We have talked about Howard Dean begging the jihadis to accept an American surrender here:
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/12/dean-surrenders-america-shrugs.html
We have talked about John Kerry equating our troops to terrorists here:
http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/12/john-kerry-supports-troops.html
The RNC has create a commercial blending these cowardly soundbites together, to show America once and for all how the Democratic party plans to handle Iraq and national security in general shoul they ever gain executive power again. It can be seen here, via this link to Gateway Pundit: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/immediate-surrender-ad-released.html
North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy, Democrat:
My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up," Pomeroy told WDAY Radio in North Dakota on Thursday.
{link: http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2005/12/09/news/state/106702.txt}
Dean tries to backtrack, but just keeps stumbling over his own lies and hateful rhetoric:
Seeking to clarify a statement in a Texas radio interview that Republicans harshly assailed and some Democrats questioned, Dean said, "They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq."
It's not cherry picked at all, unfortunately...and Howard - nobody, not even your own party, believes you were taken out of context.
Dean's broadside Monday, likening Iraq to the Vietnam experience, went beyond an earlier call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to begin to pull troops out. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., embraced Murtha's position Wednesday. But other Democrats have been more cautious about second-guessing President Bush on this issue.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said earlier this week that Democrats "undercut the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
Here he goes at it again:
Dean said: "It was a little out of context. ... We can only win if we change our strategy dramatically. ... We want to serve our troops well. They're doing a fantastic job in Iraq."
Dean charged that Bush is "going in the wrong direction. We'll go in the right direction and save soldiers lives while we're doing it."
"We can and we have to win the war on terror," the Democratic Party chairman added. "We can't do it with this kind of approach."
Asked about Lieberman's statement, Dean replied, "I am not as worried about the president's credibility. ... We need to redeploy our troops and stop making our troops the target over there. We believe that talking about the president's failed strategy is not unpatriotic. It may undercut the president but it does not undercut the troops. We are for the troops and we are going to support the troops."
Well, surrender is a change of strategy. And I would think Howard would be hard pressed, after this new statement, to find many soldiers that believe he actually supports the troops.
Because the only thing he is doing is painting targets on their chests.
Link to above via Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178091,00.html
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Cindy Sheehan Joins the Insurgents
...Hundreds of anti-war protesters, including American Cindy Sheehan, attended an international peace conference in London on Saturday to condemn the Iraq conflict..
Hundreds? Wow...I see more people than that waiting on line for a bus to work in the morning...why isn't the AP reporting from the Old Bridge Park & Ride?
Tony Benn, a veteran leftist politician in the governing Labour Party, opened the one-day meeting by calling the war "illegal, immoral and unwinnable."
He said the peace movement wants to see coalition troops withdrawn from Iraq, justice for Palestinians and a ban on any Western military attacks on Iran or Syria...
So the European left has taken up Dean's rallying cry word for word (nice work, governor! Ever hear the phrase "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" before?). And they want to tie our hands so that we cannnot fight the nations that are the world's primary sponsors of terrorism. And I wonder what "justice for the Palestinians" means, exactly? Is that just another way of saying "death to the Jews?"
The scheduled speakers included Sheehan, who has become a focus of anti-war sentiment in the United States by camping outside the Texas ranch of President George W. Bush; Hasan Zergani Hashim, a spokesperson for Iraq's radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr; and leftist British legislator George Galloway.
So Sheehan has directly allied herself with al-Sadr, who is responsible for the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds, of American soldiers, including possibly Mother Sheehan's own son. What a sick woman. Note the banner she marches under:
Hundreds? Wow...I see more people than that waiting on line for a bus to work in the morning...why isn't the AP reporting from the Old Bridge Park & Ride?
Tony Benn, a veteran leftist politician in the governing Labour Party, opened the one-day meeting by calling the war "illegal, immoral and unwinnable."
He said the peace movement wants to see coalition troops withdrawn from Iraq, justice for Palestinians and a ban on any Western military attacks on Iran or Syria...
So the European left has taken up Dean's rallying cry word for word (nice work, governor! Ever hear the phrase "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" before?). And they want to tie our hands so that we cannnot fight the nations that are the world's primary sponsors of terrorism. And I wonder what "justice for the Palestinians" means, exactly? Is that just another way of saying "death to the Jews?"
The scheduled speakers included Sheehan, who has become a focus of anti-war sentiment in the United States by camping outside the Texas ranch of President George W. Bush; Hasan Zergani Hashim, a spokesperson for Iraq's radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr; and leftist British legislator George Galloway.
So Sheehan has directly allied herself with al-Sadr, who is responsible for the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds, of American soldiers, including possibly Mother Sheehan's own son. What a sick woman. Note the banner she marches under:
So Cindy, does "Freedom for Palestine" mean freedom for the Jews to live without fear of terrorist attacks and nuclear annihilation?
Or do you think it means something else; like perhaps pushing those pesky Jews into the sea so that Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad can create a "free" Palestine? After all, look at what a great job they have done in the territories!
I continue to exhort the MSM to focus on this woman, and to do the best they can to connect her with prominent Democrats. Just plays into our hands...
Yahoo/AP link here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051210/ap_on_re_eu/britain_anti_war_protest_1 Photo via LGF here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18524_Mama_Moonbat_Takes_a_Trip&only
French Thought-Police Attack!
Free speech in France is dead; especially if you are a Jewish philosopher (who probably considers himself a Frenchman more than a Jew; however, like in Hitler’s day, they hang the Yellow Star on you) who dares to have a different interpetation of the French Riots of 2005:
A prominent French Jewish intellectual has come under attack for criticizing the public reaction to recent Muslim riots as too sympathetic.
Critics called Alain Finkielkraut racist for emphasizing the ethnicity and religion of the rioters in a Nov. 18 interview with Ha’aretz.
Finkielkraut, 56, was quoted as saying that “in France there are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult – Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese – and they’re not taking part in the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an ethno-religious character.”
Contrary to the widespread opinion that the riots could not be “reduced to an unalloyed reaction to French racism,” Finkielkraut argued that they were attacks not against France “as a former colonial power” but “against France as a European country. Against France, with its Christian or Judeo-Christian tradition
Shameful enough that France refuses to mention the elephant in the room (which threatens to destroy them all), but it gets worse:
The comments by Finkielkraut, a former leader of the left-wing 1968 student uprisings who in recent years has been characterized as a “neo-conservative” because of his support for Israel, launched a French version of the “culture wars” that have periodically raged in the United States over the past few decades.
On Nov. 24, the Movement Against Racism filed charges of racism against Finkielkraut. Racism is a criminal offence in France.
In democratic France, stray from the government line, and expect to be sued to death by government/media-supported NGO’s. Here’s more of Finkielkraut’s "radical" thought:
He said he was perturbed by the riots not only as a Frenchman, but as a Jew. As he told Ha’aretz, “When an Arab torches a school, it’s rebellion. When a white guy does it, it’s fascism. I’m colour blind. Evil is evil, no matter what colour it is. And this evil, for the Jew that I am, is completely intolerable.”
Finkielkraut also said the French educational system breeds a “post-colonial mind-set” that offers sympathy for the rioters and, he claimed, is “creating an infrastructure for the new anti-Semitism.”
True, true, all true! What kind of world do we live in where a man gets vilified for applying philosophy to current events? When a respected thinker applies his methodology to a certain problem and comes up with a differing cause/effect, does not the crucifixion of this man radically curtail free thought itself? What kind of state has France become?
Well, I can tell you what can of country it will become: Any Nation-State, throughout history, that has curtailed free thought under penalty of law becomes morally corrupt, economically stagnent, and reflexibly hostile. Welcome to your future, sons and daughters of Gaul...
Finkielkraut’s legal troubles aren’t over yet. In the Ha’aretz interview, he referred to the French comedian Dieudonne as the “guardian of [the new] anti-Semitism in France.”
Dieudonne, who has been prosecuted several times for anti-Semitic remarks, responded by pressing libel charges against Finkielkraut.
Dieudonne is vile racist who spews anti-semetic hate under the guide of entertainment (which it certainly was for the Nazis) all over the airwaves of an accommodating French media. Again, a libel charge for speaking the truth.
It reminds me of how upset the Democratic Party gets when someone confronts the likes of Dean/Kerry/Murtha with their own cowardly quotes. Rather than debate, they lash out at the Republicans for the nerve of throwing their words back at them, as if some code was broken, and that is the real crime committed. Same in France, I guess...
Now, if our friendly philosopher was not Jewish but a Muslim instead, would he be under threat of lawsuit, or do you think that he would be considered a “differing expert opinion” ?
I don’t have to guess on that one…
Probably would be a fatwa placed on his head as well.
Direct link to this article here: http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=8018
It is from a series of links/post on this controversy found on Fausta’s Blog here: http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/france-finkielkraut-round-up-by-way-of.html
A prominent French Jewish intellectual has come under attack for criticizing the public reaction to recent Muslim riots as too sympathetic.
Critics called Alain Finkielkraut racist for emphasizing the ethnicity and religion of the rioters in a Nov. 18 interview with Ha’aretz.
Finkielkraut, 56, was quoted as saying that “in France there are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult – Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese – and they’re not taking part in the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an ethno-religious character.”
Contrary to the widespread opinion that the riots could not be “reduced to an unalloyed reaction to French racism,” Finkielkraut argued that they were attacks not against France “as a former colonial power” but “against France as a European country. Against France, with its Christian or Judeo-Christian tradition
Shameful enough that France refuses to mention the elephant in the room (which threatens to destroy them all), but it gets worse:
The comments by Finkielkraut, a former leader of the left-wing 1968 student uprisings who in recent years has been characterized as a “neo-conservative” because of his support for Israel, launched a French version of the “culture wars” that have periodically raged in the United States over the past few decades.
On Nov. 24, the Movement Against Racism filed charges of racism against Finkielkraut. Racism is a criminal offence in France.
In democratic France, stray from the government line, and expect to be sued to death by government/media-supported NGO’s. Here’s more of Finkielkraut’s "radical" thought:
He said he was perturbed by the riots not only as a Frenchman, but as a Jew. As he told Ha’aretz, “When an Arab torches a school, it’s rebellion. When a white guy does it, it’s fascism. I’m colour blind. Evil is evil, no matter what colour it is. And this evil, for the Jew that I am, is completely intolerable.”
Finkielkraut also said the French educational system breeds a “post-colonial mind-set” that offers sympathy for the rioters and, he claimed, is “creating an infrastructure for the new anti-Semitism.”
True, true, all true! What kind of world do we live in where a man gets vilified for applying philosophy to current events? When a respected thinker applies his methodology to a certain problem and comes up with a differing cause/effect, does not the crucifixion of this man radically curtail free thought itself? What kind of state has France become?
Well, I can tell you what can of country it will become: Any Nation-State, throughout history, that has curtailed free thought under penalty of law becomes morally corrupt, economically stagnent, and reflexibly hostile. Welcome to your future, sons and daughters of Gaul...
Finkielkraut’s legal troubles aren’t over yet. In the Ha’aretz interview, he referred to the French comedian Dieudonne as the “guardian of [the new] anti-Semitism in France.”
Dieudonne, who has been prosecuted several times for anti-Semitic remarks, responded by pressing libel charges against Finkielkraut.
Dieudonne is vile racist who spews anti-semetic hate under the guide of entertainment (which it certainly was for the Nazis) all over the airwaves of an accommodating French media. Again, a libel charge for speaking the truth.
It reminds me of how upset the Democratic Party gets when someone confronts the likes of Dean/Kerry/Murtha with their own cowardly quotes. Rather than debate, they lash out at the Republicans for the nerve of throwing their words back at them, as if some code was broken, and that is the real crime committed. Same in France, I guess...
Now, if our friendly philosopher was not Jewish but a Muslim instead, would he be under threat of lawsuit, or do you think that he would be considered a “differing expert opinion” ?
I don’t have to guess on that one…
Probably would be a fatwa placed on his head as well.
Direct link to this article here: http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=8018
It is from a series of links/post on this controversy found on Fausta’s Blog here: http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/france-finkielkraut-round-up-by-way-of.html
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Dean Surrenders, America Shrugs...
Dhimmi Dean dances feverishly to convince America that yes, it is Vietnam all over again:
In an interview with WOAI-AM in San Antonio, Dean criticized what he called
President "permanent commitment to a failed strategy" while saying, "We need to be out of there and take the targets off our troops back." Dean recalled that the strategy to stay the course in Vietnam cost thousands more lives to be lost.
"I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there," Dean said. "The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong."
{link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_re_us/dean_iraq_2}
Dean doesn't explain why we cannot win, of course, since there are no serious facts to honestly compare Iraq and Vietnam. He's simply trying to turn America against the war by assuring us that we are going to lose. And Howie, aren't you the one painting the target on our troop's back, by constantly reassuring the terrrorists that we'll cut and run if they only kill a few more US Marines?
Dean tells Americans we are losers, Murtha calls the Army "beaten down", John Kerry calls American soldiers terrorists ( http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/12/john-kerry-supports-troops.html) ...but don't you dare question their patriotism - they support the troops!
And just maybe those Dems are on the wrong side of that whole torture issue as well? From MSNBC, no right-wing news outfit:
Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture
Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling....
....In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way.
{link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/}
For a lark, read how CNN spins the exact same info - their headline reads Poll: U.S. Allies Oppose Interrogations; but their third sentence in says:
...about as many saying it's OK in some cases as those saying it never should be used.
Hardly "opposed", if just as many say its OK, right? Heck, why let facts get into the way of a good spin? Chock full of anti-American agitprop, this article is {link here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/us.torture.poll.ap/index.html} . But why do I have the feeling that this is what the Democrats are reading, and getting their talking points from?
Gosh, I really, really wish the midterm elections were tomorrow...
In an interview with WOAI-AM in San Antonio, Dean criticized what he called
President "permanent commitment to a failed strategy" while saying, "We need to be out of there and take the targets off our troops back." Dean recalled that the strategy to stay the course in Vietnam cost thousands more lives to be lost.
"I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there," Dean said. "The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong."
{link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_re_us/dean_iraq_2}
Dean doesn't explain why we cannot win, of course, since there are no serious facts to honestly compare Iraq and Vietnam. He's simply trying to turn America against the war by assuring us that we are going to lose. And Howie, aren't you the one painting the target on our troop's back, by constantly reassuring the terrrorists that we'll cut and run if they only kill a few more US Marines?
Dean tells Americans we are losers, Murtha calls the Army "beaten down", John Kerry calls American soldiers terrorists ( http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/12/john-kerry-supports-troops.html) ...but don't you dare question their patriotism - they support the troops!
And just maybe those Dems are on the wrong side of that whole torture issue as well? From MSNBC, no right-wing news outfit:
Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture
Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling....
....In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way.
{link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/}
For a lark, read how CNN spins the exact same info - their headline reads Poll: U.S. Allies Oppose Interrogations; but their third sentence in says:
...about as many saying it's OK in some cases as those saying it never should be used.
Hardly "opposed", if just as many say its OK, right? Heck, why let facts get into the way of a good spin? Chock full of anti-American agitprop, this article is {link here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/us.torture.poll.ap/index.html} . But why do I have the feeling that this is what the Democrats are reading, and getting their talking points from?
Gosh, I really, really wish the midterm elections were tomorrow...
Murtha's Motivation?
Since every move the Democrats have made on the Iraqi war has been so deeply steeped in politics (apologies, Joe Lieberman), this theory makes more sense to me than it ought to - from Jim Kouri at the Sierra Times:
Why did Murtha suddenly change his mind? Was this a calculated effort to win the news media over? Is this something he hopes will insulate him from something that is brewing within the Beltway?
Well, according to investigative journalist Sher Zieve, the House Ethics committee is considering investigating Rep. John Murtha for House multiple ethics violations. The investigation would center on Rep. Murtha’s involvement with his brother’s firm KSA Consulting.
The story, which originally ran in the Los Angeles Times on 13 June, surrounds the 2005 appropriations bill that funded $20M to companies for which KSA Consulting lobbied. Murtha is a leader on the House Defense Appropriations Committee. An aide to Murtha, Carmen Scialabba, also works for KSA.
Kouri speculates:
My own BS meter is showing that Murtha conducted a calculated and probably successful operation to neutralize Republicans if they should make an issue of his ethics deficiencies. The LA Times article in June was written while Murtha was considered a war hawk. Now that he's become an "enlightened" anti-war spokesperson don't expect to see followup articles about any ethics violations or criminal acts by Rep. John Murtha.
....As long as he calls for troop withdrawals and makes ridiculous statements about the US military, he's insured himself against the mainstream news media reporting on his ethics problems. Besides, the media only cover Republican politicians accused of misconduct.
Why do I have a sickening feeling that Kouri is on-spot here? Maybe I shouldn't be distressed; the American public is not behind Murtha, and it appears as if the Democratic party is about to follow him off a cliff...
Link to Kouri's post here: http://www.sierratimes.com/05/12/05/152_163_100_12_18073.htm
Why did Murtha suddenly change his mind? Was this a calculated effort to win the news media over? Is this something he hopes will insulate him from something that is brewing within the Beltway?
Well, according to investigative journalist Sher Zieve, the House Ethics committee is considering investigating Rep. John Murtha for House multiple ethics violations. The investigation would center on Rep. Murtha’s involvement with his brother’s firm KSA Consulting.
The story, which originally ran in the Los Angeles Times on 13 June, surrounds the 2005 appropriations bill that funded $20M to companies for which KSA Consulting lobbied. Murtha is a leader on the House Defense Appropriations Committee. An aide to Murtha, Carmen Scialabba, also works for KSA.
Kouri speculates:
My own BS meter is showing that Murtha conducted a calculated and probably successful operation to neutralize Republicans if they should make an issue of his ethics deficiencies. The LA Times article in June was written while Murtha was considered a war hawk. Now that he's become an "enlightened" anti-war spokesperson don't expect to see followup articles about any ethics violations or criminal acts by Rep. John Murtha.
....As long as he calls for troop withdrawals and makes ridiculous statements about the US military, he's insured himself against the mainstream news media reporting on his ethics problems. Besides, the media only cover Republican politicians accused of misconduct.
Why do I have a sickening feeling that Kouri is on-spot here? Maybe I shouldn't be distressed; the American public is not behind Murtha, and it appears as if the Democratic party is about to follow him off a cliff...
Link to Kouri's post here: http://www.sierratimes.com/05/12/05/152_163_100_12_18073.htm
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Chavez Steals Another One
What if you hold an election, and nobody comes? Seems like the case in Venezuela, where the masses who simply adore "el presidente loco" seemed not to show themselves on election day. From Gateway Pundit:
Chavez Embarrassed by Venezuela Voter Turnout
ONLY ONE QUARTER OF VOTERS SHOW UP FOR ELECTION IN VENEZUELA!
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's political party said it had won 114 out of 167 seats in the Congress after opposition parties dropped out of elections protesting against bias by electoral authorities...
But with just 114 MVR seats in the Congress, the pro-Chavez alliance would have more than the two-thirds it needs to press for what they call necessary reforms, such as allowing unlimited re-election to the presidency, which opponents fear will give even greater authority to the former army officer. Chavez, a frequent critic of Washington, has accused US officials of orchestrating the boycott to trigger a political crisis...
{Link: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/chavez-embarrassed-by-venezuela-voter.html }
I doubt whether this voter boycott is an effective tool. I understand the moral case in refusing to participate in what one feels is a fraudulent election, but rather than invalidate the results, the winners claim electoral legitimacy and tighten their hold on power. Iran is a good example, where most secular and peace-loving Persians want little to do with their radical Islamist government. But by failing to vote for anybody, the fundamentalists claimed control and seem to be leading Iran towards a nuclear holocaust. One might say the Sunnis in Iraq understand this; when they saw they way they were virtually shut out of power after the first round of elections, they suddenly lost their desire to "boycott" any future opportunities to vote.
It is better, I believe, to vote en mass and then claim fraud when the results are flipped, then to deny legitimacy by spurning the process. Again, a moral decision, but for the second time in over a year, it may prove to be a flawed one. How hard will it be to get Chavez out of office in the future if he uses his newfound majority to decree himself President for Life?
Other thoughts:
-Is Chavez one of those guys that is more popular outside of his country (read: Bill Clinton, John Kerry) than with his own people? Think of the damage Spain may be doing to the Venezuelan people and the region by propping up this leftist buffoon...
-when will the New York Times write an editorial "validating" his election telling us to "get over it", like they did last time? Remember, when Sunni Arabs boycott an election, it is "invalid", but when 75% of Venezuelans fail to show, it is "legitimate".
And here he is, the man Jimmy Carter and the New York Times claim as a legitimate leader:
Chavez Embarrassed by Venezuela Voter Turnout
ONLY ONE QUARTER OF VOTERS SHOW UP FOR ELECTION IN VENEZUELA!
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's political party said it had won 114 out of 167 seats in the Congress after opposition parties dropped out of elections protesting against bias by electoral authorities...
But with just 114 MVR seats in the Congress, the pro-Chavez alliance would have more than the two-thirds it needs to press for what they call necessary reforms, such as allowing unlimited re-election to the presidency, which opponents fear will give even greater authority to the former army officer. Chavez, a frequent critic of Washington, has accused US officials of orchestrating the boycott to trigger a political crisis...
{Link: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/chavez-embarrassed-by-venezuela-voter.html }
I doubt whether this voter boycott is an effective tool. I understand the moral case in refusing to participate in what one feels is a fraudulent election, but rather than invalidate the results, the winners claim electoral legitimacy and tighten their hold on power. Iran is a good example, where most secular and peace-loving Persians want little to do with their radical Islamist government. But by failing to vote for anybody, the fundamentalists claimed control and seem to be leading Iran towards a nuclear holocaust. One might say the Sunnis in Iraq understand this; when they saw they way they were virtually shut out of power after the first round of elections, they suddenly lost their desire to "boycott" any future opportunities to vote.
It is better, I believe, to vote en mass and then claim fraud when the results are flipped, then to deny legitimacy by spurning the process. Again, a moral decision, but for the second time in over a year, it may prove to be a flawed one. How hard will it be to get Chavez out of office in the future if he uses his newfound majority to decree himself President for Life?
Other thoughts:
-Is Chavez one of those guys that is more popular outside of his country (read: Bill Clinton, John Kerry) than with his own people? Think of the damage Spain may be doing to the Venezuelan people and the region by propping up this leftist buffoon...
-when will the New York Times write an editorial "validating" his election telling us to "get over it", like they did last time? Remember, when Sunni Arabs boycott an election, it is "invalid", but when 75% of Venezuelans fail to show, it is "legitimate".
And here he is, the man Jimmy Carter and the New York Times claim as a legitimate leader:
Is this the type 0f man whom the liberals pray will inherit the earth? May God help us all...
Monday, December 05, 2005
John Kerry Supports the Troops!
Kerry has been playing the same filthy game since Vietnam; he was a soldier badmouthing other soldiers for his own political gain back then, and continues to use the technique today. Captain's Quarters has a transcript from his appearance on "Face the Nation" on Suday 12/4; and points out some of Kerry's troop-supportive commentary:
KERRY: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that.
Kerry knows exactly what he is saying here; he is intentionally trying to smear American troops battling in Iraq as terrorists in order to end the war; the same way he demonized US troop during Vietnam in order to end that war. A few thoughts:
-Kerry's tactic is to equalize our soldiers with the enemy we are fighting (whether the Viet Cong or al-Qaeda), thus trying to show people that "we are no better than they are", so "why are we fighting?"
-Kerry is essentially lobbying for retreat/surrender rather than victory; what do they say again about the morality of a man whom believes "nothing is worth fighting for"?
-What does Kerry mean, Iraqis should be doing that? An act is terrorism or it is not. If Iraqis do it, is it OK?? Only the most weasly type of PC loser can define the innate morality of an action by the race/nationality of the persons taking part. It is so...European.
President Kerry...thank God the American people were smarter than that.
Link to Captain's Quarters here: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005893.php
KERRY: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
SCHIEFFER: Yeah.
Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that.
Kerry knows exactly what he is saying here; he is intentionally trying to smear American troops battling in Iraq as terrorists in order to end the war; the same way he demonized US troop during Vietnam in order to end that war. A few thoughts:
-Kerry's tactic is to equalize our soldiers with the enemy we are fighting (whether the Viet Cong or al-Qaeda), thus trying to show people that "we are no better than they are", so "why are we fighting?"
-Kerry is essentially lobbying for retreat/surrender rather than victory; what do they say again about the morality of a man whom believes "nothing is worth fighting for"?
-What does Kerry mean, Iraqis should be doing that? An act is terrorism or it is not. If Iraqis do it, is it OK?? Only the most weasly type of PC loser can define the innate morality of an action by the race/nationality of the persons taking part. It is so...European.
President Kerry...thank God the American people were smarter than that.
Link to Captain's Quarters here: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005893.php
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Boycott The Marriott !
Did you know that it is OK for terrorists to hold a meeting at your local Marriott Hotel, but anti-terrorist groups wishing to conduct symposiums are barred? Sad but true - from The People's Truth Forum, whom asked to use the Marriott's facilities:
The Georgetown Marriott Conference Center rejected a "terrorism" symposium on the grounds that the sponsoring organization was too controversial and the venue inappropriate for this type of forum. Concurrently, another Marriott Hotel in the Washington area is hosting the Council on American- Islamic Relations' annual conference – and participating as a panelist at the gala will be an alleged coconspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
According to the Georgetown Marriott executives, the decision to reject the event, being hosted by the People's Truth Forum, a fact-based, non-partisan organization, was based upon business considerations: "The event would call for heightened security since protesters might be attracted from both the student body and off campus. These same protesters might block the front entrance leading to confrontations with hotel guests and/or room cancellations."
But starting today, CAIR will host its 11th Annual Banquet at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Va. CAIR is a self-proclaimed Muslim advocacy group that has its roots in the Palestinian Hamas. CAIR's parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine, was founded by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. CAIR, itself, has had numerous individuals convicted in and/or deported by the United States for terrorist activity...
(http://www.peoplestruthforum.com/)
It's that "threat-of-violence" thing that keeps those dhimmis down, and the Muslims know it...and speaking of, Dhimmi Watch digs further, and get to this:
Peter Cantone, General Manager for Marriott Georgetown, November 14, 2005: “Your event is too controversial to be held on the property...Our decision was made due to the objectionable content on your group’s website. Marriott corporate headquarters did not play a role in our decision.”
Keith Thomas, Marriott Special Services Department, Corporate Headquarters, November 16, 2005: “Due to the high density of Muslim students on the Georgetown campus, members of the staff at Marriott Georgetown were afraid of the potential for violent protests, injured hotel employees and property damage. This is the official stance of the Marriott Corporation.”
{http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009249.php}
Just another lame excuse to cover up for their cowardice in the face of the enemy - click the link for The People's Truth; it is simply a news clearinghouse for the war on terror. May be objectionable to a jihadi, or the New York Times editorial staff, but to no one else. Mr. Thomas backs up Mr. Cantone's dhimmitude by admitting his fear of violence was great enough for him to censure free speech and honest debate. Could you imagine a hotel in the '40's allowing the American Nazi Party to speak, but banning a pro-war group? This is cowardice, plain and simple, by the Marriott chain - a simpering fear that gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
I'll do what I can here; I travel a number of times a year (and arrange to have business associates stay in hotels all around the Tri-State area); there will never be another booking at a Marriott or Marriott subsidary until things change. Promise.
And check out Atlas (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/12/boycott_the_mar.html), she's calling for a full-on boycott as well:
If the Marriott Corporation wants to operate in America, make money in America, be free to pursue their profits in America, enjoy the freedom of America - then don't stand in the way of the very people putting their asses on the line to make that happen.
The Georgetown Marriott Conference Center rejected a "terrorism" symposium on the grounds that the sponsoring organization was too controversial and the venue inappropriate for this type of forum. Concurrently, another Marriott Hotel in the Washington area is hosting the Council on American- Islamic Relations' annual conference – and participating as a panelist at the gala will be an alleged coconspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
According to the Georgetown Marriott executives, the decision to reject the event, being hosted by the People's Truth Forum, a fact-based, non-partisan organization, was based upon business considerations: "The event would call for heightened security since protesters might be attracted from both the student body and off campus. These same protesters might block the front entrance leading to confrontations with hotel guests and/or room cancellations."
But starting today, CAIR will host its 11th Annual Banquet at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Va. CAIR is a self-proclaimed Muslim advocacy group that has its roots in the Palestinian Hamas. CAIR's parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine, was founded by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. CAIR, itself, has had numerous individuals convicted in and/or deported by the United States for terrorist activity...
(http://www.peoplestruthforum.com/)
It's that "threat-of-violence" thing that keeps those dhimmis down, and the Muslims know it...and speaking of, Dhimmi Watch digs further, and get to this:
Peter Cantone, General Manager for Marriott Georgetown, November 14, 2005: “Your event is too controversial to be held on the property...Our decision was made due to the objectionable content on your group’s website. Marriott corporate headquarters did not play a role in our decision.”
Keith Thomas, Marriott Special Services Department, Corporate Headquarters, November 16, 2005: “Due to the high density of Muslim students on the Georgetown campus, members of the staff at Marriott Georgetown were afraid of the potential for violent protests, injured hotel employees and property damage. This is the official stance of the Marriott Corporation.”
{http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009249.php}
Just another lame excuse to cover up for their cowardice in the face of the enemy - click the link for The People's Truth; it is simply a news clearinghouse for the war on terror. May be objectionable to a jihadi, or the New York Times editorial staff, but to no one else. Mr. Thomas backs up Mr. Cantone's dhimmitude by admitting his fear of violence was great enough for him to censure free speech and honest debate. Could you imagine a hotel in the '40's allowing the American Nazi Party to speak, but banning a pro-war group? This is cowardice, plain and simple, by the Marriott chain - a simpering fear that gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
I'll do what I can here; I travel a number of times a year (and arrange to have business associates stay in hotels all around the Tri-State area); there will never be another booking at a Marriott or Marriott subsidary until things change. Promise.
And check out Atlas (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/12/boycott_the_mar.html), she's calling for a full-on boycott as well:
If the Marriott Corporation wants to operate in America, make money in America, be free to pursue their profits in America, enjoy the freedom of America - then don't stand in the way of the very people putting their asses on the line to make that happen.
Developing, as they say...
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Setting the UN Straight, Bolton-Style!
The UN is still a do-nothing cesspool of corruption and anti-Semitism, and John Bolton puts the bricks to these losers - From Bloomberg News:
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United Nations General Assembly demonstrated its irrelevance today by adopting six resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including non-binding calls for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.
The General Assembly, consisting of all 191 member governments, passed resolutions very similar to measures introduced annually by Arab nations for at least 30 years. The U.S. was joined by no more than seven other nations in rejecting the resolutions, which won up to 160 votes.
``These resolutions are purely symbolic,'' Bolton told reporters at the UN. ``It is one reason why many people say the UN is not really useful in solving actual problems. We have been making enormous progress toward solutions in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that progress has benefited from UN participation, but it does not benefit from needless repetition of meaningless resolutions in the General Assembly.''
...The resolutions refer to Israel's ``illegal settlement activities,'' demand that Israel cease construction of its barrier of walls and fences around the West Bank, and say Israel has violated Security Council resolutions on the questions.
Someone should point out to our peace loving Democrats, by the way, that for eight years Bill Clinton had his tounge firmly implanted up the ass of Yassir Arafat, a policy that led to nothing but more piles of dead Israeli civilians. George Bush told Arafat to drop dead (and he did -huzzah!) and allowed Israel to handle their own defense without calls for "restraint". Result: Isreali civilian deaths down drastically, the first Palestinian state has been created in Gaza, and the Palestinians get to be one of two peoples in the region to actually vote on their leadership. UN involvement in said process: Zero, except for hate-mongering resolution-passing as seen above...
Thanks to Bush-Condi-Bolton, peace is slowly breaking out, but the liberals and the media cannot admit it, for it just may be a positive for George W. Bush. Can't have that, no sir-eee...
Meanwhile the game of idocy in the UN plays on, oblivious to the world changing around it. Apparently, even our Northern appeasers are starting to get a clue...from Haaretz:
Canada has decided to adopt a more pro-Israel stance in the United Nations regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict and to move closer to the positions of Israel and the United States....
...Until now Canada has traditionally followed European voting patterns in the UN on several annual resolutions pertaining to the Middle East. The Canadian representative stated at the GA on Wednesday that his country would object to resolutions to maintain "the department for Palestinian affairs" in the UN Secretariat and from now on would only support bodies that promote the peace process. Canada also objects to the decision on the Golan, as it places the onus for resuming negotiations solely on Israel, and will not support the resolution on a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem due to the Arab states' refusal to include an explicit condemnation of suicide bombings...
...the president for the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations blasted the move and suggested it could provoke a backlash.
Good for Canada, finally taking a step in the right direction (although how much of this involves vote-counting and the upcoming federal elections there?). Note the implied threat by the Canada-Arab Relations Council - why is the Arab-Muslim way to resort to violence at the first indication of dissent? Oh, right, that fascism thing...
Link to Haaretz here: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/652995.html
Bloomberg News on Bolton here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aMtyi.vxeA5Q
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United Nations General Assembly demonstrated its irrelevance today by adopting six resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including non-binding calls for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.
The General Assembly, consisting of all 191 member governments, passed resolutions very similar to measures introduced annually by Arab nations for at least 30 years. The U.S. was joined by no more than seven other nations in rejecting the resolutions, which won up to 160 votes.
``These resolutions are purely symbolic,'' Bolton told reporters at the UN. ``It is one reason why many people say the UN is not really useful in solving actual problems. We have been making enormous progress toward solutions in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that progress has benefited from UN participation, but it does not benefit from needless repetition of meaningless resolutions in the General Assembly.''
...The resolutions refer to Israel's ``illegal settlement activities,'' demand that Israel cease construction of its barrier of walls and fences around the West Bank, and say Israel has violated Security Council resolutions on the questions.
Someone should point out to our peace loving Democrats, by the way, that for eight years Bill Clinton had his tounge firmly implanted up the ass of Yassir Arafat, a policy that led to nothing but more piles of dead Israeli civilians. George Bush told Arafat to drop dead (and he did -huzzah!) and allowed Israel to handle their own defense without calls for "restraint". Result: Isreali civilian deaths down drastically, the first Palestinian state has been created in Gaza, and the Palestinians get to be one of two peoples in the region to actually vote on their leadership. UN involvement in said process: Zero, except for hate-mongering resolution-passing as seen above...
Thanks to Bush-Condi-Bolton, peace is slowly breaking out, but the liberals and the media cannot admit it, for it just may be a positive for George W. Bush. Can't have that, no sir-eee...
Meanwhile the game of idocy in the UN plays on, oblivious to the world changing around it. Apparently, even our Northern appeasers are starting to get a clue...from Haaretz:
Canada has decided to adopt a more pro-Israel stance in the United Nations regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict and to move closer to the positions of Israel and the United States....
...Until now Canada has traditionally followed European voting patterns in the UN on several annual resolutions pertaining to the Middle East. The Canadian representative stated at the GA on Wednesday that his country would object to resolutions to maintain "the department for Palestinian affairs" in the UN Secretariat and from now on would only support bodies that promote the peace process. Canada also objects to the decision on the Golan, as it places the onus for resuming negotiations solely on Israel, and will not support the resolution on a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem due to the Arab states' refusal to include an explicit condemnation of suicide bombings...
...the president for the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations blasted the move and suggested it could provoke a backlash.
Good for Canada, finally taking a step in the right direction (although how much of this involves vote-counting and the upcoming federal elections there?). Note the implied threat by the Canada-Arab Relations Council - why is the Arab-Muslim way to resort to violence at the first indication of dissent? Oh, right, that fascism thing...
Link to Haaretz here: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/652995.html
Bloomberg News on Bolton here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aMtyi.vxeA5Q
Setting the E.U. straight, Condi-style!
From al-Retuers:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to give allies in Europe a response next week to their pressure over Washington's treatment of terrorism suspects: back off.
The European Union has demanded that Washington address the allegations to allay fears of illegal U.S. practices. The concerns are rampant in among the European public and parliaments, already critical of U.S. prisoner-abuse scandals in Iraq
My questions regarding paragraph 2 here...when the article refers to "The European Union", is it referrring to the collective thought of the elected leaders of the nations making up the EU, or the non-elected representitives of these countries whom serve the EU in Brussels?
And when it claims "The concerns are rampant in among the European public and parliaments"; are they referring to any particular polls they have seen of the European public which declare these accusations to be a "rampant concern"? Or are they just echoing the words of leftists within European governments, whose continued blasting away at America is a mere smokescreen to hide the social/economic/racial problems within their own borders?
I'm asking, of course, because al-Reuters does not qoute a single source behind those demands; as usual, all anti-Americanism is taken at face value, while American 'claims" are always taken with a grain of salt.
But the positive within this piece is that Bush's people have finally gotten it through their heads that this poisonous European/Media alliance is just as dangerous to American interests as a terrorist with a suicide belt:
"It's very clear they want European governments to stop pushing on this," said a European diplomat, who had contact with U.S. officials over the handling of the scandals. "They were stuck on the defensive for weeks, but suddenly the line has toughened up incredibly," the diplomat said.
Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said Rice told him in Washington she expected allies to trust that America does not allow rights abuses -- a sign she will avoid giving Europe a detailed response on U.S. intelligence work.
And she pointedly did not give Ahern a personal assurance Ireland has not been used for secret prisoner transfers because he had already heard that denial from the U.S. ambassador, a senior State Department official said.
And finally, the onus to defend their actions is thrust back onto the quisling governments of Europe:
"It is the responsibility, also, of governments to explain as clearly as possible to their publics and publics around the world what it is that they are doing in fighting the war on terrorism," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
And Rice is just the gal to do it:
Rice began the year on her first foreign trip as secretary of state wooing European allies with a charm offensive that set a new tone for relations after disputes over Iraq.
But the top diplomat from the sole superpower can also get tough with her European counterparts.
U.S. diplomats recount how her successful stance against EU plans to lift an arms embargo against China unnerved Europeans, as she sternly told them not to sell weapons that could end up being aimed at U.S. forces in Asia.
One foreign minister spilled his drink when she delivered that warning over coffee in Brussels, a senior U.S. official said.
If they spill their java over a stern warning from Condi, it is no surprise they get on their boot-licking knees when the jihadis come their way...fey and feckless are these European lords...
Link to al-Reuters article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051203/wl_nm/security_europe_rice_dc
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to give allies in Europe a response next week to their pressure over Washington's treatment of terrorism suspects: back off.
The European Union has demanded that Washington address the allegations to allay fears of illegal U.S. practices. The concerns are rampant in among the European public and parliaments, already critical of U.S. prisoner-abuse scandals in Iraq
My questions regarding paragraph 2 here...when the article refers to "The European Union", is it referrring to the collective thought of the elected leaders of the nations making up the EU, or the non-elected representitives of these countries whom serve the EU in Brussels?
And when it claims "The concerns are rampant in among the European public and parliaments"; are they referring to any particular polls they have seen of the European public which declare these accusations to be a "rampant concern"? Or are they just echoing the words of leftists within European governments, whose continued blasting away at America is a mere smokescreen to hide the social/economic/racial problems within their own borders?
I'm asking, of course, because al-Reuters does not qoute a single source behind those demands; as usual, all anti-Americanism is taken at face value, while American 'claims" are always taken with a grain of salt.
But the positive within this piece is that Bush's people have finally gotten it through their heads that this poisonous European/Media alliance is just as dangerous to American interests as a terrorist with a suicide belt:
"It's very clear they want European governments to stop pushing on this," said a European diplomat, who had contact with U.S. officials over the handling of the scandals. "They were stuck on the defensive for weeks, but suddenly the line has toughened up incredibly," the diplomat said.
Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said Rice told him in Washington she expected allies to trust that America does not allow rights abuses -- a sign she will avoid giving Europe a detailed response on U.S. intelligence work.
And she pointedly did not give Ahern a personal assurance Ireland has not been used for secret prisoner transfers because he had already heard that denial from the U.S. ambassador, a senior State Department official said.
And finally, the onus to defend their actions is thrust back onto the quisling governments of Europe:
"It is the responsibility, also, of governments to explain as clearly as possible to their publics and publics around the world what it is that they are doing in fighting the war on terrorism," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
And Rice is just the gal to do it:
Rice began the year on her first foreign trip as secretary of state wooing European allies with a charm offensive that set a new tone for relations after disputes over Iraq.
But the top diplomat from the sole superpower can also get tough with her European counterparts.
U.S. diplomats recount how her successful stance against EU plans to lift an arms embargo against China unnerved Europeans, as she sternly told them not to sell weapons that could end up being aimed at U.S. forces in Asia.
One foreign minister spilled his drink when she delivered that warning over coffee in Brussels, a senior U.S. official said.
If they spill their java over a stern warning from Condi, it is no surprise they get on their boot-licking knees when the jihadis come their way...fey and feckless are these European lords...
Link to al-Reuters article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051203/wl_nm/security_europe_rice_dc
Safer in Falluja...
...than in Los Angeles? Tim Blair knows a quagmire when he sees one; he links us here:
Recently released crime statistics show the homicide rate in California is 265 percent higher than the death rate suffered by U.S. and British military personnel in Iraq.
According to the report "Crime in California 2004," compiled by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, there were 2,394 reported homicides in the Golden State last year. That compares with 905 deaths of coalition forces in Iraq, chiefly Americans and Brits, during the same time period...
...The peak for homicides in California was in 1993, when there were 4,095 reported.
Ironic as Iraq is often described as "about the size of California" for us geographically-challenged Americans. If the L.A. lefties love Saddam so much, maybe they can bring him over as their next governer; he'll shape 'em up.
But he'll have to re-do the economy as well, as businesses are leaving the state in droves. Surprisingly, all of the "progressive" business laws recently passed seem to be driving companies away from California; instead of attracting them to do business in this liberal paradise! Again, via Tim Blair:
When one little company like Nissan North America pulls out of a great big city like Los Angeles, does anyone even notice? They do when Nissan is the 80th corporation to do so since 2002.
I looked a round a little more; found this on Autoblog:
Nissan North America is about to announce its decision to move headquarters to Cool Springs, Tennessee, a suburb of Nashville... Nissan already employs 8,000 people in the state and the headquarter move would bring an additional 1300 jobs. Nissan is currently unhappy with the business climate in California and is looking to cut costs by the move....many of Nissan’s employees in California are looking at their employment options...
So the state of California is a free-fire killbox; and business concerns are stampeding out of town. And yet the last I saw, the big West Coast story was a large movement to grant some type of clemency to the jailed founder of the Crips, one of the most murderous gangs in the country's history.
Ah, the land of Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi...you get the government you deserve, and you get the society that follows.
Link to Tim Blair here: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/exit_strategy/
Autoblog here: http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000033066451/
UPDATE: More sucking sounds coming from California, as the most productive citizens are to be further punished...from The Club for Growth:
Actor/director Rob Reiner has gathered enough signatures to place a tax increase on the June ballot to fund government-controlled preschool programs. It would raise the top state income-tax rate to 12 percent, from 10.3 percent.
Voters should be aware that this tax bucks not only national but also worldwide trends. If the income tax passes, the new 12 percent top rate would be the highest in the nation. And it goes on top of the highest federal rate of 35 percent, for a total of 47 percent.
Read it all here: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/027299.php
Recently released crime statistics show the homicide rate in California is 265 percent higher than the death rate suffered by U.S. and British military personnel in Iraq.
According to the report "Crime in California 2004," compiled by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, there were 2,394 reported homicides in the Golden State last year. That compares with 905 deaths of coalition forces in Iraq, chiefly Americans and Brits, during the same time period...
...The peak for homicides in California was in 1993, when there were 4,095 reported.
Ironic as Iraq is often described as "about the size of California" for us geographically-challenged Americans. If the L.A. lefties love Saddam so much, maybe they can bring him over as their next governer; he'll shape 'em up.
But he'll have to re-do the economy as well, as businesses are leaving the state in droves. Surprisingly, all of the "progressive" business laws recently passed seem to be driving companies away from California; instead of attracting them to do business in this liberal paradise! Again, via Tim Blair:
When one little company like Nissan North America pulls out of a great big city like Los Angeles, does anyone even notice? They do when Nissan is the 80th corporation to do so since 2002.
I looked a round a little more; found this on Autoblog:
Nissan North America is about to announce its decision to move headquarters to Cool Springs, Tennessee, a suburb of Nashville... Nissan already employs 8,000 people in the state and the headquarter move would bring an additional 1300 jobs. Nissan is currently unhappy with the business climate in California and is looking to cut costs by the move....many of Nissan’s employees in California are looking at their employment options...
So the state of California is a free-fire killbox; and business concerns are stampeding out of town. And yet the last I saw, the big West Coast story was a large movement to grant some type of clemency to the jailed founder of the Crips, one of the most murderous gangs in the country's history.
Ah, the land of Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi...you get the government you deserve, and you get the society that follows.
Link to Tim Blair here: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/exit_strategy/
Autoblog here: http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000033066451/
UPDATE: More sucking sounds coming from California, as the most productive citizens are to be further punished...from The Club for Growth:
Actor/director Rob Reiner has gathered enough signatures to place a tax increase on the June ballot to fund government-controlled preschool programs. It would raise the top state income-tax rate to 12 percent, from 10.3 percent.
Voters should be aware that this tax bucks not only national but also worldwide trends. If the income tax passes, the new 12 percent top rate would be the highest in the nation. And it goes on top of the highest federal rate of 35 percent, for a total of 47 percent.
Read it all here: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/blog/archives/027299.php
Friday, December 02, 2005
Democrat John Murtha: Traitorous Spitbag
... Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.
Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.
He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.
"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."
{link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-01-murtha-iraq_x.htm}
An American Congressman says this? What will he tell the troops he so assuredly "supports" when their enemies come out against them with renewed vigor, knowing they are "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth"? What kind of a picture is Benedict Murtha trying to present to the terrorists ?? "Drive us out, we are already a defeated army?" Is this not treason, to aid and abett an enemy by spouting their propoganda?
The Democratic party has sunk to a new low that I never even believed possible. I say Party as a whole, because of the leadership they have chosen:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi switched gears Wednesday and embraced a call to begin an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as many congressional Democrats dismissed a speech by President on Iraq policy as tired rhetoric.
Pelosi, D-Calif., said she backs a call made Nov. 17 by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House's spending panel for the Pentagon for a quick drawdown.
"I will be supporting the Murtha resolution," she said, adding that Congress needs to conduct a "serious debate" about withdrawing U.S. troops
Hey Nancy, we had a "Murtha Resolution" last week, and you voted against it, dumb-ass. Who are you, John effin' Kerry?
And the media piles on in support of their Democratic masters...USA Today parrots the Dems' hateful interpetation of the "facts on the ground" without any investigation into Bush's "claims":
The strategy for winning the Iraq war that President Bush' spelled out on Wednesday was more a reassertion of resolve than a detailed plan for how U.S. troops can work themselves out of a job
But he refused to set the timetables for troop withdrawals that his domestic critics have demanded, or even to set specific benchmarks for how progress is measured.
And the president offered an optimistic picture of Iraqi advancement that was often at odds with assessments by government agencies and independent groups.
On all issues - from training and equipping Iraqi forces, to creating a new democratic government and reviving a shattered economy - the president repeatedly emphasized progress rather than the problems often cited by his critics
This dithers on and on; maybe one critic is quoted by name; USA Today simply re-hashes old anti-war lies and throws them back at Bush, while seeming to make "withdrawel timetable" the only "benchmark" for success.
Personally, I don't give a spit about this unholy alliance of the Media/Democratic Party/Cindy Sheehan/John "Pullout" Murtha and Lefty Pelosi. They are not going to know what hit them in 2006; just as they didn't see it coming in 2004. But there is little pleasure for me there; how many American soldiers will die; how much longer will the war against terrorism take to win, when one of the two American political parties has dedicated itself to our defeat?
Other blogs with good points here:
Mccanta (http://blog.mccannta.com/mccannta/2005/11/democratic_reac.html)
As the Democrats previously did with Social Security Reform, they merely attacked the President and his policies without offering one single worthwhile idea, plan, or alternative to make things better (or at least different). The Democratic leadership has offered the same sort of strategy the insurgents offer in Iraq or terrorists offer in Madrid, London or Jordan: drama, chaos and adversarial bemoaning without one iota of a real strategy for change; an easy life, especially when you realize they don't have the uncomfortable requirement of accountability and responsibility for their actions.
The Anchoress links to a soldier blogging from Iraq:
It’s sad that so many Iraqis and others are dying over here. However, when you discover you have cancer the treatment is always the same - attack it at the source. You don’t wait for it to spread. And when is the last time you heard a doctor putting a limited timetable on cancer therapy? I can picture it in my mind. “Mr. Smith, we have seen some progress with your tumor. It’s shrinking. But we need to move on now. The timetable for treating you has passed. Good luck.”
That’s what some people are trying to tell Iraq just as hope is looming on the horizon. And that disgusts me.
{link: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/12/01/a-brilliant-analogy/}
Atlas Shrugged shows Hillary Clinton selling out our troops in Iraq to lick up to the left-wingers whose support she needs to win the 2008 nomination:
"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban."
Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.
He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.
"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."
{link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-01-murtha-iraq_x.htm}
An American Congressman says this? What will he tell the troops he so assuredly "supports" when their enemies come out against them with renewed vigor, knowing they are "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth"? What kind of a picture is Benedict Murtha trying to present to the terrorists ?? "Drive us out, we are already a defeated army?" Is this not treason, to aid and abett an enemy by spouting their propoganda?
The Democratic party has sunk to a new low that I never even believed possible. I say Party as a whole, because of the leadership they have chosen:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi switched gears Wednesday and embraced a call to begin an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as many congressional Democrats dismissed a speech by President on Iraq policy as tired rhetoric.
Pelosi, D-Calif., said she backs a call made Nov. 17 by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House's spending panel for the Pentagon for a quick drawdown.
"I will be supporting the Murtha resolution," she said, adding that Congress needs to conduct a "serious debate" about withdrawing U.S. troops
Hey Nancy, we had a "Murtha Resolution" last week, and you voted against it, dumb-ass. Who are you, John effin' Kerry?
And the media piles on in support of their Democratic masters...USA Today parrots the Dems' hateful interpetation of the "facts on the ground" without any investigation into Bush's "claims":
The strategy for winning the Iraq war that President Bush' spelled out on Wednesday was more a reassertion of resolve than a detailed plan for how U.S. troops can work themselves out of a job
But he refused to set the timetables for troop withdrawals that his domestic critics have demanded, or even to set specific benchmarks for how progress is measured.
And the president offered an optimistic picture of Iraqi advancement that was often at odds with assessments by government agencies and independent groups.
On all issues - from training and equipping Iraqi forces, to creating a new democratic government and reviving a shattered economy - the president repeatedly emphasized progress rather than the problems often cited by his critics
This dithers on and on; maybe one critic is quoted by name; USA Today simply re-hashes old anti-war lies and throws them back at Bush, while seeming to make "withdrawel timetable" the only "benchmark" for success.
Personally, I don't give a spit about this unholy alliance of the Media/Democratic Party/Cindy Sheehan/John "Pullout" Murtha and Lefty Pelosi. They are not going to know what hit them in 2006; just as they didn't see it coming in 2004. But there is little pleasure for me there; how many American soldiers will die; how much longer will the war against terrorism take to win, when one of the two American political parties has dedicated itself to our defeat?
Other blogs with good points here:
Mccanta (http://blog.mccannta.com/mccannta/2005/11/democratic_reac.html)
As the Democrats previously did with Social Security Reform, they merely attacked the President and his policies without offering one single worthwhile idea, plan, or alternative to make things better (or at least different). The Democratic leadership has offered the same sort of strategy the insurgents offer in Iraq or terrorists offer in Madrid, London or Jordan: drama, chaos and adversarial bemoaning without one iota of a real strategy for change; an easy life, especially when you realize they don't have the uncomfortable requirement of accountability and responsibility for their actions.
The Anchoress links to a soldier blogging from Iraq:
It’s sad that so many Iraqis and others are dying over here. However, when you discover you have cancer the treatment is always the same - attack it at the source. You don’t wait for it to spread. And when is the last time you heard a doctor putting a limited timetable on cancer therapy? I can picture it in my mind. “Mr. Smith, we have seen some progress with your tumor. It’s shrinking. But we need to move on now. The timetable for treating you has passed. Good luck.”
That’s what some people are trying to tell Iraq just as hope is looming on the horizon. And that disgusts me.
{link: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/12/01/a-brilliant-analogy/}
Atlas Shrugged shows Hillary Clinton selling out our troops in Iraq to lick up to the left-wingers whose support she needs to win the 2008 nomination:
"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban."
Awww....she's just like Bill!!
Link to Atlas here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/12/mark_of_a_trait.html
Finally, check out Gateway Pundit - my man has the charts showing you what the pollsters are trying desperately to hide...that "Red" America is poised to put an old fashioned ass-whuppin' on the Democrats...look here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/picturing-polls-red-vs-blue.html
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
CNN: " X" Marks the Fall Guy
From today's New York Post:
Red-faced CNN just got another "X" mark — it has fired a phone operator for telling a caller the network was exercising "freedom of speech" when it put an "X" over Vice Dick President Cheney's face.
Last week, CNN was forced to broadcast a lengthy report saying the black "X," which appeared while Cheney was giving a speech on Iraq, was a "technological glitch."
CNN's latest X-rated embarrassment came via an audio file posted online by blogger Bill Quick of DailyPundit.com.
The audio file features Preska Thomas, of the marketing firm Team Hollywood, calling CNN to complain about the "X" and being repeatedly interrupted.
"The point of it is, tell them to stop lying . . . Bush and Cheney . . . You tell those that you voted in to stop lying. Bring our soldiers home," the operator says on the file.
CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg said: "A Turner Broadcasting switchboard operator was fired . . . after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views."
His comments did not reflect the views of CNN." [HA! - ed.]
Thomas said she recorded her call after getting dozens of complaints from people reporting rude treatment when they called CNN about the "X."
Sweet Jebus, just where is the accountability at CNN? I'm shocked that this upstanding liberal network would allow a low-paid operator to take a fall, simply to cover up for their media biases. I fully expect someone at the top to take accountability, apologize, and proceed to resign in shame.
Isn't that what they expect from everyone else?
Here's the link to Daily Pundit -http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/006044.php#006044 - from a disgusting day's newsroundup here: http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/11/i-saw-news-today-oh-boy_23.html
NY Post story here: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/58544.htm
Red-faced CNN just got another "X" mark — it has fired a phone operator for telling a caller the network was exercising "freedom of speech" when it put an "X" over Vice Dick President Cheney's face.
Last week, CNN was forced to broadcast a lengthy report saying the black "X," which appeared while Cheney was giving a speech on Iraq, was a "technological glitch."
CNN's latest X-rated embarrassment came via an audio file posted online by blogger Bill Quick of DailyPundit.com.
The audio file features Preska Thomas, of the marketing firm Team Hollywood, calling CNN to complain about the "X" and being repeatedly interrupted.
"The point of it is, tell them to stop lying . . . Bush and Cheney . . . You tell those that you voted in to stop lying. Bring our soldiers home," the operator says on the file.
CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg said: "A Turner Broadcasting switchboard operator was fired . . . after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views."
His comments did not reflect the views of CNN." [HA! - ed.]
Thomas said she recorded her call after getting dozens of complaints from people reporting rude treatment when they called CNN about the "X."
Sweet Jebus, just where is the accountability at CNN? I'm shocked that this upstanding liberal network would allow a low-paid operator to take a fall, simply to cover up for their media biases. I fully expect someone at the top to take accountability, apologize, and proceed to resign in shame.
Isn't that what they expect from everyone else?
Here's the link to Daily Pundit -http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/006044.php#006044 - from a disgusting day's newsroundup here: http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/11/i-saw-news-today-oh-boy_23.html
NY Post story here: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/58544.htm
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Seattle and San Francisco: Kissing Cousins?
We've had a lot of fun here bashing San Fran of late ( http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/11/san-francisco-renegade-province.html); so how about giving that other living example of liberal paradise its due? I speak of Seattle, of course, or at least Jonah Goldberg, in a series of posts on The Corner, does:
I always have such mixed feelings about Seattle. On the one hand, there's a lot to like about this town and this region... But I'm always amazed at how pre-Giuliani so much of the downtown is. I'm baffled at how the business community and the tourist industry can cave to the drug-addict romanticizers and panhandler enablers. There is so much skeeviness and bummery going on right at the heart of why people come to this town in the first place... I don't folllow Seattle politics so I don't know how the arguments play out, but I'd have to guess there are West Coast versions of the same jackasses who thought drug dealing, transvestite hookers, and robbery were what gave Times Square its authenticity and "charm."
Goldberg's Seattle readers respond:
...it's not Guiliani chic that makes seattle accept the winos and dopers in downtown, it's pure political correctness. No one is accountable for their state in life, we are all hapless chips in the swirling tide...
...Let me try to explain Seattle politics giving 3 examples.
1) It is against the law for any city of Seattle employee, including the police, to ask anyones immigration status.
2) The Seattle School District is 20 million in the hole yet the Seattle city council pays someone to read poetry at council meetings : http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/council/licata/poetword.htm
3) We have a 10 year plan to end homelessness which contains 6 principle actions. The first one listed... "Prevent Homelessness". Not sure why we need the other 5 actions. http://www.cehkc.org/10-YearPlanFinal.pdf
I checked out the poetry link and almost wet myself...
Upon his election to the City Council, Nick instituted poetry readings before his committee meetings believing that the personal insight of poetry has the power to enlighten the routine of government...
And the first random poet whose worked I opened was a specialist in the poetry of the Japanese internment camps - sigh, another victim specialist...
What happens when ivory-tower liberal sciooeconomic theory gets put into practice? Together, class:
"IT FAILS MISERABLY!"
Two cities, one train wreck.
Corner links here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_11_27_corner-archive.asp#083337
(may need to scroll up a bit)
I always have such mixed feelings about Seattle. On the one hand, there's a lot to like about this town and this region... But I'm always amazed at how pre-Giuliani so much of the downtown is. I'm baffled at how the business community and the tourist industry can cave to the drug-addict romanticizers and panhandler enablers. There is so much skeeviness and bummery going on right at the heart of why people come to this town in the first place... I don't folllow Seattle politics so I don't know how the arguments play out, but I'd have to guess there are West Coast versions of the same jackasses who thought drug dealing, transvestite hookers, and robbery were what gave Times Square its authenticity and "charm."
Goldberg's Seattle readers respond:
...it's not Guiliani chic that makes seattle accept the winos and dopers in downtown, it's pure political correctness. No one is accountable for their state in life, we are all hapless chips in the swirling tide...
...Let me try to explain Seattle politics giving 3 examples.
1) It is against the law for any city of Seattle employee, including the police, to ask anyones immigration status.
2) The Seattle School District is 20 million in the hole yet the Seattle city council pays someone to read poetry at council meetings : http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/council/licata/poetword.htm
3) We have a 10 year plan to end homelessness which contains 6 principle actions. The first one listed... "Prevent Homelessness". Not sure why we need the other 5 actions. http://www.cehkc.org/10-YearPlanFinal.pdf
I checked out the poetry link and almost wet myself...
Upon his election to the City Council, Nick instituted poetry readings before his committee meetings believing that the personal insight of poetry has the power to enlighten the routine of government...
And the first random poet whose worked I opened was a specialist in the poetry of the Japanese internment camps - sigh, another victim specialist...
What happens when ivory-tower liberal sciooeconomic theory gets put into practice? Together, class:
"IT FAILS MISERABLY!"
Two cities, one train wreck.
Corner links here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_11_27_corner-archive.asp#083337
(may need to scroll up a bit)
Sunday, November 27, 2005
America Agreees: Democrats Hurting our Troops
Doing Saddam's/al-Qaeda's work, the Dems are...from today's Washington Post:
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale [what drug are they on?-ed.]
But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."
...there is still support for Bush's policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.
So whom do the Democrats actually represent when they scream about their hateful dissent being "patriotic"? Not the majority of Americans; apparently not even the majority of their own party. The Democrats have fallen into the hands of the far-left; they now serve to fullfill the Moveon/Michael Moore wing of their party.
If Bush and the Republicans continue to speak truth to the Democrats' lies, there will be a rout in 2006 - just not the one that the left and their media organs are expecting...
WaPo story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html
Maybe the Democrats are (once again) too in the thrall of the mainstream media to discern truth anymore. Here is a picture from Cindy "Mother" Sheehan's book signing:
And here's the picture al-Reuters decided to publish:
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale [what drug are they on?-ed.]
But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."
...there is still support for Bush's policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.
So whom do the Democrats actually represent when they scream about their hateful dissent being "patriotic"? Not the majority of Americans; apparently not even the majority of their own party. The Democrats have fallen into the hands of the far-left; they now serve to fullfill the Moveon/Michael Moore wing of their party.
If Bush and the Republicans continue to speak truth to the Democrats' lies, there will be a rout in 2006 - just not the one that the left and their media organs are expecting...
WaPo story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html
Maybe the Democrats are (once again) too in the thrall of the mainstream media to discern truth anymore. Here is a picture from Cindy "Mother" Sheehan's book signing:
And here's the picture al-Reuters decided to publish:
Enough to bring a tear to Nancy Pelosi's eye...too bad it is a distortion of the truth. Not unlike much of what we hear from the Dems/MSM these days...
Photos via Sweetness and Light: http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/mother-sheehans-book-signing/
EU Dhimmis Dissed by Arabs
The EU begs them them to talk (after all, every dispute is solveable without resort to violence, right?), so that they can surrender quietly like good dhimmis. But the Arab nations refuse to even sit at the table with them:
A mass stay-away by Arab leaders from the first Euro-Mediterranean summit on Sunday highlighted the difficulties of strengthening the European Union's decade-old partnership with its southern neighbors
"Partnership" is an interesting word here; is Reuters tactically admitting that there is a Euro-Arab alliance against Isreal/America? It has been stated by pundits and scholars alike (Bat Ye'or http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083864077X/102-6145472-6583331?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance&tagActionCode=robertspencer-20) that this is the case; it's refreshing to see it out in the open.
The EU called the ambitious summit hoping to revitalize ties with Near Eastern and North African neighbors and extend co-operation to fighting terrorism and illegal migration, as well as promoting economic and political reforms.
But while all 25 EU leaders were set to attend, only two of the 10 Mediterranean partners -- Turkey and the Palestinian Authority were sending their top leaders to the two-day conference, beginning on Sunday evening.
Maybe if they bow and scrape just a little harder, the Muslim world will deign to talk with them...
Link to Reuter's story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051127/wl_nm/eu_mediterranean_dc
A mass stay-away by Arab leaders from the first Euro-Mediterranean summit on Sunday highlighted the difficulties of strengthening the European Union's decade-old partnership with its southern neighbors
"Partnership" is an interesting word here; is Reuters tactically admitting that there is a Euro-Arab alliance against Isreal/America? It has been stated by pundits and scholars alike (Bat Ye'or http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083864077X/102-6145472-6583331?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance&tagActionCode=robertspencer-20) that this is the case; it's refreshing to see it out in the open.
The EU called the ambitious summit hoping to revitalize ties with Near Eastern and North African neighbors and extend co-operation to fighting terrorism and illegal migration, as well as promoting economic and political reforms.
But while all 25 EU leaders were set to attend, only two of the 10 Mediterranean partners -- Turkey and the Palestinian Authority were sending their top leaders to the two-day conference, beginning on Sunday evening.
Maybe if they bow and scrape just a little harder, the Muslim world will deign to talk with them...
Link to Reuter's story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051127/wl_nm/eu_mediterranean_dc
Ramsey Clark: Traitor!
Another Democrat rushes to the aid of Saddam Hussein:
The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants resumes in a fortified Baghdad courtroom on Monday with former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark joining the team defending Iraq's overthrown president...
Clark, a controversial figure who was the top U.S. attorney in the late 1960s before becoming an anti-Vietnam war activist and a defender of figures including Slobodan Milosevic said he hoped to strengthen Saddam's defense.
"Our plan is to go to court in Baghdad on Monday morning representing the defense counsel as defense support," Clark told Reuters in Amman on Sunday before flying to the Iraqi capital.
Well, at least Clark admits he is going to support Saddam; most Democrats would love to see him freed on a liberal "technicality" so that they can use it to embarrass President Bush - heck; let's find Saddam "not guilty" due to American malfeasence and put Bush on trial for war crimes! Yea, that's the ticket!
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051127/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_trial_dc
The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants resumes in a fortified Baghdad courtroom on Monday with former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark joining the team defending Iraq's overthrown president...
Clark, a controversial figure who was the top U.S. attorney in the late 1960s before becoming an anti-Vietnam war activist and a defender of figures including Slobodan Milosevic said he hoped to strengthen Saddam's defense.
"Our plan is to go to court in Baghdad on Monday morning representing the defense counsel as defense support," Clark told Reuters in Amman on Sunday before flying to the Iraqi capital.
Well, at least Clark admits he is going to support Saddam; most Democrats would love to see him freed on a liberal "technicality" so that they can use it to embarrass President Bush - heck; let's find Saddam "not guilty" due to American malfeasence and put Bush on trial for war crimes! Yea, that's the ticket!
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051127/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_trial_dc
Market Rallies; Bush to Blame!
During the eight years of the Clinton Presidency, every new high-water mark of the Dow was greeted with large-font headlines and adoring praise. Yet, as the American economy continues to outperform the rest of the world under George Bush, the media gives us...resounding silence.
From Tigerhawk:
The stock market hit a 4 1/2 year high on Friday . The fall rally reflects the muscular American economy, which managed to produce economic growth in the third quarter at almost triple the rate of the Euro zone. The comparative American strength was particularly impressive in light of the hurricanes: As I wrote a few weeks ago, not a single European city was destroyed this year (although I suppose Paris had a close call).
European economies dance a jig when they reach a1% growth rate; the US economy is banging away at 3.8%. Maybe the current French transist strike will help matters?
These market highs mean everything to "the little people' that the liberals claim to care so much about. With most Americans counting on their 401(k) plans to provide for them in retirement; smart, moderate-to-conservative fund movements during a stock market run can give them extra revenue for later years.
The rising tide floats all boats; except for those whom wish to torpedo Bush. When it comes to Republicans, good news is no news.
Tigerhawk link here: http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/rally-in-stock-market-its-bushs-fault.html
From Tigerhawk:
The stock market hit a 4 1/2 year high on Friday . The fall rally reflects the muscular American economy, which managed to produce economic growth in the third quarter at almost triple the rate of the Euro zone. The comparative American strength was particularly impressive in light of the hurricanes: As I wrote a few weeks ago, not a single European city was destroyed this year (although I suppose Paris had a close call).
European economies dance a jig when they reach a1% growth rate; the US economy is banging away at 3.8%. Maybe the current French transist strike will help matters?
These market highs mean everything to "the little people' that the liberals claim to care so much about. With most Americans counting on their 401(k) plans to provide for them in retirement; smart, moderate-to-conservative fund movements during a stock market run can give them extra revenue for later years.
The rising tide floats all boats; except for those whom wish to torpedo Bush. When it comes to Republicans, good news is no news.
Tigerhawk link here: http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/rally-in-stock-market-its-bushs-fault.html
Friday, November 25, 2005
Michael Jackson: Pedophile and Anti-Semite!
Now a legitimate double threat, Michael Jackson spews some anti-semetic bile:
On Tuesday, ABC's "Good Morning America" aired portions of a 2003 voice message that Jackson allegedly left for a former adviser, Dieter Wiesner, in which he allegedly accused Jews of leaving performers penniless...
The message was among about a dozen released by attorney Howard King, who represents Wiesner and another former adviser who are suing Jackson.
A transcript of the message provided Wednesday by King's office quotes Jackson as saying:
"They suck them like leeches ... I'm so tired of it. I'm so tired of it.
"They start out the most popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything and end up penniless. It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose."
Jackson's spokeswoman, Raymone K. Bain, said Wednesday the singer had no comment on the report.
Trying to figure out how to blame it on the Jews, no doubt...this is not the first time for MJ:
Jackson infuriated Jewish groups in 1995 when his song "They Don't Care About Us" included the lyrics "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me, kick me, kike me."
Jackson apologized, saying the lyrics were meant to demonstrate the hatefulness of racism, anti-Semitism and stereotyping. He then changed the lyrics.
"Leeches"? "Jew Me"? Well, he sure "demonstrated the hatefulness of racism"!
Look, Jackson, many a pop star has traveled down the sad road of shrinking fame, a cynical public, decreasing revenues, and deviant sexuality. But going down spitting prefabricated anti-Semitism?
Jeez, dude - try an overdose or something; it is so much more dignified...
Jackson story here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20051123-1231-ca-michaeljackson.html
On Tuesday, ABC's "Good Morning America" aired portions of a 2003 voice message that Jackson allegedly left for a former adviser, Dieter Wiesner, in which he allegedly accused Jews of leaving performers penniless...
The message was among about a dozen released by attorney Howard King, who represents Wiesner and another former adviser who are suing Jackson.
A transcript of the message provided Wednesday by King's office quotes Jackson as saying:
"They suck them like leeches ... I'm so tired of it. I'm so tired of it.
"They start out the most popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything and end up penniless. It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose."
Jackson's spokeswoman, Raymone K. Bain, said Wednesday the singer had no comment on the report.
Trying to figure out how to blame it on the Jews, no doubt...this is not the first time for MJ:
Jackson infuriated Jewish groups in 1995 when his song "They Don't Care About Us" included the lyrics "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me, kick me, kike me."
Jackson apologized, saying the lyrics were meant to demonstrate the hatefulness of racism, anti-Semitism and stereotyping. He then changed the lyrics.
"Leeches"? "Jew Me"? Well, he sure "demonstrated the hatefulness of racism"!
Look, Jackson, many a pop star has traveled down the sad road of shrinking fame, a cynical public, decreasing revenues, and deviant sexuality. But going down spitting prefabricated anti-Semitism?
Jeez, dude - try an overdose or something; it is so much more dignified...
Jackson story here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20051123-1231-ca-michaeljackson.html
San Francisco: Renegade Province?
Let it be said first off that I never liked San Francisco. I went there a number of times 1998-2001, as my employer at the time owned a property within the city. Even then, when I was more center-right politically, I thought the city was repulsive. Homeless people ruled the roost; they cursed me with impunity when I failed to give them alms; and when I had the nerve to snap back at one whom used unbelievably foul language in front of a woman, I was set upon by pedestrians claiming I was violating his civil rights! (And remember, I spend much of my time in NYC, so don't comment me about not understanding, 'cause I see it every day). Public places were filthy, drug addicts were laying about everywhere, deviant sexuality was proudly displayed as "normal", and condoms were handed out everywhere from the parks to my hotel lobby. This is your liberal paradise; where schoolteachers have to live in mobile homes because they can't afford the rent; but bums, addicts and degenerates carry around armfuls of vouchers, stipends, and needles.
So the results of some local initiatives put on the election-day ballots do not surprise me. Let's listen to Bill O'Reilly:
It is hard to figure out the mindset of many Americans living in the secular-progressive paradise of San Francisco. A couple of weeks ago they voted to oppose military recruiting in the city's public schools including colleges. In the middle of a vicious war on terror, the City by the Bay says no to the people who volunteer to protect us.
A show of disdain for war, or for the volunteers that fight terrorists overseas sothat San Franciscans can sleep comfortably in their beds at night? No matter; O'Reilly tells us how San Fran's other liberal projects are working out:
San Francisco is the city that never learns. It passed an insane law that handed out $410 a month to any homeless person who showed up. Predictably, thousands of indigents, many of them addicted, poured into the down town area, panhandling and using the parks as outdoor restrooms. Businesses and families went crazy and the city council was forced to cut the payments down to $59 a month.
The progressives also gleefully hopped on the medical marijuana bandwagon. But now Mayor Gavin Newsome wants to shut down most of the 35 "clubs" that have opened up, selling pot to anyone who has a headache. SFPD Captain Rick Bruce told me, "A lot of our local drug dealers actually have medical marijuana cards, and they're using them as get-out-of-jail free cards every time they're arrested for dealing drugs on the street."
It has been said that people get the government they deserve, and in San Francisco's case, that could not be more true. The city's streets are chaotic, quality of life has deteriorated, and the prevailing wisdom would please Fidel Castro.
Despite the misery and hopelessness that communism foisted upon the world for half a century, these people haven't learned. A look at lefty paradises like Cuba, or France, could tell you what would happen when liberal doctrine becomes the law of the land, but those libs are just too darn smart; they know it will work next time!
O'Reilly believes that essentially, San Francisco should be excommunicated, but notes a problem:
My solution is to have San Francisco form its own militia, a concept first put forth by the Founding Fathers in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. A S.F. militia could take over for the U.S. military if that city were ever attacked.
But there's just one problem with that militia idea. On the same day San Francisco voted to oppose military recruiting, it also voted to prohibit the "sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms."
Well, I don't know about anything that drastic. I think the illness of San Francisco needs to be contained, that's all. Remember, these guys are blatent lawbreakers - when Mayor Newsome decided he wanted to marry couples, he just went ahead and did it, despite a California state law that prohibited it (wonder what he would say if a neighboring town decided that restrictive gun were unconstitutional and starting allowing gun purchases without a waiting period?). The marijuana clubs are in direct violation of federal laws as well. Typical liberals - their policies and practices are so "humane", that they are above the law.
This mindet cannot allowed to be mainstream. Remember, the leader of the Democratic party in the House of Representatives is Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman from San Francisco. Elect the Democrats, move these people into national power. Want to know what your neighborhood will look like in 2006? Just look to the west...
Link to O'Reilly here, article entitled "San Francisco Blues": http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
UPDATE: see Faith on the Front; Ms. Sara Horn ties the lousy liberalism of San Francisco to the city's declining birthrate and fleeing families: http://www.sarahorn.com/blog/2005/11/17/san-francisco-cant-keep-students-wont-let-military-recruiters-stay.html
See the "progressive" Nancy Pelosi tries to quell free speech here {great moonbat commentary too!} : http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/17/pelosi-oreilly/
Right Voices notes the NRA is stepping in {here http://rightvoices.com/2005/11/12/san-fran-gun-ban/} -see how huffy SF officials get when somebody tries to defend the Constitution over their local city ordinances...renegades, the whole lot of them!
So the results of some local initiatives put on the election-day ballots do not surprise me. Let's listen to Bill O'Reilly:
It is hard to figure out the mindset of many Americans living in the secular-progressive paradise of San Francisco. A couple of weeks ago they voted to oppose military recruiting in the city's public schools including colleges. In the middle of a vicious war on terror, the City by the Bay says no to the people who volunteer to protect us.
A show of disdain for war, or for the volunteers that fight terrorists overseas sothat San Franciscans can sleep comfortably in their beds at night? No matter; O'Reilly tells us how San Fran's other liberal projects are working out:
San Francisco is the city that never learns. It passed an insane law that handed out $410 a month to any homeless person who showed up. Predictably, thousands of indigents, many of them addicted, poured into the down town area, panhandling and using the parks as outdoor restrooms. Businesses and families went crazy and the city council was forced to cut the payments down to $59 a month.
The progressives also gleefully hopped on the medical marijuana bandwagon. But now Mayor Gavin Newsome wants to shut down most of the 35 "clubs" that have opened up, selling pot to anyone who has a headache. SFPD Captain Rick Bruce told me, "A lot of our local drug dealers actually have medical marijuana cards, and they're using them as get-out-of-jail free cards every time they're arrested for dealing drugs on the street."
It has been said that people get the government they deserve, and in San Francisco's case, that could not be more true. The city's streets are chaotic, quality of life has deteriorated, and the prevailing wisdom would please Fidel Castro.
Despite the misery and hopelessness that communism foisted upon the world for half a century, these people haven't learned. A look at lefty paradises like Cuba, or France, could tell you what would happen when liberal doctrine becomes the law of the land, but those libs are just too darn smart; they know it will work next time!
O'Reilly believes that essentially, San Francisco should be excommunicated, but notes a problem:
My solution is to have San Francisco form its own militia, a concept first put forth by the Founding Fathers in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. A S.F. militia could take over for the U.S. military if that city were ever attacked.
But there's just one problem with that militia idea. On the same day San Francisco voted to oppose military recruiting, it also voted to prohibit the "sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms."
Well, I don't know about anything that drastic. I think the illness of San Francisco needs to be contained, that's all. Remember, these guys are blatent lawbreakers - when Mayor Newsome decided he wanted to marry couples, he just went ahead and did it, despite a California state law that prohibited it (wonder what he would say if a neighboring town decided that restrictive gun were unconstitutional and starting allowing gun purchases without a waiting period?). The marijuana clubs are in direct violation of federal laws as well. Typical liberals - their policies and practices are so "humane", that they are above the law.
This mindet cannot allowed to be mainstream. Remember, the leader of the Democratic party in the House of Representatives is Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman from San Francisco. Elect the Democrats, move these people into national power. Want to know what your neighborhood will look like in 2006? Just look to the west...
Link to O'Reilly here, article entitled "San Francisco Blues": http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
UPDATE: see Faith on the Front; Ms. Sara Horn ties the lousy liberalism of San Francisco to the city's declining birthrate and fleeing families: http://www.sarahorn.com/blog/2005/11/17/san-francisco-cant-keep-students-wont-let-military-recruiters-stay.html
See the "progressive" Nancy Pelosi tries to quell free speech here {great moonbat commentary too!} : http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/17/pelosi-oreilly/
Right Voices notes the NRA is stepping in {here http://rightvoices.com/2005/11/12/san-fran-gun-ban/} -see how huffy SF officials get when somebody tries to defend the Constitution over their local city ordinances...renegades, the whole lot of them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)