the House of Representatives. Following the example of their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.
Nobody's tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version increases non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for the next fiscal year, with such spending rising 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution raises taxes close to $400 billion over five years -- about $100 billion more than what the Senate passed.
It had been assumed the newly majoritarian Democrats in Congress would end President Bush's relief in taxation of capital gains, dividends and estates. What came as a surprise was the simultaneous rollback in Bush-sponsored income tax cuts. This represents Democrats' belief they can politically survive this long-term commitment to bigger government. Here is an audacious effort to raise the banner of fiscal responsibility while increasing spending and taxes.
This Democratic strategy is encapsulated in what Harry Hopkins, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's main man, is alleged to have told a friend at New York's Empire Race Track in August 1938: "We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect." While Hopkins denied ever saying that, those words represented successful Democratic government and political strategy for the next two decades.
John F. Kennedy, reclaiming the White House for the Democrats for the first time in eight years, altered the party's pattern in 1961 with massive tax cuts. However, Bill Clinton, taking power in 1993 after 12 years of Republican rule, returned to the Hopkins formula by proposing and passing what then was the biggest tax increase ever. It was "tax" and "spend," but not "elect." The Clinton tax contributed to the 1994 Democratic loss of control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
Why, then, having just regained congressional control, are Democrats going down this dangerous path again? (Because they're Democrats, i.e. they're not very bright. - Ed.) Indeed, while President Clinton in 1993 had to twist arms for a one-vote margin in each house. Democrats now obediently fall in line for tax increases. Their conduct is explained by faith in the March 20-25 Democracy Corps poll that voters associate Democrats more than Republicans with "fiscal responsibility," 44 percent to 36 percent.
The architect of that impression is Sen. Kent Conrad, the austere Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "It restores fiscal responsibility by balancing the budget by 2012," he said of his resolution in Senate debate last week.
Conrad claimed: "We try to keep taxes low." In fact, Conrad is the consummate tax collector who spent the 12 formative career years prior to his 1986 election to the Senate as an assistant tax commissioner and then tax commissioner in North Dakota. His most recent liberal ratings are 90 and 85 percent by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. The National Taxpayers Union put him at 17 and 16 percent in 2005 and 2006.
The breakdown of the bill on the House floor today (resembling the Senate version) raises taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small-business owners would average $3,960 more in taxes. The decreased number of Americans actually subject to income taxes will all be paying higher taxes, and 5 million low-income Americans will be returned to the rolls.
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 37-year-old fifth-termer who is the House Budget Committee's new ranking Republican, has proposed an alternative resolution. It not only retains Bush tax cuts but also proposes deep reductions in spending, protects Social Security payments and runs down the national debt.
Why was no such budget resolution proposed during 12 years that the GOP was in the majority? Would the party's leadership support the Ryan resolution if it were in control now? That those questions must be asked undermines Republican credibility and explains why Democrats dare return to tax, spend and elect.
Better late than never? From the Washington Times:
President Bush yesterday ridiculed House and Senate lawmakers for pork-laden Iraq war funding bills that set 2008 deadlines for full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, vowing to veto what he called "arbitrary" limits on U.S. military commanders.
Addressing a group of raucous ranchers at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in Washington, the president drew laughter and applause as he lampooned the competing bills now working their ways through Congress.
On the Senate bill, Mr. Bush noted that "there's $3.5 million for visitors to tour the Capitol and see for themselves how Congress works." To loud laughter from the cattlemen, he added: "I'm not kidding you."
"The bill includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers," he said to laughter. "There's $6.4 million for the House of Representatives' salaries and expense accounts. I don't know what that is, but it is not related to the war and protecting the United States of America," he said to more laughter and applause.
The president urged lawmakers to deliver a bill he can sign.
"Here's the bottom line: The House and Senate bills have too much pork, too many conditions on our commanders, and an artificial timetable for withdrawal," Mr. Bush said. "And I have made it clear for weeks, if either version comes to my desk, I'm going to veto it.
"It is also clear from the strong opposition in both houses that my veto would be sustained. Yet Congress continues to pursue these bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field," he said.
Democrats, however, accused the president of stubbornly sticking with a failed Iraq policy and demanded that Mr. Bush listen to the American people.
"Now that congressional Democrats have voted to give the troops the resources they need in combat, including a strategy to change course and get them out of a civil war, it's up to the president to drop his stubborn veto threat so there is no delay in funding for our troops," said Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "He should also stop ignoring the will of the American people, put partisanship aside and work with Congress to fix his failed policies in Iraq."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada agreed.
"Why doesn't he get real with what's going on with the world?" he said after Mr. Bush's speech. "We're not holding up funding in Iraq, and he knows that. Why doesn't he deal with the real issues facing the American people?"
I swear, the leftards give me a good dose of material with which to work. Shrillary and Osamabama never fail to disappoint, do they? From Breitbart/AP:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of pursuing a policy of "social Darwinism" that leaves every man and woman struggling.
"It's a strategy that we've seen this administration pursue over the last six years, that basically says government has no role to play in making sure that America is prosperous for all people and not just some," Obama said to applause during an appearance before the Communications Workers of America.
The Illinois senator said the attempt to "divvy up the government into individual tax breaks" may be tempting, but government research and investment is what has made advances possible in the United States.
Clinton said she wanted to return to a time when the country and it's leaders had big goals and achieved them—like improving civil rights or sending a man to the moon. She said she wished President Bush would have used the opportunity of a unified nation after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to make the country energy independent or provide universal health care.
The Nose On Your Face does it again! This hilarious bit is at the expense of the mad mullahs of Iran. From TNOYF:
The tense standoff between Iran and Britain over the fifteen sailors who were captured by the Iranians last week almost came to a quick conclusion earlier today thanks to the handiwork of noted Middle Eastern funny-man Farouk bin Hasim.
Hasim, the host of the wildly popular “Persian Punk’d”, made his way into a meeting of the Iranian Grand Council this morning sporting a Ronald Reagan mask. The reaction was immediate.
“Oh, but if you could have smelled the collective seat of the Mullah’s robes when they saw him walk in with that Reagan mask on!” said Hasim’s close friend and cameraman Yephik Bashar. “There was a stench in the air more foul than a syphilitic camel sporting Paris Hilton’s undergarments. And the whimpering! ‘A thousand apologies Mr. President Reagan sir!‘ ‘We are so very sorry for the trouble Mr. President Reagan sir!.’ Priceless.”
The religious leaders became aware of the joke shortly after Hasim left and they discovered that their navy was still intact.
The episode will air early next month.
"Please, Mr. President Reagan, sir! Don't humiliate us again!"
More specifically, stymied by a House Republican. From the Washington Times:
House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity -- the first step by lawmakers to protect "John Doe" airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.
After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats' Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.
Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and "John Does," passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a "chilling effect" on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered the motion saying all Americans -- airline passengers included -- must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.
"All of our lives changed after September 11, and one of the most important things we have done is ask local citizens to do what they can to avoid another terrorist attack, if you see something, say something," said Mr. King.
"We have to stand by our people and report suspicious activity," he said. "I cannot imagine anyone would be opposed to this."
Mr. King called it a "disgrace" that the suit seeks to identify "people who acted out of good faith and reported what they thought was suspicious activity."
Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair.
"Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law," said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.
Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in an open letter yesterday to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that "the only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them."
The Becket Fund criticized the lawsuit last week and in a letter to Mr. Awad asked that the "John Does" be removed from the lawsuit, however CAIR is standing by the decision.
In light of our venerable Senate's 50-48 passage of the Surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq bill (which Bush will veto), Neal Boortz pens the following:
Dear Al Qaeda:
We know that things in Iraq have been a bit tough for you lately. President Bush's determination to bring stability to Iraq through an increase in the number of troops has been showing results .. and even more troops are on the way. Because of the troop surge you have seen a decline in the number of American troops you and your Islamic fascist buddies have been able to kill. Because of the increased level of security in Baghdad the Iraqi people were starting to feel better about their future. You know this, even though the American people may not. You're close to the situation so you can readily see the changing conditions. The American people are insulated from this reality by a media apparatus that is more concerned with the destruction of President Bush than to the success of our efforts in Iraq.
All in all, it was getting to be a pretty depressing picture for you and your terrorist pals.
Well ... cheer up. Things are about to change. After a rather close vote in the U.S. Senate today you are one step closer to knowing an exact de upon which all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq. As we're sure your political analysts will tell you, setting a specific date for withdrawal. We're sure you realize that you cannot commit yourself to victory and to a date-specific withdrawal at the same time. You select one course of action, or the other.
Take heart, too, in the fact that other nations and regimes in the Middle East have now seen further evidence that the United States does not have the political will to commit itself to victory. Your tactic of waging a war of attrition against American troops has been validated. The American people, having heard a preponderance of negative news from their media, are calling for capitulation. They've become complacent after five years have passed since 9/11 with no terrorists attacks in our country. Oh, there have been some isolated incidents of mad Muslims shooting up shopping malls and mowing innocents down with their cars ... but nothing major to rekindle their determination. Was this your plan all along? Somehow we think that you are that clever ... and if that's the case, this element of your grand plan has also worked very well.
You now realize that you can advance your radical Islamist goals throughout the Middle East, and perhaps into Europe, without any fear of retaliation or interference from the United States. The will to fight is lost. The desire for victory has died. The American people have become fat, lazy and complacent. They no longer see either their freedom or their culture as something they are willing to fight for. It must be heady days indeed in your caves and tents. Hard to imagine, isn't it? Al Qaeda actually has more determination to see their cause through than the great United States of America! Perhaps that's because you're dedicated to the cause of the spread of Islam, while the American people have lost their dedication to the cause of liberty. Complacency will do that to you.
We do have one word of caution for you. You and your Islamic terrorist buddies have been the beneficiaries of the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election in the United States. That election, and the close vote in our State of Florida, created a sense of hatred and resentment in Democrats against our president such as has never been seen before in our history. From that moment on Democrats and liberals in the U.S. were steadfastly dedicated to the idea of the destruction of the Bush presidency. Oh, to be sure, there were a few weeks of solidarity following your attacks of 9/11, but it didn't last. When the panic subsided Democrats suddenly realized that any measure of success in the war against you might actually strengthen the Republican hold on power. It didn't take Democrats long to decide that their hatred of George Bush, and their desire to see his presidency destroyed, absolutely outweighed any concerns they had about protecting our people from another one of your vicious attacks. Democrats have convinced themselves that, once they have gained full control of our government, a few "we feel your pain" comments directed at your murdering Islamic followers will be all that is needed to put the Western world and the wonderful, peaceful, serene religion of Islam around a desert campfire singing rousing renditions of Kumbaya. You just need to be aware that there is a chance, though slight, that the Democrats might actually decide that our culture is worth fighting for ... if they can first rid our country of the Bush pestilence.
At any rate .. the Senate has now set a deadline. If the bill makes it to the president's desk he says he will veto it. Some feel, however, that when the president realizes that the legislation merely sets a date certain for our capitulation to you in Iraq, and doesn't open the doors to any additional stem cell research, he will decide that a veto is not warranted. So ... just sit tight. Save your energy. Catch your breath. Cool it. You may soon know the exact date that you one day commemorate as the date you chased the infidels out of Iraq. This could well be the date you will remember as the beginning of the final steps toward your 12th Caliphate and the cause of world domination under Islamic law.
You are small but determined to see your dreams of domination come true. America is strong but complacent and unwilling to fight for the cause of liberty. Time to ferment some goat's milk for a toast!
America the Timid.
Labels: religion of peace
The Euros are spiraling down a road of dhimmitude that will be nearly impossible from which to return. From Germany:
He beat her and threatened her with murder. But because husband and wife were both from Morocco, a German divorce court judge saw no cause for alarm. It's a religion thing, she argued.
The case seems simply too strange to be true. A 26-year-old mother of two wanted to free herself from what had become a miserable and abusive marriage. The police had even been called to their apartment to separate the two -- both of Moroccan origin -- after her husband got violent in May 2006. The husband was forced to move out, but the terror continued: Even after they separated, the spurned husband threatened to kill his wife.
A quick divorce seemed to be the only solution -- the 26-year-old was unwilling to wait the year between separation and divorce mandated by German law. She hoped that as soon as they were no longer married, her husband would leave her alone. Her lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk agreed and she filed for immediate divorce with a Frankfurt court last October. They both felt that the domestic violence and death threats easily fulfilled the "hardship" criteria necessary for such an accelerated split.
In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It's a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike."The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law)," the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge's letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.
"The husband can beat his wife"
"The right to castigate means for me: the husband can beat his wife," Becker-Rojczyk said, interpreting the judge's verdict.
In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, Becker-Rojczyk said the judge indicated to her that it makes no sense to insist on an accelerated divorce. The judge's advice? Wait for the year-long waiting period to elapse.
The lawyer and her client were shocked. Immediately, they filed a claim alleging that the judge should have recused herself due to a conflict of interest. They felt that, because of the point of view presented by the judge, she was unable to reach an objective verdict. In the reply sent to Becker-Rojczyk, the judge expressly referred to a Koran verse -- or sura -- which indicates that a man's honor is injured when his wife behaves in an unchaste manner. "Apparently the judge deems it unchaste when my client adapts a Western lifestyle," Becker-Rojczyk said.
On Tuesday evening, Becker-Rojczyk expressed amazement that the judge was still on the bench, given that the controversial verdict was handed down weeks ago. Becker-Rojczyk had elected to go public with the case to attract attention to the judge's conduct. It seems to have worked. On Wednesday, after the Tuesday evening publication of the story on SPIEGEL ONLINE, the attorney received a fax from the Frankfurt court granting the conflict of interest claim and excusing the judge from the case.
Still, it is unlikely that the case will be heard again before the mandated year of separation expires in May. But the judge who heard the case may have to face further consequences for her decision. On Wednesday, numerous politicians in Berlin voiced their horror at the verdict -- and demanded disciplinary action against the judge.
"In my opinion, this is a case of extreme violation of the rule of law that can't be solved with a mere conflict of interest ruling," Social Democrat parliamentarian Dieter Wiefelspütz told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "There have to be further consequences. This is a case for judicial supervision -- this case needs to be further investigated."
The deputy floor leader for the Christian Democrats, Wolfgang Bosbach, agreed. "This is a sad example of how the conception of the law from another legal and cultural environment is taken as the basis for our own notion of law," he said on Wednesday.
This isn't the first time that German courts have used cultural background to inform their verdicts. Christa Stolle of the women's rights organization Terre des Femmes said that in cases of marital violence, there have been a number of cases where the perpetrator's culture of origin has been considered as a mitigating circumstance -- although such verdicts have become seldom in recent years.
But there remains quite a bit of work to do. "In my work educating sexist and short-sighted Muslim men," asked Michaela Sulaika Kaiser of the Network for Muslim Women, "do I now have to convince German courts that women are also people on the same level with men and that they, like any other human, have the right to be protected from physical and psychological violence?"
BEVERAGE ALERT! Put it down NOW! From Her Highness, Shrillary Clinton:
“I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is we have a devotion to the rule of law.”
Yeah, good luck with that, Your Highness. From the slanted NYT:
Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.
During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.
Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.
For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.
It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.
Some uniformed officers, too, said that the Clintons were more associated with a ’60s culture than a military one, and that only time would tell if Mrs. Clinton’s appreciation of the military would go beyond niceties and expressions of concern.
Not a fan of the Hildebeast, is he?
From spoofmaster Scrappleface:
Iran announced today that it would release immediately the 15 British soldiers and marines it took hostage last week to avoid further “cordial pressure and devastating pleasantries” from British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
“In this test of wills,” said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “we acknowledge the superior power of the adversary. We cannot withstand another onslaught of polite diplomatic language nor the withering, if unspoken, consternation we detect in the eyes of Tony Blair.”
A spokesman for Mr. Blair said, “Tyrants like Ahmadinejad, and the radical Mullahs who prop him up, understand only one thing: swift, targeted courtesy. And though we were reluctant to overreact to this little dust up, the Iranian leader now knows we mean business.”
The British Prime Minister’s spokesman added, “Our patience is virtually unlimited, but not infinitely unlimited. That’s why Iran blinked. They could see a day coming when the talking would stop, and we would reach into our arsenal of UN resolutions to consider more sanctions.”
Yesterday, I commented on the story that the NYT ran whereby a female member of our armed services says that she was raped in Iraq AND suffered a roadside bomb attack while there. Turns out that she was never there, and the NYT's correction was a week late and rather pathetic.
My friend Rick Leventhal, one of our best correspondents here at FOX News Channel, has a great story today about The New York Times, and he asks the question at the end: When are we going to hear an explanation from The Times? So far he hasn't got one. Here's the story:
The Times evidently knew it was printing phony information in a recent story, but waiting a week to print a correction. In fact, it appears to have scheduled a correction for a week later and the only possible explanation is that reprinting the incorrect story would cost too much.
What happened was The Times' Sunday magazine had a story about sexual assault on female military members in Iraq. One named Amorita Randall had a particularly tough story about being raped and suffering a severe brain injury in a roadside bombing.
The magazine was scheduled to be published March 18. But six days earlier on march 12, The Times knew that Ms. Randall — get this — had never been in Iraq. The Times didn't reprint the magazine. It didn't run a correction that day. Instead it printed a correction a week later on March 25.
So The Times knew a source for a story was a phony on March 12 and printed a correction 13 days later. And right in between they actually published the story in the Sunday Times Magazine.
Does it cost a lot to reprint an entire four-color glossy paper Sunday magazine? Yes. Does it cost a lot in reputation for the newspaper of record to knowingly publish false information and figure it can be fixed with a schedule correction a week later? Yes and yes.
The Times has a political point of view these days it has no problem pushing in its news and editorial pages. OK, it gives up some points in objectivity when it does that, but the publisher has a right to do so. But when The Times knowingly publishes phony information because it costs too much to reprint and thinks a correction a week later will fix things, that suggests something different than just editorial point of view. It suggests a willingness to lie for money. If you'll lie for money, doesn't it follow you would find it much easier to lie for the much higher calling of ideology?
The Times has some explaining to do.
Labels: media bias
Chalk up another fraud in the growing list of leftards who think that lying about service would give them credibility that they think they deserve but might not otherwise receive. From Gateway Pundit:
After they ran a military/war-bashing piece on women in war, the New York Times Magazine found out one of the women in their expose did not in fact serve in Iraq as she said she had!
This is what she told the NYT reporter:Amorita Randall lives across the state from Christensen, in a small town outside of Grand Junction. She is 27, a former naval construction worker who served in Iraq in 2004. Over the course of several phone conversations before visiting her in January, I grew accustomed to the way Randall coexisted with her memories. Mostly she inched up to them.
On days she was feeling stable, she would want to talk, calling me up and abruptly jumping into stories about her six years in the Navy, describing how she was raped twice - the second rape supposedly taking place just a matter of weeks before she arrived in Iraq. Her experience in Iraq, she said, included one notable combat incident, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing the soldier who was driving and leaving her with a brain injury. "I don't remember all of it," she told me when I met her in the sparsely furnished apartment she shares with her fiance?. "I don't know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome."
Although, it is now confirmed that Amorita Randall is indeed a fraudster, The New York Times Magazine still is running an interactive that includes Miss Randall.
And, get this...
"Saying something was looked down upon," says Amorita Randall a naval construction worker who served in Iraq in 2004. She says she was raped.
Here is the crazy correction:CORRECTION: On March 12, three days after the article had gone to press, the Navy called The Times to say that it had found that Ms. Randall had never received imminent-danger pay or a combat-zone tax exemption, indicating that she was never in Iraq. Only part of her unit was sent there; Ms. Randall served with another part of it in Guam. The Navy also said that Ms. Randall was given the medal with the insignia because of a clerical error.
Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did. Since the article appeared, Ms. Randall herself has questioned another member of her unit, who told Ms. Randall that she was not deployed to Iraq. If The Times had learned these facts before publication, it would not have included Ms. Randall in the article.
Today's N&D brought to you by the letters "A" and "S", for Andrew Sullivan. For those of you who don't know, Sully is a gay blogger who sometimes leans left and sometimes leans right. As a matter of fact, he is known as being consistently inconsistent, more so than even (dare I say it?)...Jean-François Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam)!
I think I've been pretty good about not posting much about Andrew Sullivan, but I think this is just too funny.
First he posts:"Edwards Suspends Campaign
22 Mar 2007 12:17 pm
He does it because his wife has a recurrence of cancer in some degree to be further explored. It is of a piece with his character to do this; and a simple testament that he has the right priorities and values to be a president of the United States. Sorry, Ms Coulter. But this man will be remembered for a character you do not even want to possess.
And then, immediately afterwards when the news changes, he writes:"Edwards Forges On
22 Mar 2007 12:39 pm
So, despite earlier reports, Edwards will not suspend his campaign. Good for him. And if anyone did not know of Elizabeth Edwards' extraordinary character before, they do now. What I saw in this press conference was the reality of family values - not the rhetoric, not the divisiveness, not the politics, just the reality of an actual family dealing with real issues. We all face such issues. Cancer survivors and their families know it all too well. So do those of us who live with HIV, diabetes, Parkinsons and many other diseases that patients can now live with, rather than die from. In this, John Edwards is doing a public service. He was admirably candid about his wife's cancer being treatable, if not curable. That paradigm is increasingly common - and it's affirming to see someone in public life live through it so positively, so admirably and so passionately. She shouldn't give in to it. One key to surviving serious illness is to live positively and candidly while you treat it. With HIV, I learned to repeat to myself a triad that was essential to surviving any serious medical condition: Own it, face it, beat it. That's what the Edwardses did today, and they will help a lot of people through their example.
The campaign should go on, as life goes on. It should neither help nor hurt it. But I will say this: Elizabeth Edwards is a truly remarkable human being. And her marriage is an inspiration to all of us.
Me: Edwards is a saint when he drops out. Edwards is a saint when he doesn't. I don't have a major problem with the sentiments of either post taken individually, but taken together, we can now see that the intervals between self-contradictory statements by Sullivan has fallen to a mere 22 minutes. Pretty soon the ends of his sentences will contradict the beginnings.
Robert Novak's column is spot on. From RCP:
Two weeks earlier on Capitol Hill, there was a groundswell of Republican demands -- public and private -- that President Bush pardon the convicted Scooter Libby. Last week, as Alberto Gonzales came under withering Democratic fire, there were no public GOP declarations of support amid private predictions of the attorney general's demise.
Republican leaders in Congress (asking not to be quoted by name) early last week predicted Gonzales would fall because the Justice Department botched firing eight U.S. attorneys. By week's end, they stipulated that the president would not sack his longtime aide and that Gonzales would leave only on his own initiative. But there was still an ominous lack of congressional support for the attorney general.
"Gonzales never has developed a base of support for himself up here," a House Republican leader told me. But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment. (Ouch! - Ed.)
Republicans in Congress do not trust their president to protect them. That alone is sufficient reason to withhold statements of support for Gonzales, when such a gesture could be quickly followed by his resignation under pressure. Rep. Adam Putnam, the highly regarded young chairman of the House Republican Conference, praised Donald Rumsfeld last November, only to find him sacked shortly thereafter.
But not many Republican lawmakers would speak up for Gonzales even if they were sure Bush would stick with him. He is the least popular Cabinet member on Capitol Hill, even more disliked than Rumsfeld had been. The word most often used by Republicans in describing the management of the Justice Department under Gonzales is "incompetent."
The I-word (for incompetence) is used by Republicans in describing the Bush administration generally. Several of them I talked to described a trifecta of incompetence: the Walter Reed hospital scandal, the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act and the U.S. attorneys firing fiasco. "We always have claimed that we were the party of better management," one House leader told me. "How can we claim that anymore?"
The reconstruction of his government after Bush's re-election in 2004, though a year late, clearly improved the president's team. Yet the addition of extraordinary public servants Josh Bolten, Tony Snow and Rob Portman has not changed the image of incompetence.
A few Republicans blame incessant attack from the new Democratic majority in Congress for that image. Many more say today's problems by the administration derive from yesterday's mistakes, whose impact persists. The answer that is not entertained by the president's most severe GOP critics, even when not speaking for quotation, is that this is just the governing style of George W. Bush and never will change while he is in the Oval Office.
Regarding the Libby-Gonzales equation, unofficial word from the White House is not reassuring. One credible source says the president never -- not even on the way out of the Oval Office in January 2009 -- will pardon Libby. Another equally good source says the president never will ask Gonzales to resign. That exactly reverses the prevailing Republican opinion in Congress. Bush is alone.
From Citizens United:
Is global warming now engulfing Mars? Have Jupiter and Pluto caught the cold? Maybe they should adopt the Kyoto Protocol. Click here to listen to Fred Thompson rebut yesterday’s congressional testimony by Al “Planetary Emergency” Gore. Fred’s being hysterical, yet his point is anything but.
Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.
NASA says the Martian South Pole's "ice cap" has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter's caught the same cold, because it's warming up too, like Pluto.
This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.
Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn't even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There's a consensus.
Labels: global warming
I will be taking a much needed and deserved weekend vacation, and I don't know if I'll have Internet access where I'm going, so I may be able to moderate comments until Saturday evening. Everyone have a great weekend!
When the Republicans were in power...:
Under earlier GOP rule, Democrats routinely attacked Republicans for extending the voting time, often citing the 2003 vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill that was famously held open three hours. And Hoyer himself was one of their foremost critics.
In a July 8, 2004, news release, Hoyer railed against GOP leaders for extending a 15-minute vote to 38 minutes in order to defeat a spending amendment offered by former Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"House Republican leaders proved once again today that they will stop at virtually nothing to win a vote, even if that means running roughshod over the most basic principles of democracy such as letting members vote their conscience and calling the vote after the allotted time has elapsed," Hoyer said.
"They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but when it comes to holding votes open and twisting the arms of their own members they clearly have no shame,’’ he went on. “These back-alley tactics have no place in the greatest deliberative body in the world. They might be the lifeblood of the tin-horn dictator, but not a world leader. It's an embarrassment.”
Now in the majority and facing their first close vote with the $124 billion wartime spending bill, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) is leaving open the possibility that Democrats might extend the vote beyond the usual 15 minutes.
Asked Wednesday night whether Democrats would keep to the time limit, Hoyer paused, then pointed out that many votes can run a few minutes longer for various reasons. Pressed further by a reporter who pointed out that Democrats themselves had often criticized Republicans on this very point, Hoyer said, "It won't be open three hours. How about that?"
"How about 30 minutes?" the reporter asked.
"I won't guarantee it," Hoyer replied.
I know, I know...the question's been bantied about for 3+ years now. However, perhaps this will shed some light on it. From Bob Novak:
Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra could hardly believe what he heard last Friday on television as he watched a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman, said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden. That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed.
As House Intelligence Committee chairman when Republicans still controlled Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame's status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley. Waxman, the 67-year-old, 17-term congressman from Beverly Hills, may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Waxman was correctly quoting Hayden. But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra Wednesday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
The former CIA employee's status is critical to the attempted political rehabilitation of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. The Democratic target always has been Karl Rove, President Bush's principal adviser. The purpose of last week's hearing was to blame Rove for "outing" Plame, in preparation for revoking his security clearance.
Claims of a White House plot became so discredited that Wilson was cut out of John Kerry's presidential campaign by the summer of 2004. Last week's hearing attempted to revive a dormant issue. The glamorous Mrs. Wilson was depicted as the victim of White House machinations that aborted her career in secret intelligence.
Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?
Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert, and cited Hayden as proof. The DCI's endorsement of Waxman's statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the Agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats.
These issues were not explored by the only two Republicans who showed up at last week's hearing. Rep. Tom Davis, the committee's ranking Republican and former chairman, is a skilled legislator but not prone to roughhouse with Waxman. Unwilling to challenge Plame's covert status, Davis blamed the CIA instead of the White House for her alleged exposure. The other Republican present -- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a second-termer from metro Atlanta -- seemed awed by the beautiful woman facing him. "If I seem a little nervous," he began, "I've never questioned a spy before."
Davis had e-mailed the committee's other Republicans requesting their presence. Where were they? I asked Rep. Christopher Shays, who during nine previous terms in Congress had proved a tenacious questioner at hearings. "We felt the committee is so biased," he replied, "we would do better to just stay away."
That decision left the field last Friday to such partisan Democrats as Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Rep. Diane Watson, Waxman's fellow Californian, mimicked the chairman's inquisitorial style. She repeatedly interrupted lawyer Victoria Toensing, the lone rebuttal witness granted the Republicans by Waxman.
Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982) if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.
Waxman relied on his support from Gen. Hayden. When the DCI's role was pointed out to one of the president's most important aides, there was no response. The White House from the start has treated the Plame leak as a criminal case not to be commented on. The Democrats still consider it a political blunderbuss, aimed at Karl Rove and his boss.
Those two words should send a normal American into a panic attack. Those two words can be translated as "welfare for people who make sh#t for which no one else would pay a red cent"! However, Atlanta's leftard city council sees it differently. From Neal Boortz:
OK .. here's the way it works:
Steve learns to weld.
Steve would rather be an artist than working in a machine shop
Steve obtains some scrap metal and starts welding it together in odd shapes which he declares to be art.
Steve can't find anyone who will voluntarily pay for the piles of scrap metal he has welded together.
Steve changes his name to Stephano and drops his last name.
Still nobody will buy Stephano's art, though there is one Buckhead matron who has taken a rather prurient interest in some of Stephan's other talents.
The Buckhead matron allows Stephano to place a pile of scrap metal in her garden and begins to refer to it as a sculpture.
Buckhead socialites, after encountering Stephano's "sculpture", and desiring to pander to the matron's artistic tastes, decide that Stephan is being greatly wronged because nobody will pay him for his artistic efforts.
The buzz among the Buckhead social set is heard in the halls of the Atlanta City Council and the arts community.
A sense of anger builds that we have yet another artist in our midst who simply cannot manage to find a willing buyer in a free market environment.
Stephano and his backers become increasingly frustrated with the lack of respect the great unwashed have for his artistic talents.
The arts community -- which, by the way, won't buy any of Stephano's art either -- tells Atlanta's political leaders that Atlanta simply cannot survive or be considered a world class international city unless Stephano's "art" is displayed citywide.
A plan is hatched to use the police power of the Atlanta city government to fun the purchase of Stephano's piles of junk.
The city seizes money from residents and writes some fat checks to Stephan for more artwork.
Stephano, no longer needing to service the needs of the Buckhead matron, tells her to find another cabana boy.
Atlanta residents wake up one morning wondering when someone is going to come along and remove those piles of scrap metal someone left in their neighborhood overnight.
This scenario, or something very close to it, is playing out in Atlanta right now. A task force appointed by the Mayor has determined that Atlanta needs a cultural investment fund in the amount of at least $10 million that will provide money to artists, arts organizations and what it refers to as "cultural organizations." The suggestion is that there should be a tax on businesses operating in Atlanta to provide the funds. The story in this morning's Atlanta Journal-Constitution says that "Many of those who work in the arts in Atlanta said they hope to see some progress on arts funding soon."
At this point you shouldn't need a translation of that quote from the AJC. But then again, many of you went to government schools, so I'll provide that translation for you. Many of the people in the arts community in Atlanta remain frustrated by the fact that Atlanta residents will not voluntarily pay for their art. So, of the Atlanta residents won't voluntarily buy their art, the government should step in and make them buy the art by seizing their money and transferring that money to artists and arts organizations.
And what about this idea of placing a special tax on Atlanta businesses? What we have here is the arts community taking advantage of the ignorance of our government-educated residents. They know that many people think that if the tax is placed on the businesses this means that the rank and file Atlantans won't be paying for the art. Sadly, they're possibly right. Our education is so pathetic that most people can't noodle out the fact that all taxes paid by businesses are passed on to the consumers of whatever service or goods they sell.
Fresh off of his PR black eye regarding the Goreacle's sky-high energy consumption bills (for a place he barely stays at most of the year), Gore thought this would be a great follow-up:
Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during today’s global warming hearing.
Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”
It has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.
“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.
“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.
As a believer:
· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;
· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;
· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and
· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;
I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”
Gore refused to take the pledge.
This kinda puts the kibosh on that whole "post-Katrina screw-ups were Bush's fault" crap, doesn't it? From Fox News:
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, whose popularity plummeted after two hurricanes devastated Louisiana during her term, announced Tuesday that she will not seek re-election.
The decision will let her get what she called important initiatives through an upcoming legislative session without having to worry about political considerations, she said.
"I am doing this so we can work without interference from election year politics," Blanco said.
Blanco, 64, had been widely criticized not only for her immediate response to the storms, but also for a bureaucracy-bogged recovery effort. (Don't forget about the primo remodeling job, fresh after Katrina hit and after hinting at cutting state personnel and services. - Ed.)
That effort included the "Road Home" program, designed to funnel billions in federal dollars to pay hurricane-struck homeowners for repairs or buyouts. More than 115,000 people whose homes were damaged in 2005 by the hurricanes have applied for the aid. As of this week, about 3,000 have received grants.
In a poll of 600 likely voters taken Jan. 12-14 by Southern Media and Opinion Research, Blanco had a job approval rating of 50 percent approval rating. But in a head-to-head hypothetical race with Republican U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, 59 percent chose the Metairie congressman and only 35 percent selected Blanco. Democrats have said that Blanco would likely lose to Jindal and have encouraged [former US Senator John] Breaux to run.
When it's not the evil Bu$hitler McRummyburton trying to kill off the polar bears with the dastardly Rovian global "warming" polar ice cap melting machine, it's...an animal rights activist trying to kill polar bears? From the Euros:
Tiny, fluffy and adorable, Knut the baby polar bear became an animal superstar after he was abandoned by his mother.
He rapidly became the symbol of Berlin Zoo, whose staff bottle-fed him and handed out cuddles in between.
At three months old, however, the playful 19lb bundle of fur is at the centre of an impassioned debate over whether he should live or die.
Animal rights activists argue that he should be given a lethal injection rather than brought up suffering the humiliation of being treated as a domestic pet.
"The zoo must kill the bear," said spokesman Frank Albrecht. "Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws."
When Knut was born in December, his mother ignored him and his brother, who died. Zoo officials intervened, choosing to raise the cub themselves.
But Albrecht and other activists fret that it is inappropriate for a predator, known for its fierceness and ability to fend for itself in the wild, to be snuggled, bottle-fed and made into a commodity by zookeepers.
But Berlin Zoo holds different opinions. Its chief vet Andre Schuele says the activists' criticisms would make him angry if he could take them seriously. "Polar bears live alone in the wild. I see no logical reason why this bear should be killed."
Schuele also argued that given the increased rarity of wild polar bears, it makes sense to keep them alive in captivity so that they can be bred. "Polar bears are under threat of extinction, and if we feed the bear with a bottle, it has a good chance of growing up and perhaps becoming attractive as a stud for other zoos," he said.
Knut...marked for death by the animal "rights" nuts!
Thanks to Kanaka Girl for passing this on to me. Indulge me if you've seen this before.
Must.resist.urge.to.make.pun.on."pack" and San Franistan! From LGF:
As always, the San Francisco anti-war rallies beat the rest of the nation in the Sheer Lunacy department. Zombie was there, and yes ... so were the Angry Furries, with their personal electronic devices and tambourines. US flag desecration, anti-Israel hatred, 9/11 conspiracy kooks, it’s all here.
As usual, if you haven't taken this opportunity to question their patriotism, feel free to do so now. From Milwaukee:
Police have arrested four people and are questioning about 20 more in connection with vandalism that took place at an east side Army recruiting office tonight.
Officers were called to the 3100 block of Oakland Ave. around 8 p.m. were Iraq War protesters clad in black, carrying torches and wearing ski masks were reportedly setting off smoke bombs and throwing paint as they approached an Army recruiting center on the block, said Sgt. Eric Pfeiffer, of the Milwaukee Police Department.
Someone threw an object through the recruitment center's window and spread what appears to be human waste inside before running off, Pfeiffer said.
Ah, the joys of forced economic equality! From the AP:
Laura Garcia doesn't have a car, and the change in her pocket won't cover the 15-cent bus fare. But standing by a crumbling overpass, sweating in her shorts, sunglasses and skimpy top, the 18-year-old says a free ride is only an outstretched thumb away.
"People will take you. You can always find drivers to help," said Garcia, who studies law in Havana and was going to see her parents in Pinar del Rio, a 90-minute ride west.
Hitchhiking is a way of life in communist Cuba, where cars are scarce, a gallon of gas costs a third of a civil servant's monthly salary, and public transportation is unreliable and overcrowded. Lately things have worsened, with even acting President Raul Castro admitting in December that public transport was "practically on the point of collapse."
From the Right Wing Nut House:
As I said, it’s too late – too late for the facts to catch up with the hysteria. The New York Times is pooh-poohing the idea that some of the USA’s were fired for not aggressively going after voting fraud cases. To the Times, voter fraud is just not important enough an issue to remove a US Attorney:In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.
In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on “fraud,” the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.
I guess thousands of fake voter registration forms submitted by the highly partisan ACORN as well as other frauds perpetrated by the usual suspects at the AFL-CIO, Moveon, and other liberal advocacy groups should be allowed into the system – at least according to the Times. We wouldn’t want to disturb the moronic notion that partisan Republicans use “code” to differentiate between real people and sock puppets who would be capable of voting 5, 10, or 20 times at different polling stations. Democrats never perpetrate these kinds of frauds – just ask the dead people in any Chicago cemetery and they’ll swear on their graves that such shenanigans never take place.
Though I still maintain that Obama is nothing more than an empty suit who will hide his true colors from the electorate, I nonetheless am giddier than a patchouli vendor at a Kos convention whenever Osamabama attacks Her Highness.
It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate -- one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.
Yet the groundbreaking 74-second pitch for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, which remixes the classic "1984" ad that introduced Apple computers to the world, is not on cable or network TV, but on the Internet.
(To see the video, go to: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo)
And Obama's campaign says it had absolutely nothing to do with the video that attacks one of his principal Democratic rivals, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Indeed, the ad's creator is a mystery, at least for now.
The compelling "Hillary 1984" video recently introduced on YouTube represents "a new era, a new wave of politics ... because it's not about Obama," said Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank on politics and new media. "It's about the end of the broadcast era."
But some say the ad is just the latest attempt by outside activists to influence political campaigns -- or the newest way for campaigns to anonymously attack their opponents.
The video is a sophisticated new take on director Ridley Scott's controversial Apple ad that caused shock waves with its premiere during the 1984 Super Bowl, and shows the same blond young female athlete running with a sledgehammer toward a widescreen -- where an ominous Big Brother figure drones to a mass of zombielike followers. (Isn't "a mass of zombielike followers" another term for "Democrat voters"? - Ed.)
But this time, the woman is wearing an iPod -- and has her candidate's slogan on her chest. And the Big Brother -- whose image she defiantly smashes with a wave of her sledgehammer -- is Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner.
The tagline for the attack: "On Jan. 14, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like 1984."
An updated Apple symbol -- transformed into an O -- is followed by the dramatically emerging logo: BarackObama.com.
Veteran San Francisco ad man Bob Gardner, whose work has included political campaigns for former President Gerald Ford, said the video is "very powerful" in its efforts to call for a generational change in politics.
"It puts Hillary spouting cliche nonsense to the drones (better known as "Democrat voters"...hey, deja vu! - Ed.) -- while a fresh face breaks through," he says. "It's old versus new."
Not far off from the truth, is it?
Sorry, Senator Rockefeller et al, but the Iraqis don't agree that they'd be better off under Saddam. From the UK:
MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.
The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.
One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.
Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month. (I guess these folks don't read the NY Times or watch CNN, do they? You know, those MSM sources nowhere near them that think they know what's going on more so than the Iraqis? - Ed.)
By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.
Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.
That's what Bill O'Reilly told his viewers Thursday night as he nabbed the New York Times in publishing a phony story.
On Thursday, the paper ran an editorial claiming that "a screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure."
But on his Fox News show Thursday night, O'Reilly said the the Times report was made up out of whole cloth.
The point of the Times editorial was that the baby's mother and more than 300 other workers in a leather-goods factory in New Bedford, Mass., were "terrorized — subdued by guns and dogs, their children stranded at school — so that the country will notice that the Bush administration is serious about enforcing immigration laws."
As a result of this so-called "terrorism," the Times insisted that the baby was faced with a potentially fatal disorder as a result of the raid that forcibly separated the infant from her mother as the federal raid took place.
Because the Times editorial was so serious, O'Reilly said on his "O'Reilly Factor" show that he and his staff decided to look into the situation.
They immediately found problems with the Times report.
Said O'Reilly: "On March 6th ... federal agents raided a factory in New Bedford, Massachusetts ... detaining 361 illegal workers ... and arresting the owner of the business. Almost immediately ... the feds say ... 50 detainees were released to care for their children and the rest were taken to Fort Devens for processing and possible deportation."
Noting the Times' lead paragraph about "a screaming baby girl" being forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, O'Reilly remarked: "Wow. A screaming baby denied breast milk ... so dehydrated she has to be hospitalized? How can this happen in America?"
"Well," he said, "it may not have happened."
"Because the Times editorial was so intense, we decided to look into the situation. And guess what? There are some problems."
Here's what O'Reilly's investigators found: Two babies were admitted to two New Bedford-area hospitals shortly after the raid - a 7-month-old was taken to St. Vincent's Hospital, where it was diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration, while another baby was admitted to St. Luke's, also with pneumonia and dehydration. Both babies were accompanied by guardians, and both were treated.
Neither child fit the allegations in the Times story.
O'Reilly said, "If there's another baby in play here, we can't find it. Of course, the immigration raid did not cause the pneumonia, which most likely led to the dehydration. So the description used by the New York Times to demonize the Department of Homeland Security seems to be false."
O'Reilly concluded: "America must not harm children and the feds have to make exceptions on humanitarian grounds when kids are involved. The kids are not responsible for the immigration mess. But Talking Points is fed up with misleading and dishonest tactics in this debate. "The truth is that we cannot find a baby in Massachusetts that was forcibly weaned from her mother's breast. The truth is that the two babies we did find had developed pneumonia on their mother's watch before the raid.
"Unless the New York Times has other verifiable information, honesty dictates it correct its editorial."
How could I have missed this? Yesterday was the Fifth Annual International Eat an Animal for PETA Day! Hat tip to Smash:
Meryl Yourish, the originator of IEAPD, explains:PETA has started yet another offensive ad campaign. This one really reaches bottom—they are using Holocaust terminology, quotes, and pictures to liken the “slaughter” of animals to the slaughter of the Jews by the Nazis.
I’ve already received a letter from a child of Holocaust survivors who is, of course, extraordinarily offended. But here’s the thing: PETA is known for this kind of outrageous publicity stunt—and that’s what it is, an outrageous publicity stunt—and while I am also offended and outraged, there is absolutely nothing we can do that will make PETA change their ad campaign. I’m sure they knew exactly what they were doing, have a plan in mind, and, if they withdraw the campaign, will do it according to their deadlines and their decisions.
So let’s make up our own outrageous publicity stunt. Let’s designate... March 15th, as International Eat an Animal for PETA Day. Everybody set the date on your calendar, and either go out and enjoy a great steak, or cook one at home. Or cook up some chicken or fish or anything else that PETA wouldn’t want you to eat.
I had some yummy chicken for lunch today, and even more for dinner.
What animal(s) did you eat?
Labels: animal rights wackos
Go ahead, leftards, and remind us how you "oppose the war but support the troops"! Um...no, you don't. From Indepundit:
I swear, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. This profile in moonbattery is brought to you by Hot Air, and sponsored by the letters "BDS":
McAuliffe was about as honest as I expected, which is to say that he didn’t strike me as being particularly honest. During Q&A, our own Ian pestered Terry Mac about his Global Crossing earnings. If you haven’t heard about that or his interesting land deal, well, you don’t know just how much of a hypocrite he is for criticizing the business deals of everyone named Bush. Ian did well going toe to toe with the man who ran the DNC for about 8 years.
Also during Q&A, several liberals in the audience came at McAuliffe from the left, giving him the chance to burnish his nutroots credentials. He took the opportunity and ran with it. One asked him why the US is so unpopular with Hugo Chavez, prompting McAuliffe’s BDS affliction to come out in full glory. Keep in mind that Chavez is turning all of Venezuela into an armed camp as he cozies up to the Iranian mullahs and turns himself into a clone of Fidel Castro. Keep in mind that Chavez calls himself an enemy of the US, and keep in mind that Chavez currently rules Venezuela by dictatorial decree as he nationalizes (a fancy way of saying “steals”) private companies. Keep in mind that Chavez was kept in power, in all likelihood, by a sham election certified real by Jimmy Carter. Keeping all of that in mind, McAuliffe actually blamed Chavez’s actions and attitudes on George W. Bush.
Which, if he’s being logically consistent (is that possible? - Ed.), means Castro is entirely the fault of John F. Kennedy.