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
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 - - from a disgusting day's newsroundup here:

NY Post story here:

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Seattle and San Francisco: Kissing Cousins?

We've had a lot of fun here bashing San Fran of late (; 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:'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 :

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.

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:


Two cities, one train wreck.

Corner links here:
(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:

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:

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 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:

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!


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:

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:

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":

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:

See the "progressive" Nancy Pelosi tries to quell free speech here {great moonbat commentary too!} :

Right Voices notes the NRA is stepping in {here} -see how huffy SF officials get when somebody tries to defend the Constitution over their local city ordinances...renegades, the whole lot of them!

Thursday, November 24, 2005

"I Saw the News Today, Oh Boy..."

First up, via Daimnation!, shows that the Iraqi people have more faith in the future of their country than those big hearted liberal Democrats:

...a survey last month from the U.S.-based International Republican Institute, 47% of Iraqis polled said their country was headed in the right direction, as opposed to 37% who said they thought that it was going in the wrong direction. And 56% thought things would be better in six months. Only 16% thought they would be worse...
...the Brookings Institution reports that per capita income has doubled since 2003 and is now 30% higher than it was before the war. Thanks primarily to the increase in oil prices, the Iraqi economy is projected to grow at a whopping 16.8% next year. According to Brookings' Iraq index, there are five times more cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein's day, five times more telephone subscribers and 32 times more Internet users.

Hey now! Remember - no reporting good news from Iraq! It's all bad, and it is all America's fault!

Here's Biased BBC with a report showing how the venerable British broadcasters twist the data on the Palestinian Intifada to make them all look like innocent civilian victims, even the suicide bombers:

...the BBC breaks down the statistics of Israelis killed by Palestinians into civilian and military but all the Palestinians killed by Israelis are placed in one large group. Says the BBC, "There are no figures to show the proportion of Palestinians who were combatants and those who were civilians." Why, then, are the Israeli dead so divided in the BBC figures?
...most readers, even those sympathetic to Israel, will discount somewhat the group representing Israeli soldiers. There is no equivalent group of Palestinian combatants to be discounted. That absence is, of course, a consequence of the fact that the Palestinian way of waging war is to wear no uniform. Given that the BBC does see fit to add a little reminder to an article about the Israeli disengagement from Gaza to the effect that that Israeli settlements there were in violation of international law I would have thought that this repeated Palestinian breach of a far more fundamental international law was also worth a mention.
{link here:}

Why mention anything that might reflect negatively on the Palestinians? After all, it's those pesky Jews that are the real problem, right?

No, it must be Dick Cheney, since CNN 'accidently" flashed an "X" over his face while he gave a speech on Sunday. A "technical error", they claim (how come these errors, forgeries and misstatements are always ant-Bush? If they were all truly accidental, wouldn't their be some anti-Democrat errors, simply by the law of averages?). CNN "apologized", but Daily Pundit has been following the story, and tells the tale of those whom contacted CNN for an explanation: their surprise they were bullied and harassed in the same way by the Headline News desk. Callers were repeatedly told by CNN, "Tell the President and Vice-President Dick Cheney to stop lying."
...Ms. Thomas played the tape she states was made of the call discussed above to CNN Headline News on the phone for me. I have not seen the actual tape itself, and have no first-hand knowledge of its authenticity.
In it, a male voice is clearly heard to say that the X overlaid on Vice President Dick Cheney's face during the broadcast of his speech to the American Enterprise Institute on 11-21-05 was an exercise of CNN's "freedom of speech." The unidentified man added, "Tell Bush and Cheney to stop lying," as well as other inflammatory attacks on the President and the Vice President.


I'm not surprised; CNN should just come out of the closet and place a little donkey in the lower right-hand corner of the screen. Truth in packaging, please!

Well, at least Chris Matthews of MSNBC is honest: He believes we should empathize with the terrorists who took down the World Trade Center -

In a speech to political science students at the University of Toronto yesterday, the host of the CNBC current affairs show Hardball had plenty of harsh words for U.S. President George W. Bush, as well as the political climate that has characterized his country for the past few years.
“The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn’t a robust discussion of what we were doing,” Matthews said.
If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we’ve given up. The person on the other side is not evil — they just have a different perspective.”


Another liberal bashing his home country overseas...but don't you dare ever question their patriotism! To hear Matthews' blame America for the acts of terrorism committed against it, link to James Leiks - - and hear lowlife Matthews say how he thinks we should have "understood" the Nazis as well. Matthews is a sick man, biased in favor of those whom would kill us, critical of his country and the soldiers whom defend it...which gives him impeccable credentials to have his own talk show on a mainstream media outlet!

Oh, boy...

UPDATE: NY Post, 11/25:

That's the question after a mysterious flashing black "X" appeared over the veep's face during the network's live airing of his speech Monday. Ironically, the veep was defending the principle of open, honest debate — in this case, over the Iraq war. ...
While brief, the image was there long enough for folks to wonder: What gives? CNN claims it was a "technical malfunction" and blamed it on a machine that "switches between visual elements." Hmmm . . . convenient, no?
* A major address by the vice president.
* Iraq is the focus.
* Cheney stares down critics.
Yet, somehow, a one-in-a-million technical glitch plasters an X over the administration's lightning rod and top target of liberal scorn.
...the network is famous for its left-wing bent — and who's to say some zealous CNN staffer wasn't in the mood for a little mischief? Is the public really supposed to just take CNN's word for it?

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

NOW can I question their patriotism?

From today's New York Post, Ralph Peters reiterates much of what we have said here about the Democratic party and the motivation behind their shallow anti-war rhetoric:

Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.
Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media.

...Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do...
While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.

Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points...
America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?

You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.

The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win...The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.

Surrender is never a winning strategy.

Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.
What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.

I said here that the mainstream media is trying to create a "Fall of Saigon" moment. I'll add the Democratic party to that mix as well. As Peters says, they need us to fail (to insure their own success), and they are going to make us fail, no matter what the cost.

Does that not essentially ally them with al-Qaeda?

NOW can I question their patriotism?

Link to Peters' essay here:

Monday, November 21, 2005

Inside China?

This is from the lead editorial of China's People Daily Online; and as I am sure it is cleared by Dear Leader's minions, it becomes more noteworthy:

The China-US relations have traversed a course over 30 years. It is by no means a smooth journey but full of twists and turns...
...The happening of "September 11" crated an opportunity for improving relations. Washington needed Chinese help in its fight against terror and
Beijing responded. As a result, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it, the China-US relationship was "at the best period since the establishment of diplomatic relations".

No doubt...there are also friction and setbacks. A wide-spread argumentation is that China, taking advantage of US terror fight, launched attacks in all directions and slipped into Africa and South America to "nip away" US interests, and it will strengthen itself and pose a threat to the United States. Hence the "containment" theory.
Meanwhile, some other Americans argue that China's development is an opportunity not only for the United States but for the world as a whole. Hence the "opportunity" theory, especially in economic and trade areas.
In fact, this is only on the surface....

....we have good reason to believe that this new wave of China-US ties is bound to be heading for a long-term, positive direction, and is sure to push the relations to a new high.

Is the Chinese government really aspiring to better relations with America? Or is this a prefabricated build-up to the "let-down" that will result when very few agreements are reached during Bush's visit?

Link here:
Hat Tip: Watching America

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Sacre Bleu! More French Censorship!

On the New York Post's Page Six (where it belongs), a sordid tale of government repression in order to prevent the embarrassment of Nicolas Sarkozy:

In a brazen act of censorship, Sarkozy managed to halt the release of tell-all tome "C‚cilia Sarkozy: Between Heart and Reason" by threatening the publisher, Editions First, with grave "judicial consequences."
The book, authorized by C‚cilia, was penned by French journalist Val‚rie Domain, and reportedly lays bare the messy details of the Sarkozys' crumbled marriage, which has been gossip fodder since the couple's noisy split over the summer.
Some 25,000 copies were scheduled to hit stores on Nov. 24, but Editions First honcho Vincent Barbare was summoned to Sarkozy's office on Nov. 9 and ordered by the minister to nix the books.

The cowardly publisher caved in to the hard-line politico's demands, in what one French media veteran described as "an unprecedented and outrageous act of censorship." A sidestepping Editions First rep blamed the book ban on the recent wave of riots in Paris, saying it wasn't "convenient to put the books out [considering recent events] in France."

A pal of author Domain says the writer contacted Editions First recently but was told to forget about the book coming out or getting the original manuscript returned to her: "They told [Domain] there was too much pressure on [Editions First]. She's terrified. She doesn't even want to talk on the phone. And this is only going to get bigger."

Now inagine if BushChenyaburitan had done this...investigations, special prosecuters, calls for resignations, the whole nine yards. But it is apparently acceptable in France, just like...taking bribes from despots to overturn international sanctions!

Europe can keep their "superior morality"; I'll just sit quietly here in Jersey and watch the continent crumble...

Link to NY Post story here:

UPDATE: I didn't realize my pal Johnny Depp had inhaled so deeply:

France and the whole of Europe have a great culture and an amazing history. Most important thing though is that people there know how to live! In America they've forgotten all about it. I'm afraid that the American culture is a disaster."

From his IMDB bio here:

Republicans slap down John Murtha and his Media Toadies...

Huge news when Democrat John Murtha came out and declared that we should evac out of Iraq ASAP. But why? Look at the news Murtha made back on May 6th, 2004:

Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats’ most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is “unwinnable.”
{link via Slate here:}

So this "Democratic Hawk" has been declaring the war "unwinnable" for over a year and a half, right? Well, he has been questioning it for much longer - this is dated September 2002:

...the powerful backroom dealmaker [Murtha-ed.] finds himself in an even more politically lonely position: questioning a war-powers resolution that even most Democratic leaders seem reluctant to oppose. ''All of us want to get rid of Saddam,'' Murtha says. But he believes that the younger Bush ''went about it the wrong way.''
Bush's father ''had his coalition built before he came to Congress,'' Murtha says. As a result, most of the Persian Gulf War's cost was shared by U.S. allies.


OK, reasonable doubt. No issue here. This is interesting as well, from the same story:

Nothing he has seen in intelligence reports hasconvinced him that Bush needs to rush through a resolution, Murtha says. Even so, he has not decided how he will vote. Although he has doubts about the president's plans, Murtha says he's reluctant to leave his commander-in-chief isolated in the face of the international community.
''I don't know whether it was intentional or not, but he has put the country in such a box,'' Murtha says.''He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'

So Murtha can honestly say he doubted the intelligence that led us to war from day one. Good for him; although he cannot say "Bush lied". He may have only voted for the war to show unified support in the face of an enemy; again, no issue here. But the media cannot make his demand to withdraw troops out to be such a major betrayal. Even though he did vote for the war, it is obvious his support was lukewarm at best.

The media uproar was just an example of "piling on"; the MSM is looking for its tipping point, its Saigon moment, and it is doing whatever it can to create one. They did create a tipping point, but not the one they intended. Bush and the Republicans finally started to fight back against the scurrilous charges being made by the Democrats; charges dutifully reported as fact by their liberal lackeys in the press.

And yesterday's vote on Congressman Murtha's proposal was not a 'political ploy", no matter how many times the media used that in its reporting. Congress took his troop withdrawal proposal, and put it to a binding vote. The fact that all but three Democrats voted against the proposal shows us clearly what we've known all along: The Democrats are playing politics with the war; they know a pullout would cause massive chaos and loss of American prestige for a generation, but they will hammer away at it as a way to hurt the Commander-in-Chief. The Democrats will risk emboldening the terrorists and endagering our soldiers in order to score politcal points. Vile, vile, they are...

Based on the above info; I have no problems with John Murtha's support/lack of support for the war; his decision-making process seems to be at least somewhat honestly thought out, or was, up until this past week. And although Murtha is not a coward, the policies he is currently presenting are cowardly. Cutting and running before a job is done, without heed for the consequences, always is...

And what damage has George Bush done by allowing things to come to this point; by allowing the Dems, Libs, and MSM to pound away at the war for weeks without answer? Penjman has an analysis:

...remaining silent for so long in the face of attacks against the reconstruction and war effort, the Bush Administration allowed support for the war to wither away and deteriorate to alarming levels...They probably figured that the antiwar rhetoric would have little impact in the public mind and that it would be laughed out of the court of public opinion within short order.

Sometimes, this indeed is what happens. But other times, a meme takes hold and changes public opinion in a fundamental way. When that meme is unchallenged, it changes the entire nature of the debate. By refusing to challenge the antiwar meme, the "Bush Lied!" and "We Went To War For Halliburton!" claims, the Administration made those claims more believable in the minds of many. And now it faces the deleterious consequences in poll after poll of American public opinion regarding Iraq.

Bush is fighting a two-front war; a loss on one side presages a loss on both...he'd better be aware of it.

UPDATE: Oh, That Liberal Media! has a real in-depth piece more specifically on the media's distortion of Murtha and the resolution vote here:

The French Unlearn a Valuable Lesson

Now that the riots in France have subsided a bit (down to a "normal" level of 90+ automobile arsons per night}, have the French become introspective, trying to see what lessons may be learned from a crisis that very well may have toppled a republic? From Eurosoc:

"France's 742 lawless towns" screams the headline of the popular tabloid Le Parisien. Coming hot on the heels of France's worst riots in decades, what could this mean?
An investigation into how numerous French communes became no-go zones for police? How political correctness, lazy civil servants and crooked officials allowed gangsters and thugs to create a reign of terror in French housing estates, eventually exploding in the riots of recent weeks?
Wrong on both counts. No, the "communities outside the law" that are upsetting Le Parisien's editorial staff are those 742 towns in France who have failed to respect a law guaranteeing a level of "social housing


And what of our friends across the pond, the Brits - have they learned anything from the Paris intifada, what with their teeming Islamist subculture setting off bombs in subways and scorning British law? From Melanie Phillips:

Britain’s state of denial continues to deepen. We saw it after 9/11, when people said America had brought the atrocity upon itself — mainly through its ‘uncritical’ support for Israel. Then after Britain’s own human bomb attacks last July, the media became gripped by fear not of Islamist terrorism but of Islamophobia, or fear of the fear of Islamist terrorism.
Now we are told that the riots in France by Muslim and Arab youths from the banlieues — the city suburbs — have nothing to do with Islam but are the result of poverty, unemployment, racism and discrimination. Those who say, au contraire, that Islam is at the core of the disorder are being vilified as far-right racists and crazed reactionary demagogues.
Such a view surely displays a pathological refusal to connect to reality, which is given a vicious edge by the crude attempt to shut down debate through smears and demonisation. Denying the Islamic element of these riots is to deny the obvious...


Sounds like our own Democratic party; demanding a withdrawal from Iraq ASAP, pretending the horrific consequences of such an action simply do not exist.

Nobody believed Hitler would really launch his full-scale war, either...

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Et Tu, Johnny Depp?

Mr. Depp (a brilliant actor - but oh such a #$@!) has often bashed his native land whilst whiling away the days at his manor in the hillsides of France - perhaps never more viciously than this September 2003 diatribe:

America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive," he said.
"My daughter is four, my boy is one. I'd like them to see America as a toy, a broken toy. Investigate it a little, check it out, get this feeling and then get out," said the star of the off-beat films "Edward Scissorhands" and "Dead Man."
Depp slammed George W. Bush's administration for its criticism of French opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Snooty bastard, bad-mouthing Americans while drinking wine in his chatau; Americans whom had shown him love, showered him with riches beyond avarice, and whom had forgiven him for "21 jump Street". But it looks like Johnny's getting a bit scared out there in the French countryside:

Hollywood star
JOHNNY DEPP is so shocked by the riots raging through France, he's considering abandoning his home in the country.
The FINDING NEVERLAND heart-throb moved to Europe when life in Los Angeles became too violent.
He has since divided time between the two continents - but he fears France will be scarred permanently by the current troubles.
He says, "It's insane, that setting cars on fire is the new strike.
I went there (to France) to live because it seemed so simple.
"Now it's anything but. I don't know how they'll recover from this

Will we have to take Johnny Depp back into our collective bosom once again?
It's can come back home now...

Depp 2003 link:
Depp 2005 link:

Bush Shares: Currently Undervalued...

Via Atlas Shrugged, we quote the words of former Reagan Administration economist Larry Kudlow:

"...George Bush could be bottoming, though it may take several months for this to become clear. But add up all the reasons why the Bush stock deserves a 'buy' rating: 1) the economy is strong; 2) gasoline prices are falling; 3) the GOP Congress will pass a sizable tax- and budget-cutting fiscal plan; and 4) after another successful election in Iraq next month, at least 35,000 U.S. troops will be withdrawn in 2006"

I'd buy on that recommendation; I'd also add one fact: Our "political stock analysts", AKA our merry pollsters, have been pushing the "sell" panic by issuing report after report of negative news ... too bad they've been cooking the books {}. Get in on the ground floor; I think this one's gonna skyrocket...

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Jay Rockefeller: Lying Traitor, or Traitorous Liar?

While the Mainstream Media chases its tail trying to attached Karl Rove to Scooter Libby, a more interesting, and darker, question has arisen: Did Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, by his own admission, disclose confidential information he secured via his Intelligence Committee post to Middle Eastern leaders such as Syria's President Assad? Let's hear his own words:

...I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already
made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

The Standard's Edward Morrissey asks:

What was the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing in Syria, a country which perennially finds itself among the top listings of terrorist-sponsoring nations, discussing President Bush's decision-making on the war on terror with Bashar Assad, one of the worst sponsors of terror in the months after 9/11? Rockefeller's own reckoning, this incident involves more than just fact-finding. The man who sits in judgment of American intelligence communities went to a
known supporter of Islamist terror at a time when the nation had explicitly declared itself in conflict with such groups, and discussed our wartime preparations with a tyrant who could have--and may have--used that information to America's disadvantage. The timetable, and Rockefeller's admitted intervention, allowed the Assad and Hussein enough time to create strategic planning for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.

And that, friends and neighbors, is the textbook definition of "treason". Jay Rockefeller's picture should be right there next to it.

I will not be sleeping easy tonight.

Link here:
Hat Tip: The Anchoress

Warmonger !

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"...

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces ...Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," ...

Er...ah...that's President Clinton, above, on the launching of Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
Oh, that William Jefferson Clinton...warmonger and unilateralist?

"...I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said

All the more interesting, as we note the words of this ex-president today while in Dubai:

The United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday, citing the lack of planning for what would happen after dictator Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.
"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

Before this treacherous, leacherous, liberal came on the scene, ex-presidents never criticised the foreign policies of a sitting president, especially while overseas. They would maintain silence to maintain unity; a united front across party lines when it came to national security. But thanks to Bill Clinton, our hero of the surving '60's generation, even the traditional decorum between presidents is just another taboo to be broken with childish glee...

Link to both stories via Econopundit here:

UPDATE November 21st: While Clinton has moderated his tone a bit since he made the above statements (still a dark political genius, he is!), Jimmy Carter has followed in the New Democrat political style and begun Bush-bashing on his book tour - first stop, Kansas City:

...Everywhere you go, you hear, 'What has happened to the United States of America? Carter said Friday at Unity Temple.
"I felt so disturbed and angry about this radical change in America," he said.

Carter is promoting his 20th book, "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis," which he describes as his first political book.
He placed responsibility for that moral crisis largely on the Bush administration, citing a preemptive war policy, inadequate attention to the environment, and the use of torture against some prisoners.

{Link at SF Chronicle: }

And who helped bring us to this point, Jimmy Boy? How about a President in 1979 who quailed before the first Islamic thugs in Iran; whom showed that Americans can be immobilized when threatened by a few masked men with rusty rifles? Maybe, Jim, if you had taken out those Islamic terrorists a quarter-century ago, they would have seen that taking on America was a fool's errand. Think of the thousands, tens of thousands, that may have lived if you could have shown the moral conviction that sometimes it is right, and necessary, to fight for what you believe in. And did you know, Mr. Carter, that these mullahs you ran away from oh-so-long ago are a few years away from becoming a nuclear power?

Gateway Pundit has an good piece on how Ethiopian protestors are trying to get Jimmy's attention...see, they weren't too happy when our self-appointed moralist ratified an obviously flawed election; and turned his back when police killed dozens of pro-democracy protestors. Our intellectual superior has been ducking them, however. Too busy bashing the President and praising Hugo Chavez...

Here's Bill Clinton doing the backpeddle

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Consumer Reports: European Vehicles Suck!

Japanese imports earned most of the top reliability honors, while European models scored well below average in this Consumer Reports study...
...Most of the worst sedans in our rankings came from Europe, including several expensive luxury models such as the Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Jaguar S-Type, and the Mercedes-Benz E- and S-Class...
SUVs...European brands anchored the least reliable list. Unreliable models included the V8 BMW X5, Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover LR3, Porsche Cayenne, Volkswagen Touareg, and Volvo XC90.

So some of the automobiles that used to be synonomous with reliable, refined driving are now rated among the worst. Why?

Could it be, just maybe, in a socioeconomic system where essentially no one can get fired, the desire to actually do good work decreases? That without the threat of the capitalistic axe, there is no motivation?

-No need to tighten those screws, Franz, it's not like they're gonna fire you!-

Does this decay in the quality of Europe's once-finest mass-produced products reflect an overall decline in their culture and morality, or am I leaping too far here?

Most of the worst sedans in Consumer Reports' ranking come from Europe, including this BMW 5-Series V8.

Link to Consumer Reports story on miserable European cars here:

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

The Nerve!

It's OK for the Democrats, the Western Media, and foreign leaders to bash President Bush repeatedly over the fact we are winning the Iraqi War, but when Bush dares to defend himself against the onslaught, this is the headline we get from the AP:

Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate

"Escalates" ?

How about something like, oh, I don't know, maybe... "Bush Answers War Critcs"?

Too values-neutral ?


Sunday, November 13, 2005

NBC's "West Wing", Brought to You by The Democratic Party!

Did anyone else pick this up? From the Boston Globe:

Debate was Fictional, Issues were Real

Sunday's live debate on NBC's ''The West Wing" was so enlightening -- not to mention entertaining -- that at least one wag called it the most significant presidential debate since John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off on the small screen in 1960. But it was actually another Kennedy's policies that were pitched on the TV show. Debating Alan Alda's Senator Arnold Vinick, Democratic Congressman Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits, borrowed liberally -- no pun intended -- from Senator Ted Kennedy's ''Medicare for All" proposal. ''The geniuses behind this award-winning show clearly understand that Kennedy's vision is the winning platform for America," said Kennedy staffer Melissa Wagoner in an e-mail afterward.
Problem is, voters may not agree. A survey done by pollster Zogby International before and after the debate found it was Vinick, the Republican, who gained the most ground, not Santos.

Miss Wagoner and the West Wing writers sound like they are enjoying pleasuring each other, but based on the Zogby results, the American people get the last laugh on them again. Nevertheless, this is a concern - did this NBC drama allow itself to be used as a "trial balloon" for Democratic party policies? Was it a ploy to familiar the body politic with upcoming liberal campaign themes; to make them seem more mainstream by using them in a "upscale" televison drama?

I would like to find out more about this; if the writers had any consultations with Ted Kennedy's staffers or officials of the Democratic Party, then are not the Republicans legally entitled to their own NBC series to showcase their policy outline?

Then again, this is a last-place network...wonder why?

Link to Boston Globe story here:

Ted Kennedy: Lying Traitor or Traitorous Liar?

George Bush has finally fought back, in a big way, against the quisling weasels on the left, those whom claim that "Bush lied" or misled them about prewar data. Here's his smackdown of Teddy Kennedy, on the White House Web Site (here:

"It is regrettable that Senator Kennedy has chosen Veteran's Day to continue leveling baseless and false attacks that send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy during a time of war. It is also regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush then he ever did about Saddam Hussein. If America were to follow Senator Kennedy's foreign policy, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, he would be oppressing and occupying Kuwait."

Sen. Kennedy On Iraq

Sen. Kennedy Said Saddam Hussein Was Developing WMDs: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Remarks At The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C., 9/27/02)

Sen. Kennedy: "Saddam Hussein Is A Dangerous Figure. He's Got Dangerous Weapons." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 10/6/02)

Sen. Kennedy Now Says The President Manipulated Facts About Iraq's WMDs: "'Instead of providing open and honest answers about how we will achieve success in Iraq and allow our troops to begin to come home,' Kennedy said, 'the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought.'" (Deb Riechmann, "Bush Forcefully Attacks Critics Of The War In Iraq," Associated Press, 11/11/05)

Sen. Kennedy Opposed Removing Saddam Hussein From Kuwait. (S.J.Res.2, CQ Vote #2: Adopted 52-47: R 42-2; D 10-45, 1/12/91, Kennedy Voted Nay)
Sen. Kennedy Opposed Removing Saddam Hussein From Power. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48- 1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kennedy Voted Nay)

Pretty shameful record; but not surprising from a man whom would let an innocent woman drown to save his political career.
Just as a refresher, here are other Democratic politicians whom claimed Saddam Hussein had WMD's; before Bush came onto the scene:

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Sandy Berger: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

Now, here are Democrat's statements about Saddam Hussein & Iraq during the Bush Administration, prior to the Iraq War

Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam...because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security"
Hillary Clinton: "... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

And recently? Well, here's the voice of the American left and the Democratic party, lying loud and clear:

Ted Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought."
{link to most all of the above quotes here:}

I cannot imagine anything more dangerous than a political party taking control of the government whose willingness to wage a necessary war varies according to the results of the latest battle and the latest poll. Remember, Abe Lincoln was also called a blunderer and a fool (and a "simpleton"from a "log cabin in Illinois") whom unnecessarily took us into the Civil War by liberating the slaves. He was savaged by his opponents and the press for some of the early losses by the Union forces in that horrible war; and often was urged by both his political foes and the yellow press to "make a deal" with the South.

Imagine what this country might look like; imagine what the world would look like, if Lincoln had succumbed to the Democrats and the editorial pages of his day. President George Bush is walking in Lincoln's shoes right now; trying to liberate a land to create safety for America and freedom in a part of the world that does not know it. To give in, or to lose to, the reactionary forces of today would be as calamitous as a flip-flop by Lincoln would have been.

And that too is why Ted Kennedy is a traitor - he knows what is at stake; but he will throw his country to the terrorist wolves to score some cheap political points; he will lie to the peoplel and to the world to retain liberal policies that are falling all around him, from the towers of New York to the streets of France. He will sell out America, he will see America defeated, before he admits he may be wrong.

Coward. Traitor. Fool.

Good round-up of commentary at Gateway Pundit {}, whom notes:

I must add that I have never seen the Whitehouse website have anything so clearly political posted on its pages. President Bush is serious.

He'd better be.

UPDATE: More Fun With Democratic Traitors here: ; now starring Jay Rockefeller!

Saturday, November 12, 2005

France: Losing ground to Islamists?

The French continue to fall back in the face of the infitada; media counters with Orwellian doube-speak:

Clashes erupted in Lyon before the curfew took effect, with youths hurling stones at riot police Saturday evening in the city's historic Place Bellecour...
Similar incidents have been reported elsewhere in Europe. In neighboring Belgium, 15 vehicles were burned overnight, including a bus torched near the eastern city of Liege, officials said Saturday. But the government there played down fears that the kind of unrest gripping France had hit Belgium...
A furniture store and a carpet store were burned overnight in Rambouillet, southwest of Paris, police said.
The number of vehicles burned overnight across the country climbed slightly to 502 from 463 the previous night, police said Saturday. The recent figures are down sharply from the peak of the violence.
"We returned to an almost normal situation in Ile de France," said Gaudin, referring to the Paris region. He said that 86 vehicles were burned, which he said was about normal.
Arsonists torched 101 vehicles in the eastern Rhone region overnight, officials said.
As unrest abated, calls for peace were mounting....

The amount of torched vehicles rose by over 10%, and the media says "As unrest abated"?
86 cars are burned a night in Paris, and that is normal? Where, in Bagdad?
101 vehicles torched in Rhone? Is that high, low, or G-D forbid, "normal"? If they ain't saying, assume the worst...

When the French government is overthrown, will the media even report it? Or will they pull a Kent Brockman {from "Deep Space Homer"; paraphrased):

"I for one welcome our new Muslim overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."

AP Story here:
Link to Simpsons quote here:

Media Declares Rioting Over; Coverage Ceases!

On Thursday, a few dozen less cars were firebombed in France than the day previous - the media breathes a sigh of relief, declares "Riots are dying down", and goes back to looking for American misdeeds. Only, of course, the riots show no real sign of abating:

463 vehicles burned, 201 arrests, 7 police injured, and 8 police suspended for doing their job.
In Lyon, 4 police were hurt by thrown rocks. Violence in the greater Paris area ticked up a bit.
12,000 police are being kept on duty through the weekend (including the holiday of 11 November). Calls to riot continue to circulate via SMS, blogs, and Internet bulletin boards.

The BBC, its heartstrings torn between protecting the PC status quo and the irresistable British urge to French-bash, has some interesting facts:

All public meetings likely to provoke disturbances are to be banned in the French capital, police have announced.
The ban will begin at 0900 GMT on Saturday and end at 0700 GMT on Sunday.
The police statement said the measure followed calls for "violent acts" in Paris on 12 November contained in recent e-mail and text messages.

Could you imagine if Bushitler had declared a moritorium on public meetings? Or if the riots had spread to as many cities in America as it has in France? The flames of the Intifada spread...

And the media keeps spinning...northern neighbor Canada works it furiously:

As the unrest continued to decline...a 15th consecutive night of violence saw fewer skirmishes and fewer cars burned - 463, down from 482 the previous night, police said

Well, would I be a Frenchman, now I would be relieved!
And here's the aticle's inevitable PC lie:

Fuelling their rage was the high unemployment and discrimination that has frustrated France's African and Muslim communities for years.

While I'm sure there is generous resentment against those racist French, that is not "fuelling" their rage. It has barely been brought up by the rioters; it is simply assumed in PC land that the only reason an Intifada would erupt is due to "economics" or "discrimination" {like the way those pesky Jews discriminate against those angelic Palestinians!). I have another reason:

The Islamic element in France hates their home country, feels themselves and their culture to be superior to that of the French, and want to destroy it, and institute Sharia law over the land.

This is not an economic riot; it is an Islamic revolution that seeks to take over a first step.

Tony Blankley agrees:

This is not about Muslim poverty (the Islamist terrorists who hit London all had good jobs. Mohammed Atta, who struck us in New York, was well-born and came from a prosperous family.) It is about radical Islamist self-confidence and contempt for the West. And, it is about Western weakness.

And every dithering day, their foothold in Europe grows firmer...

Link to Canada News via LGF here:
Link to BBC report here:
No Parasan! reports the totals here: Blankley link here:

Friday, November 11, 2005

Chirac: "Weaker Than Weak"

As the riots raged throughout France, Le Grande Poulet Chirac has been the invisible man. Even the Francophile bootlickers at the New York Times have taken note:

President Jacques Chirac has never been one to shun the spotlight.
But in the face of the most serious social crisis of his 10-year presidency, the 72-year-old French leader has become the invisible man....Even his declaration of a nationwide state of emergency on Tuesday was presented not in a sober, televised presidential speech in prime time, but read aloud to journalists by the government spokesman after Tuesday's cabinet meeting.
"Chirac seems completely out of the loop," said Bernard Kouchner, a Socialist former health minister and one of the most popular political figures in
France. "It's all very strange. As a doctor, I can't say whether he's in bad physical shape. But as a citizen, I can say he looks weaker and weaker."
The absence of a man who seizes - even creates - opportunities to plunge into crowds, kiss babies and caress cows has prompted criticism that the president has no plan to ease the unrest that has gripped the country's slums for the past 13 days...

So Chirac has lived up to France's highest ideal - running like a coward when the going gets tough. Perhaps seeing his world crumbling around him, seeing all of his policies that he strutted around the world stage as superior to America's failing all around him, has brought him to despair. But sometimes leadership involves standing up when all around you is falling (see Guliani, Rudolph). Chirac is the ultimate "Emperor who has no Clothes". France may have spun into decay without him; but gosh, he certainly greased the skids...

Now compare him with Australian Deputy PM Peter Costello; who has this to say about Islamofascism:

If you are somebody who wants to live in an Islamic state governed by sharia law you are not going to be happy in Australia, because Australia is not an Islamic state, will never be an Islamic state and will never be governed by sharia law.
We are a secular state under our constitution, our law is made by parliament elected in democratic elections.
We do not derive our laws from religious instruction.
There are Islamic states around the world that practise sharia law and if that’s your object you may well be much more at home in such a country than trying to turn Australia into one of those countries, because it’s not going to happen.

Compare and contrast the Australian philosophy and that of France...which nation do you think will survive the 21st century?

Costello quote via Daimation! here:
NYT story on Chirac here: