Thursday, March 31, 2005

Air America - F*ck No!

Our friends in the liberal media have been gushing lately over Air America, prompted by tonite's apparently flattering documentary airing on HBO. They have been fawning over this low-rated bottom feeding filth-spewing outlet since its ungodly inception, citing ratings they would gleefully use to trash a startup conservative outlet. The Radio Equalizer breaks down the bias in the mainstream media's trumpeting of this unmitigated failure, with lots of good links with the straight data.
I've listened to this station, and the degree of absolute HATE these hosts carry in their voices is almost scary. They bash Christians with a frighting regularity, and have accused our military of wanton slaughter. They are determined to bring the country back to the failed international policies of the Clinton era, topped off with a slice of secular dogmaticism that is scarier than anything the so-called "far-right" can dig up. Air America and the liberal loonies who make it up are the ultimate "free speech for me and not for thee" crowd, tolerating no quarter in their orthodoxy (but...but.... I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded?)
But I hope it stays on the air, for it serves a purpose. It exposes the far left agenda and what type of people they really are. Actually, I recommend it often, knowing it will repulse the fair-minded listener. But a ratings success? NOT!
Makes me things the boys/girls in the newsroom are still wrapped in their coccoons, listening to this crap (when they are not tuned into NPR) and thinking the whole world is nodding in agreement with them...

Goodbye, Ms. Schiavo...

...and may your soul find peace.
You are in all of our thoughts and prayers.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Unholy Reuters/UN Alliance of Lies

Think that header sounds strong? Try this on for size...Reuters headline reads as follows:
Expert: Malnutrition Affects Iraq Kids

And who is this expert? One Jean Zigler, who Reuters reports as saying:

"Malnutrition among the youngest Iraqis has almost doubled since the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, a hunger specialist told the U.N. human rights body "

"The situation facing Iraqi youngsters is "a result of the war led by coalition forces," said Ziegler, an outspoken Swiss sociology professor and former lawmaker"

And the Big Lie:

"Ziegler also cited an October 2004 U.S. study that estimated as many as 100,000 more Iraqis — many of them women and children — had died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq"

Reuters points out the following:

"Ziegler did not mention the role of Iraq's insurgency in the nutrition problem, something often cited by aid groups"


The authors of the report in the British-based medical journal The Lancet — researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad — conceded their data were of "limited precision"


Now, had al-Reuters done even the slightest amount of digging, they would have found this: . I quote:

"...a far-left parliamentarian in Switzerland for many years, Mr. Ziegler is well known in Europe for his anti-American and anti-Israel politics"

And, most damnably:

"A case against Mr. Ziegler for bias and abuse of mandate is pending before the UN Commission on Human Rights. In a legal brief filed with the Commission in July, UN Watch, a Geneva-based NGO, accused Ziegler of singling out Israel alone for repeated and unfair condemnation. “Ziegler routinely ignores the 35 countries listed on the UN’s Food Emergency list,” said Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch. “Instead he is obsessed with the Palestinian territories, which have never ranked as a food emergency on any list.”
The brief argues that Ziegler breached his obligations as a UN expert to act with impartiality, non-selectivity and objectivity."

A whole article of anti-Americanism, based on an "expert" who is under investigation by his own agency for being a liar.
Al-Reuters strikes again...impartial my ass.

Will the Tories rise in Britian?

Despite being our steady allies in the War on Terror, the situation within Britian has been slowling deteriorating as a result of years of liberal policies under Tony Blair. In the "new" England, if you defend your home against burglers, YOU will be imprisoned. The know-it-alls in London ban fox hunting, a British tradition going back a millenium (imagine Congress trying to eliminate buck-hunting season!). Immigration is open-door, Muslims hostile to their new home country preach jihad on street corners, and anti-Semitism is on the march (again). Has the average beleaugered Brit had enough? Let's ask Ms. Melanie Phillips, columnist extraordinaire:

"...Believing that they themselves are decent, tolerant, law-abiding people, this beleaguered majority feels that the middle ground they inhabit has been hijacked and — worse — that no-one sticks up for common-sense or justice, because to do so is to invite ridicule or vilification.."

Free speech for the Left, but a hate-crime violation if you speak up from the right. See the final result of political correctness now live in England! And on top of this, the poor Brits have to cope with the BBC, which will alter whatever facts necessary to stay in lockstep with the liberal doctrine.
Anyway, back to Ms. Phillips:

"...What concerns them {the Brits-ed.} much more is the black hole into which billions of public money are being poured, along with their sense that the country’s values are being destroyed by a sneering, out of touch, metropolitan elite. In other words, social and cultural matters are uppermost in people’s minds. That’s why issues such as abortion, immigration or the wrongs done by human rights law are striking such a chord."

A Great Britian that has a viable Conservative opposition may once again be Great.
And once again, they might be Europe's last best hope.

FYI if you want more info on the blatent bias of Britian's BBC, see - an awesome site!

Moral Depravity of the EU

Eurosoc has the goods on Europe's deep felt moral convictions; to wit, how they cannot wait to sell arms to Communist China. Lecture us on values, will you? As I pointed on in this post, to the Euroweenies, it's all about...

"...France has made the removal of the arms embargo to China a central plank of its foreign policy. Germany, with 5.2 million unemployed, is desperate to tap into China's market, where the Communist Party has made lifting the embargo practically a condition for privileged trading status."

For Europe, human rights have ALWAYS taken a back seat to economics...nothing changes in that continent, not ever. Here's the advice Europe gives to Cuban dissidents suffering under Castro:

"...Louis Michel, the EU's development commissioner, was in Havana to suck up to Castro following the suspension of EU sanctions against the dictatorship. The sanctions were put in place in 2003 following a particularly nasty bout of anti-dissident oppression. However, the new Spanish socialist government has pressured for the sanctions to go, and the EU has kindly obliged.
But Michel was under not illusions that there is oppression in Cuba, oh no. He was even allowed to speak to the families of some pro-democracy and human rights campaigners, who he advised to "
avoid provoking" the dictatorship..."

Disgusting. Is there a tyrant at all that Europe will not lick the feet of?
I am no longer shocked by anything that goes on there. I remind myself that these folks absolutely tore up their continent for most of the 20th century, killing untold millions (50?100?) in the process. They've put a new face on their ugliness, that's all, but the song remains the same.
As I have said before - come talk to America after your continent can go 15 minutes without committing/condoning/abetting a genocide, OK?

The Coalition holds; Mainstream Media ignores...

Via No Parasan! (an excellent blog giving a bird's eye view to what really is going on in Europe); we find that Italy is NOT withdrawing its troops from Iraq,,7374-1530313,00.html as the mainstream media so gleefully reported a short while ago. Hmmm, couldn't find this story in the Times or the ComPost, wonder why...
In addition, this little story about Albania upping its troop commitment to 120 soldiers will never make it into the mass media because it is a story they cannot comprehend:

"..Why does Albania do this when it could have avoided President Bush's call for support, or when it could have dropped out as others have done when the going got tough? The answer is not difficult to find. If you believe in freedom, you believe in fighting for it. If you believe in fighting for freedom, you believe in America."

Does the Left believe in freedom? No, they support the Saddams, Arafats, and Mullahs. Maybe that's why they don't believe in America.
Mr. Tarifa makes one more important point in his article:

"Unlike people in other countries in Europe and elsewhere, the Albanian people have not forgotten what it is like to live under tyranny and repression"

Maybe this is why some of our strongest allies are countries in Eastern Europe, those who have tasted the whip of the left most recently. It is those whom WE have rescued and protected (from France to Canada), and who have had a generation of peace (only because we provided it with our blood and treasure), who are the ones most strongly opposed to our attempt to free the peoples of the Middle East.
And then they have the nerve to try and lecture us on morals.
OK, then.
Talk to me when you can go 15 minutes or so without a holocaust, allrighty?

UPDATE 1035PM: My faith in the Miserable Mainstream Media is upheld; the Slimes just posted a story (I won't link) of how aviation records appear to corroberate a man's account of being "rendered" to Syria. Oh, the horror...I'm sure we'll see a follow-up self-rightous editorial shortly. Still can't find any of the above good news anywhere though...
The Times will spend this war chasing after the tall tales of suspected terrorists; meanwhile, epic events that are reshaping the world go unnoticed (well, unreported- we notice).

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Paul Krugman froths

Today's column from our favorite liberal economist (who must be hoping and praying for a collapse of the American economy so at least some of his assertions are proven correct) spews left-wing mucus on to those who have the nerve to believe in God. He starts off with a good point:

"...The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself."

OK, so lets talk about some of the dangers of multiculturalism and bowing and scraping to our Muslim masters, right? No, these threats are posed by Americans, of course, and most particular the religious right:

"One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose."

Climate of fear? I'll tell you about a climate of fear - anyime I try to express any support for President Bush or the Republican party in the world-wise, csomopolitan city of Manhattan, I get screeched down by folks screaming "Blood for Oil!" "Rumsfeld is a war criminal!" "They'll turn us all into Christians!" etc, speech for thee and not for me, right Pauli-boy?
Krugman finishes with this apocalyptic warning:

"America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here."

He may be right in an ass-backward kind of way; my fear is the left-wing extremist, with their absolute hatred of the President and Republican party (Howard Dean, quote "I hate the Republicans and what they stand for". Hate, Howard? Now who's extremist?) will be the one to pull the trigger, egged on by the Krugmans, Herberts, Richard Cohens, and Air-America losers.
Why do liberal hate us? Because we believe in God and life? Isn't their secular agenda as rightously dogmatic as anything the "far-right" can dig up? (a post for another day!)

And in the "having it both ways" department, Michelle Malkin turns our attention to a bioethicist who says:

Wesley Smith: Bill, do you think Terri is a person?
Bill Allen [a bioethicist]: No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood. Even minimal awareness would support some criterion of personhood, but I don't think complete absence of awareness does.

Hmm..Awareness? Where is the evolutionary trail of the soul? None, you say? So how can you say awareness is even a real property? Yet it is defined as "the criterion of personhood"?
I'm confused - maybe God and the human soul only come into existance at the beck and call of liberal thinkers, when convenient, of course, like putting Ms. Shiavo to death...

Ward Churchill in Berkley

Probably where he belongs (or under a glass with the quote from the preceding post); but our California Patriot doesn't let him get away with it. What has been learned at school today, folks? Take it from the Patriot:

"...They don’t want ideological diversity, just skin color diversity. They want free speech but only for themselves, and they want to bash America and yet at the same time be protected by American rights that are only granted to them via our “evil” military."

And in conclusion:
"...I learned that their obsession with racial diversity is a cover for ideological conformity with the consequence of pitting one racial group against another."

What the American Left has become is scary.

Canadian Conservative Chick

Just discovered Ms. Rachel Marsden's site, although I'm sure I've seen her on Fox before. Check out this article in which Ms. Marsden discusses the Canadian government's rollout of a free heroin program in Vancouver (well, free to the addicts; the taxpayers are buying it for them to the tune of $8 million smackers). Here's the money shot; the program explained by its moral founder:

"...University of Amsterdam Centre for Drug Research director, Dr. Peter Cohen, explains why he’s all for the idea, “[O]piates are remarkably non toxic and impose very little health hazards. However, the junkification of users that happens to some of them is not a result of the opiates, but of the social conditions in which people land. Intense marginalization under conditions of prohibition 'creates' junkies…Now, if you supply heroin to users, you relieve them from the black market and you supply self esteem to them which creates all sorts of possibilities…But, compared to the social conditions that create junkification, the conditions inside the maintenance program are more humane and more promising.”

The mind reels.
I wish I could put this under museum glass, with a little card describing it as the epitome of liberal academic bullspit.
I guess this was a better expenditure of Canadian funds than say, oh, joining the US Missile Defense program, right?
Click the link, read it all - if you have the stomach...

Monday, March 28, 2005

France and Germany unite! make the world a more dangerous place! Gee, they used to do a pretty good job of that on their own, but together? It is now obvious to all but the most willfully blind that the EU is the final mechanism thru which these former superpowers hope to rule Europe and challenge America.
Today's article in the New York Post by Peter Brookes
examines the intent of these two Euroweenies to sell arms to China, despite:
-their continuing flagerent human rights violations
-their new first-strike doctrine against peaceful Taiwan
-American concerns that these new high-tech weapons may be used against our troops
-concern/oppostition amongst other EU memebers over the sale
Make no mistake, Chancellor Shroeder is channelling Adolf and making America into the new "Jews" of Germany. Jacques (Le Grand Pulet) Chirac will say or do anything (see post Sacre Bleu!) to bring a few bucks to France and to strengthen his presidency, no matter who must get killed in the process.
These are no "allies" of ours; it is even hard to consider them as even strategic competitors.

What's that word I'm looking for?

Bias from the AP - whatashock!

Mr. Chernkoff reminds us of how the media's awe of dictators is still in effect:

And he prints a quote from John Derbyshire that I may move to the top of my blog:

"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy."


Oh, that New York Times!

Feature article today tells the woeful tale of one Juan Carlos Merida, a Panamanian, who apparently is on a government watch list because he had a number of "innocent" interactions with Zacarias Moussaoui (9/11 Hijacker #20). Apparently Mr. Merida cannot get the private jet pilot license he desires because his name appears on these lists.
{cue world's smallest violin here}
Is this the best the Times can do, given all the evil that has allegedly taken place in the name of Bush/Ascroft/Cheny/Wolfowitz/Halliburton and various sinister neo-cons? One foreign national who helped out Moussaoui is having trouble getting a pilot certification? This is the best victim of our unilaterilst security policies that the Slimes can come up with?
Then our government is doing an even better, fairer job than I ever thought possible.

On another Times note, the COUNTERCOLUMN finds a case of the paper of record working feverishly to make good news about Iraq disappear from the public conciousness as quickly as possible

Sunday, March 27, 2005

On Ms. Shiavo

People have approached me (especially at work), wondering, as the "token conservative", which way my views fell on the Terri Shiavo situation.
Well, I have no views. In this case, everyone loses. I believe this affair is unique due to the laws of Florida and the profound disagreement between Terri's parents and her husband (who apparently cannot wait to be her ex-husband). I myself would have long wanted to be "put down" a long time ago under these circumstances; but I cannot speak for Terri. I think both sides feel as if they are acting with morality, although I feel the "pull the tube" bunch has been using a lot more hostile rhetoric; I guess the angry left cannot help itself...
The fascinating thing here (and I apologize if I offend by using that word in this context) is watching this moral drama play out. Is it possible here that to choose death is more moral than to choose life? Is it moral at all to pull a feeding tube from a sick woman so she may starve to death because it satisfies on man's wishes? (could you image if we failed to feed a sick terrorist at Guantanamo? - the Times would be screaming bloody murder).
The ironies abound - was not Ms. Shiavo hospitalized at one point for bullimia? And the fact that all of this plays out over Good Friday and Easter, with the spectre of the painful death and resurection of JC hanging over us (I do not celebrate Easter, but the archetype of the resurrection is practically iconic), adds yet another note of otherworldliness to this spectacle. A nation struggles with its conscious on some of its holiest does it all play out?
A happy holiday to you.

UPDATE 430PM: Wretchard's take -
is, as usual, more insightful than most (including mine)

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Personal Note

...when I was in college, I had the overnight shift once a week at my college radio station (WUSB-90.3 - where you want to be!). It was a pretty strong station for a college setup, close to 5,000 watts, covering all of Long Island into eastern Queens, and across the Sound into Southern Connecticut. So I sat there, from 3AM-630AM, spinning tunes I thought appropriate for the time period, talking about this and that, wondering if anyone was listening. I used to constantly let people know I was more than open to requests, and as I stared at the unblinking phone, I wondered - was there truly nobody out there and I was just talking to myself? I was comforted by the occasional call from an insomniac or night watchman, and soon came to realize that there were people out there, whether it was dozens or hundreds, listening to what I was doing and saying. So once a week, I went out and did my best for this group, and no longer was concerned about the size and scope of my reach.
What does this have to do with anything? When I started this little blog, sometimes I imagined that I was writing for a multinational crowd of inestimable size, all discussing and dissecting my punditry. Other times, I felt there sure I exsisted in a vacuum, my words spinning away into the nothingness of the ethernet.
So I installed a Site Meter.
I think I'm going to remove it.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Sacre Bleu!

Everyone's favorite Frenchman, Jacque Chirac, vomited out some bile this week....
The London Times enlightens us:,,542-1538838,00.html
"...EU summit meetings are rarely exciting affairs but can occasionally be enlightening, if depressing. The gathering that ended in Brussels yesterday falls squarely into that category. This was meant to be a showcase for major economic reform, but it instead served as the venue for the so-called Services Directive to be diluted at the insistence of Jacques Chirac on behalf of France, a stance supported by Gerhard Schröder for Germany....the directive has been attacked by the Socialist Party and the trade unions. Not to be outdone, M Chirac has jumped on the bandwagon, seized the wheel, and chose a dinner on Tuesday to condemn liberal [as in capitalist -ed.] market principles as “the new communism of our age”. "
How many people died under communism? 50 million? 100 million?
Nice for Chirac to compare us to them. Note Germany's slavish devotion to their new masters...
Why anyone is concerned about our faux alliance with these worms (Chirac es un ver!), I cannot imagine...

Target: al-Reuters!

Two classic cases of intentionally biased/distorted reports from the terrorist's mouthpiece:
"Top UN Aide Urges Israel Halt Settlement Expansion"
Our so-called Top UN Aide claims that Isreal is an impediment to peace because:
-They are (allegedly) adding some housing units outside of Jerusalem
- The West Bank barrier has had a negative inpact on the livelihoods of many Palestinians
Well... mention of the fact that Isreal is moving tens of thousands of Jews, most of them kicking and screaming, out of Gaza, huh? mention of why that freakin' wall is there in the first place? No mention of the 1,000- plus Isrealies that have been murdered by terrorists? No indication that terorist attacks in areas that are walled off have dropped to virtually nil? No, you see, to the UN, dead Jews are the sacrifice they are willing to make to appease the Palestinians. Why shouldn't they agree to have their women and children blown up so that day-laborers (including terrrorists) can make their way into Isreal? Alas, those pesky Jews have a different view. They insist on staying alive...
...and of course, no need for the UN to ask the Pallies to show any "restraint" or responsibility in the murder of civilians, right?
Now I'll admit that al-Reuters, in its last paragraph, address the issue by stating "Isreal officials say the needed to keep out suicide bombers". But "say"? It's a FACT that the wall keeps out suicide bombers! And why is this inconvenient fact relegated to the bottom of the article, and not adjacent to the UN's mouthpiece remarks?
One more from al-Reuters....
"Women, Children Die in US attack on Taliban"
Read it yourself, but if "U.S.-led forces came under intense fire as they arrived in Mohammad's village in Paktika, which borders Pakistan."; doesn't that mean that they were attacked?
And Since "Among the dead militants was a Taliban commander named Raz Mohammad, who was implicated in many of the attacks against coalition forces in southeastern Paktika province", wouldn't a headline such as "Top Taliban Commander Killed in Fighting" be more appropriate?
MOST IMPORTANTLY!!The article, despite the headline, gives no indication of who actually shot the civilians, which means most likely by careless Taliban gunfire. But why ruin a perfectly good anti-American headline?

In honor of my first Comment....

...I shall add my thoughts to John's ; who concluded his remarks by essentially asking why we don't see any 9/11 footage anymore...
If I recall, shortly after 9/11 all major news outlets agreed, virtually simultaneously, to cutback on showing footage of the attacks, claiming the images were simply to horriffic to continue spooling over and over. Now cutting back for a brief period is one thing, and maybe not unjustified, but that is not the same as the the virtual moritoreum on 9/11 images that has taken hold since.
The effect of this is create a state where context is non-existent. If the only images ones sees is American Soldiers marching off to war, dead Arab bodies, and anti-war protests, well, it is easy for certain conclusions to be drawn. If even occasionally American television coverage was interspersed with references to 9/11 or images (why is it OK to show pictures of alleged torture victims ad nauseum, but none of say, people screaming in the streets of NYC as they tried to outrace the collapse of Tower Two?) perhaps people might remember the flavor of that terrible day, and recall what we are fighing against.
Is it possible, however, that the media is standing by its initial assertion that there is no direct correlation between Iraq and 9/11, and thus will not juxtapose them? While I always felt that W was always after more the just WMD's (and the Arab Spring is bearing him out), the media seems to be unable to fit these new "facts on the ground" into their old hypothesis. So try to rework your original hypothesis? Nah, if you are the Media, just ignore the facts! It allows for columns of Bush-Bashing with no danger of introspection whatsoever!
9/11 ?
"Nothing to see here, folks....look! More pictures of alleged detainee abuse!"
I will revist the context issue again and again......

Thursday, March 24, 2005

In the beginning...

OK, I'm tired of ranting to my coworkers (who are tired of hearing it), my wife, the few inlaws and family who can still deal with me; I'm gonna vent here, at Right, Wing-Nut!
These are the stories of a lifelong Democrat who was changed on 9/11; as I watched the towers fall from my office building in NY, my belief system fell with it. I watched my party attempt to tear down a president that I believed was doing the right thing, the things that were overdue, the things that needed to be done. I watched my party interefere with the national security of the United States in order to preserve its own power. In disbelief, I saw the Democrats embrace every left-wing crackpot and rabid anti-semite into their busom in order to defeat George Bush and revert back to policies that FAILED BEFORE MY EYES on 9/11. I did what I felt I must (and what I never imagined I could do): Changed my registration to Republican and tried to convince every opened-minded person I could not to vote for the dirty Dems.
The American people, and the world, won a great victory on Election Day '04 with the re-election of the President.
But my work is not finished.
I will use this space to expose the moral weakness of the left. The targets we will line up will feature (but not exclusively) the following:
The Democratic party
So-Called "Anti-War" groups
The Mainstream Media, with the NY Slimes, the Washington Compost, and all major broadcast/cable networknewses.
Ap/Reuters/and the filthy foriegn media, whose anti-American hate-slinging is beyond reproach
Psedo-Intellectuals such as the Chomskys, Churchills, and various enviorn-loons
The United (gag!) Nations
Intellectually deficient columnists such as the Cohens, Dowds, Krugmans, etc.
...and much much more!
I'll be looking foward to your comments as well!