Saturday, March 31, 2007

Supporting Allies or Our Enemies. The Democrats Decide

At the Democrats convention in 2004 former President Carter said:"The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy."

The need for America to work with allies was a key plank in the Democrats 2004 platform. You couldn't get through a John Kerry speech without being lectured on the need to work with our allies and not engage in unilateral or pre-emptive action.

But, two years later, Carter was giving an interview to a British newspaper where he insulted British Prime Minister Tony Blair by calling him "compliant and subservient" to Washington.

So much for alienating our allies and dismaying our friends.

If this were an isolated example we might overlook it. Yet this insulting tone laid out by Carter pervades Democrat circles, especially in the House of Representatives where Speaker Pelosi refused to allow a vote on a resolution in support of our most stalwart Ally Britain in the matter of their personnel being held hostage by Iran.

"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Yet Speaker Pelosi is in the Middle East along with a delegation that includes Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, and plans to visit Syria, a nation directly responsible for fueling the violence in Iraq that has claimed the lives of so many American soldiers.

CBS News describes the trip as "controversial" and it "indicates she has no intention of letting the White House have the sole province on foreign policy."

Talk about alienating our allies, dismaying our friends and inadvertently gratifying our enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy!

It used to be that we lived by the late Senator Vandenberg's rule that "politics stops at the water's edge." But like with so much else, not least of which is the U.S. Constitution which grants the President sole control over foreign policy, standards of conduct, like rules and law are actively redefined to suit Democrats whose confusion over the meaning of the word "is" is legendary.

Resolution of Support For Britain

What would be so wrong with a resolution supporting our ally Britain?

H. RES. 267

Calling for the immediate and unconditional release of British marines and sailors held captive by Iran , and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 26, 2007
...
Whereas Great Britain remains one of the strongest allies of the United States and a partner in the war on terrorism: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) condemns the Islamic Republic of Iran for the seizure of 15 British marines and sailors and demands their unconditional release; and

(2) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn this seizure and explore new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran , including the restriction of the supply of gasoline, to prevent further Iranian hostile action, deny Iran's ability to militarize the Persian Gulf, and enforce Iran's nonproliferation commitments.

Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm.

How could a statement of support for our greatest ally do more harm than good? Unless of course it would upset the Syrians and their Iranian masters on the eve of the Speaker's trip to grovel in Damascus? Failing to take even this easy action, as the Senate did unanimously on Thursday, sends a further signal to the Iranians that they can continue to exploit our political divisions.

To paraphrase President Carter's prescient remarks: The Speaker and Democrats have alienated our allies, dismayed our friends and inadvertently gratified our enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy.

(thanks City Troll and Curtains for You for the heads up).

Friday, March 30, 2007

Knut's Encore

After a week of heavy duty war and peace, life and death I thought a little light relief was in order. I had some great satire from ScrappleFace lined up, followed by this town in Sweden who has been refused permission to change it's name. '

But Google's "Blogger" service had other ideas and so, a perfect excuse to offer this weeks "Cute Knut" pictures. From Der Spiegel:













And as groups like Greenpeace now try and use Cute Knut for fundraising for their extreme environmental agenda, we wonder if the animal rights activists who wanted Knut to be killed still feel the same?

Mike's America Jury Duty

Sorry for light posting today. Mike's America was called to fulfill his obligation as a citizen and serve on a jury deciding a criminal domestic violence case.

I'm getting an inkling that I've missed some good stuff and regular programming will resume shortly.

Japan Extends Air Force Missions for Iraq

Just at the moment when Democrats are trying to pull the plug and abandon Iraq, one of our allies steps up and extends their service mission.

Wait a minute. We have allies in Iraq? I thought our action was unilateral?
Japan Extends Air Force Mission in Iraq
via Washington Times
March 30, 2007

TOKYO (AP) -- Japan's Cabinet approved a two-year extension of the country's air force mission in Iraq after it expires in July, the foreign minister announced Friday.

Tokyo has been airlifting U.N. and coalition personnel and supplies into Baghdad and other Iraqi cities from nearby Kuwait since early last year as part of efforts to support Iraq's reconstruction.

The mission had been set to end July 31.

"A two-year extension is necessary to continue stable airlifting support" because Iraq's reconstruction has not been completed, Foreign Minister Taro Aso said in a statement after Cabinet approved the plan.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Iran Defies Geneva Conventions: Blackmails Britain for Release of Prisoners

I suppose this is all George Bush's fault too?
AP News
Mar 29, 7:22 AM (ET)

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran may delay the release of the female British sailor if Britain takes the issue to the U.N. Security Council or freezes relations, the country's top negotiator Ali Larijani said Thursday.

Speaking on Iranian state radio, Larijani said: "British leaders have miscalculated this issue."

If Britain follows through with its policies on the 15 British sailors and marines detained by Iran last week, Larijani said "this case may face a legal path" - a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors in court.

Earlier Thursday, Britain asked the Security Council to support a call for the immediate release of detainees, saying in a statement they were operating in Iraqi waters under a mandate from the Security Council and at the request of Iraq. The issue was expected to be debated Thursday.

On Wednesday, Britain announced it was freezing relations with Iran.
How DARE the British freeze relations with Iran? Why the nerve of them. And going to the United Nations to complain? Why they're just making a mountain out of a molehill.

After all, Iran's been free to kill Americans in Iraq and all they got was a few choice words from President Bush. Who do these Brits think they are?

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Program Alerts: South Park Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger

Two program alerts:
  • South Park fans might want to tune in this evening (Wednesday) for a program featuring Hillary Clinton.
  • "Socks, Scissors, Paper. The Sandy Berger Caper" will air on Fox News Saturday, and again on Sunday (check your local listings).

Iran Violates Geneva Convention with British Naval Hostages

Where are the professional protesters who demanded the U.S. set a higher standard in treatment of those not covered by the Geneva Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions:

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Unlike the terrorists at Gitmo, the Geneva Conventions clearly apply to the British naval personnel seen in the photo above being held captive in Tehran.

Iran Parades British Hostages in Broadcast



Article 13:

...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Iran is a signatory to this provision widely meant to prevent the display of prisoners for propaganda value and why you will never see even Al Queda prisoners NOT COVERED by the Geneva Conventions on television.

Iran clearly scoffs at the Geneva Conventions. But we all know they would be first in line to complain if their prisoners were treated in violation of the conventions.

Fresh Muzzie on Aisle One

Here's a fresh one.

Seattle School Bans Legos

Brainwashing starts early. All in the name of "social justice."

L'Eggo My Lego
By Maureen Martin
Tech Central Station
28 Feb 2007

Some Seattle school children are being told to be skeptical of private property rights. This lesson is being taught by banning Legos.

A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.

According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."

So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.

At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:

"A house is good because it is a community house."

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."

Given some recent history in Washington state with respect to private property protections, perhaps this should not come as a surprise. Municipal officials in Washington have long known how to condemn one person's private property and sell it to another for the "public use" of private economic development. Even prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, which sanctioned such a use of eminent domain, Washington state officials acting under their state constitution were already proceeding full speed ahead with such transactions.

Officials in Bremerton, for example, condemned a house where a widow had lived for 55 years so her property could be used for a car lot, according to the Institute for Justice. And Seattle successfully condemned nine properties and turned them over to a private developer for retail shops and hotel parking, IJ reports. Attempts to do the same thing in Vancouver (for mixed use development) and Lakewood (for an amusement park) failed for reasons unrelated to property confiscation issues.
A commenter at the Orlando Sentinel Blog points out that "Hilltop has a preschool program that will set you back somewhere between $1,000 and $1,200 a month and an afterschool program that goes as high as $475 a month. I'm thinking these children are acquainted up close and personally with "ownership and the social power it conveys." But luckily all that dough buys them an educational environment where they can learn to despise the wealth that has brought them there."

Parent's pay $1200 a month to teach their kids to hate the ownership society that makes their hoity toity education possible? Send the kiddies to public schools where they get that lesson for free and donate the $1200 a month to charity. You're kids will still get taught that you're evil for making money. But at least you won't have to pay for the privilege.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

No Pork for War!

"No Blood for Spinach!" was how mamaspajamas coined the phrase in a comment at Chatterbox Chronicles.

But as we are learning, the bill which Democrats rammed through Congress to "support the troops" had much more to do with supporting votes from Congressmen and Congresswomen who would otherwise have voted NO and defeated the defeatist measure.

Funny how the same Democrats who railed against "earmarks" in congressional spending bills found little wrong with billions in aid to agricultural fat cats like California spinach growers.

More cartoon blogging on the issue at "Deputy Wordsmith's" page.

What's Iran Up to Taking British Naval Personnel Hostage?

Iran's "game of chicken" about to hit a brick wall?

Iran's seizure of British naval personnel on a routine mission in Iraqi waters on Friday raises the stakes in the already dangerous game of chicken that Iran has been playing with the West since they seized U.S. Embassy personnel in 1979.

Both incidents as well as the killing of Americans with Iranian weapons in Iraq and the killing of Americans by Iran's proxy Hezbollah are acts of war which carry serious risks and repercussions. Iran seems oblivious, or defiant, of that danger even going so far as to take this action on the eve of the latest vote in a series of UN Security Council resolutions "determined" to force Iran to comply with it's obligation to forgo development of nuclear weapons.

What is Iran Up to?

It's abundantly clear that Iran has been engaging in a war with the West ever since the Ayatollahs came to power. Their outlook doesn't depend on who sits in the White House or what U.S. policy is towards Israel or the Palestinians.

Walid Phares wrote an interesting article over the weekend exploring some of the dynamics of the problem as viewed from a Middle Eastern perspective.

Dr. Phares reminds us that Iran has always used the "Great Satan" excuse as a mechanism for controlling Iran's restive population. Despite that excuse rising protests and democratic activism are increasingly threatening the regime.

Nothing better than to goad the U.S. or Britain into an attack and use that as an excuse to clamp down on internal dissent. I'm wondering if perhaps Iran was hoping that the British would shoot back and defend themselves, as they had every right to do, and so claim that it was the British who attacked Iran?

Phares goes on to suggest that part of Iran's strategy is to "widen the propaganda campaign against the US and its allies via a number of PR companies within the West, to portray Iran as "a victim" of an "upcoming war provoked by the US."

We've already seen evidence of that PR strategy with the visit last year by former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to Washington's National Cathedral. And it wasn't hard to miss the mass produced message put forward with the help of the communist organizers at the recent "anti-war" protest in Washington: " Stop Iraq War, No Iran War, IMPEACH."

Undoing Iran WITHOUT a Military Strike

Over the years I have been cautious about endorsing a military strike against Iran. It might be necessary to use military means to abort Iran's plan to build nuclear weapons. But that might also make the ultimate objective of removing the second member of the "Axis of Evil."

Talk, talk and more talk seems to be the only option many on the left and center have to suggest. But that won't work. What do you say to Iran? "You've been killing Americans for decades, please stop it?"

More aggressive and public support for the seething democracy movements in Iran seems to be the wisest course. We won't know what covert measures we are already taking to encourage Iranians to solve the problem themselves until the New York Times leaks it and the leaders of the democracy movement are murdered by the mullahs.

But as Michael Ledeen of National Review has often said: "Faster please." Time is running out and this game has gone on too long.

(I also recommend Ledeen's latest column: "Iran Is at War with Us. Someone should tell the U.S. government.")

Tony Snow's Cancer Has Returned and Spread

Sad news today.

Too soon yet to know whether his treatments will require him step down as White House Press Secretary.

He has been such a breath of fresh air in the White House Press Secretary's job. It would be an enormous loss if he were forced to leave.

Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.

Get well Tony!

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Deputy Mike "Reporting for Duty" at Flopping Aces

I'm pleased to accept the invitation of Curt at Flopping Aces to join his posse.

My intro post is here.

It's a bit more background and history on who I am and where I come from than you may have seen before.

I encourage all my readers to visit Flopping Aces and add your two cents.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Another Excuse for More Cute Knut

My item Wednesday about the cute little polar bear cub that animal rights whackos want dead caught the attention of Paul Gottschling at Slate.com:

"The South Carolina conservative at Mike's America pokes fun at the contradiction in liberal stereotypes: 'And the same loony tune lefties who would go ballistic if a sparrow were killed to build a freeway are still demanding the death of Knut... for his own good. No doubt to save him from global warming.'"

What a good excuse to post more Knut photos. See the entire slideshow here.






Friday, March 23, 2007

Show Your Spirit for V I C T O R Y: Have YOUR Flag Flown in Iraq!

You might know by now that you can purchase, at very nominal cost, a flag flown above the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. by contacting your congressional Representative.

Considering that circus freaks like Code Pink are currently running the show on the Hill, you might want to consider an alternative.

Why not a U.S. flag flown by U.S. troops in Iraq?

Gazing at the Flag brings us this story of the Army's 1st Sqdn., 73rd Cav. Regmt. which offers U.S. flags flown in Iraq as part of their "family readiness" program.

It's a great personal connection between the troops on the ground and family and supporters left at home.

What a great way to celebrate the 4th of July than fly a flag flown for freedom from the central front in the battle for freedom in Iraq?

$25 is small price to pay to participate and show your support! A certificate of authenticity signed by the troops on the ground comes with your flag.

For information on purchasing a flag send e-mails to Taskforcebluefalcon@yahoo.com.

Tony Snow to Undergo New Surgery

We pray his cancer has not returned.

White House Press Spokesman Tony Snow will undergo surgery on Monday to "remove a growth in his lower abdomen, a procedure he said was being done "out of an aggressive sense of caution" because he had colon cancer two years ago. "

Like Elizabeth Edwards, we wish Tony well.

In yesterday's post on Edwards, I mentioned that a liberal commenter at Marie's Two Cents insisted that both left and right wings of the political spectrum have "fringe" elements. Nothing like a little moral equivalency to absolve liberals of any responsibility for the actions of their nutroots.

As mentioned yesterday, you'd be hard pressed to find mainstream conservative web sites with commenters showing any animosity towards the tragedy which has befallen the Edwards' family.

Does the left show the same compassion for Tony Snow?

You decide.

Starting with the very first comment....

The Huffington Post
Tony Snow To Undergo Surgery For Abdomen Growth
March 23, 2007

  • "Unfortunately, as we've seen the last couple of days, cancer knows no political party."
  • "Tony may be a BushCo whore"
  • "Tony Snow to Undergo Burn Treatments For Repeated Pantaloon Incineration"
  • "Hopefully he can use this surgery to leave his WH post and successfully rescue any career he has left in legitimate journalism. "
  • "Funny, I was thinking Snow didn't look that well - I assumed it was just the pressure of working for a bunch of assholes."
  • "Everyone keep your comments nice and polite. We wouldn't want Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh to express outrage for us huffposters saying something mean about Tony. Just kidding....Tony Snow is giving birth to Dick Cheney's alien-baby as we speak!"
  • "Tony Snow is a piece of shit, for sure. His punishment should be the shame that is justifiably heaped on a spokesman for the most venal and vicious administration in memory. Cancer is not part of the equation. Let us proceed with grace and with charity. [Mike's America: WTF????]If we root for him to suffer with cancer, then we ourselves will have a gnawing cancer in our guts and it will prevent us from doing the difficult work of exposing the lies, and dishonesty of the Party of Bush."

Sorry, but that's just a sampling from the opening comments. I just can't read anymore of that filth.There are a few begging their fellow libsters to "try and be human beings here" But it's clear that too many of them have what the last comment cited as "gnawing cancer in our guts" directed at the Bush Administration.

Since when did HATE become a point of view? When did bile substitute for judgement? Chalk this up to yet another documented case of the differences in outlook, attitudes and MATURITY of adherents to two competing philosophies.

Six Votes Saved Pelosi from Disgrace!

14 Democrats abandoned their Speaker.Will we now see headlines about the embattled Speaker?

Here's the roll call vote on the pork laden goodie bag that enticed just enough members of the House of Representatives to vote for the defeat America legislation favored by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The measure, if it becomes law, would require President Bush to withdraw all U.S. troops by August 31, 2008.

After bitterly complaining about Republican earmarks and pork in the previous Congress, Pelosi and crew ladled on enough pork gravy with biscuits to get to the magic number for passage.

President Bush, in a strongly worded statement, rejected this partisan game playing, which will never pass the Senate, let alone a presidential veto.
President Bush Discusses Iraq War Emergency Supplemental
Diplomatic Reception Room
The White House
March 23, 2007

Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives advocated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
...
Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.

Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.

Only two Republicans, Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina deserted their parties longstanding principle that there can be no artificial deadline set for withdrawal and that our troops deserve nothing but our absolute support for them and the success of their mission.

Meanwhile, reports continue to flow in suggesting that the Iraq surge is WORKING! How utterly irresponsible is it that Democrats would encourage our enemies at the very moment they are on the ropes?

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Democrats Losing Control of House of Represenatives

Only weeks after coronating Nancy Pelosi as the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, the house of cards Democrats built to con the voters may already be collapsing....
Pelosi2
Via Drudge Report:
    • Dem leadership pulls DC voting bill from floor; conservative Dems were supporting DC gun repeal...
    • Leader Hoyer seen yelling at staff on floor...
    • Speaker Pelosi absent because she is desperately searching for Iraq supplemental votes...
    • Holmes-Norton standing silently in disbelief..
More at the Politico.

And this from The Hill: "Anti-war group CODEPINK is planning to take over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office at 4:00 pm, the group said. Protesters plan to play “Pin the war on the Donkey” to show their frustration with the Democratic leadership’s inaction of ending the war in Iraq."

All eyes turn now on the big pork barrel spending projects that Nancy Pelosi is using to buy votes for Iraq war funding. Despite the pork, if that vote goes down on Friday, Pelosi may be taking one of her last flights on Pelosi One home for the weekend.

Elizabeth Edwards Cancer Returns: We Wish Her Well!

It's some of the saddest news a cancer survivor can receive: your cancer has returned. This sad news has reached Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Dem presidential hopeful John Edwards.

I'm confident I speak for ALL my readers in wishing Mrs. Edwards well as she battles the return of this dreaded disease. We also send our heartfelt best wishes to the Edwards' family. After all, cancer is a disease that afflicts the entire family.

Despite this tragedy and it's implications for his family, Senator Edwards vows that his campaign for president will continue. That's a family decision and certainly not something on which he should be criticized.

Political overtones in a story like this are unavoidable and there are some contrasts which are appropriate.

I recently read comments at Maries Two Cents where a reader asserted that there are"fringe"whackos in both parties. The problem as we illustrate with the post below on Code Pinkos is that Democrats invite them to the halls of congress and make sure they have a visible platform for their antics.

And readers may recall the story from February where hate filled lefties openlyl wished for the assassination of Vice President Cheney.

You'll be hard pressed to find any right winger making hate filled remarks about this sad news in the Edwards family. In fact, I'd be willing to bet you'd have an easier time going to one of these moonbat Democrat sites and find some loon accusing the Bush Administration of causing Mrs. Edwards cancer to return.

Just chalk this sad episode up to yet another example of the difference between the two political parties.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Leftist Whackos Want this Polar Bear Cub DEAD!

Believe it or not, but animal rights whackos want this cute polar bear cub DEAD!

Poor little Knut (pronounced "newt") was rejected by his mother who left him to die along with his twin brother.

Knut was rescued and has been hand-reared by Berlin Zoo keeper Thomas Doerflein, who sleeps by his side, bottle-feeds him and even plays Elvis Presley songs to him on a guitar.

Animal rights activist Frank Albrecht told Germany's Bild newspaper: "Hand-rearing a polar bear is not appropriate and is a serious violation of animal rights.
"In fact, the cub should have been killed," he said.

And the same loony tune lefties who would go ballistic if a sparrow were killed to build a freeway are still demanding the death of Knut... for his own good. No doubt to save him from global warming.

As instructive as this story is about the nature of crazy leftists, it's not without opportunities for humor.

On a U.K. web site, one commenter said: "Well what about the right to life of the poor seals which the average polar bear attacks in a lifetime? Nobody thinks of them, or the fish. Its time these polar bear tyrannts made recompense for their unprovoked and aggressive actions. Killing one of their own is the only way they'll learn."

Too bad we can't euthanize animal rights whackos!

Democrat Circus Freaks: Sideshow, Not Serious

What is it with these commies? Does anyone take these freaks seriously?

Get this clown! Please! A phony preacher and a gospel choir of pink drag queens? Do these loons have the slightest clue what an unfunny joke they are?

Protesters from feminist anti-war group Code Pink sing out against the war in Iraq in the hallway of the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington March 21, 2007.

Talking about freaks.... just WHAT is that creature who showed up for Valerie Plame's testimony last week? Did something escape from one of the medical research labs?


And just how does a loon like the pinko below get admitted to a congressional hearing?


These people turn important policy discussions into a circus.

And this sideshow is being brought to you by the Democrat controlled Congress. Too busy playing politics to do the people's business.

Bush Fights Back... For Once!

Is it too late?

President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys
The Diplomatic Reception Room
The White House
March 20, 2007

White House transcript:

...I'll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts. In addition to this offer, we will also release all White House documents and emails involving direct communications with the Justice Department or any other outside person, including members of Congress and their staff, related to this issue. These extraordinary steps offered today to the majority in Congress demonstrate a reasonable solution to the issue. However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.

The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.
...
After years of just rolling with the punches, and the disastrous one way street of the "new tone" President Bush finally seems to understand he either comes out swinging on this one or his Administration will be over before he leaves office. The Democrats will be running things.

I'd like to say I am encouraged by his strong stand. But I wonder, is it too little too late? Can he put the Genie back in the bottle?

Some Conservatives "Just Say No" to "Rudy McRomney"

This article captures what many have been thinking....

Right rips 'Rudy McRomney'
by Joseph Curl
The Washington Times
March 20, 2007

Some conservatives searching for a new Ronald Reagan are rejecting "Rudy McRomney" and seeking an alternative Republican presidential candidate, opening the door to dark-horse hopefuls, including former Sen. Fred Dalton Thompson and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Still reeling from losses in the midterm congressional elections last year, nearly 6 in 10 Republicans said in a recent poll that they want more choices for November 2008.
Many conservatives are displeased with the trio of candidates dominating press coverage of the Republican 2008 field -- former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
...
In an unscientific poll conducted by Mr. Viguerie's Web site (www.conservativehq.com), 88 percent of 525 persons surveyed said Mr. Gingrich would govern as a conservative. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas was slightly behind, at 86 percent, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came in at a respectable 74 percent.
The news was worse for "Rudy McRomney." A little more than half, 55 percent, said Mr. Romney would govern from the right, with Mr. Giuliani at 24 percent and Mr. McCain at the bottom at 17 percent.
Mr. Huckabee told The Washington Times that he considers himself conservative enough and said voters who check his record will be convinced. But he added with a laugh, "Maybe they just don't know all of us yet."

You're right, we don't know them all yet. And some of us are concerned that the media has announced that the contest will be decided this year.

Meanwhile, John McCain has discovered in Iowa that his stand on immigration runs directly counter to the wishes of Iowa Republicans. It's about time he realized that.

And Fred Thompson: Should he run?

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Will Valerie Plame be Prosecuted for Perjury?

Byron York, writing in National Review online goes through Valerie Plame's testimony before a House Oversight hearing last week and points out how very different it was from the testimony she gave before the Senate some years before.

If you've followed the shifting stories and exposed lies surrounding this fraud against the American people, you won't be surprised.

The question is: Will Ms. Plame, or her husband, ever be held to the same standard of accountability as Scooter Libby?

Don't bet on it. Not even if we used the same political pressure tactics on U.S. Attorneys that Chuck Schumer applied in the effort to see someone from the White House indicted.

As usual, Democrats are exempt from the same rules the rest of us follow or else!

New Move America Forward Ad

Move America Forward left the Gathering of Eagles inspired! This is their latest ad:

Also, if you haven't seen Michelle Malkin's video report from the Gathering, it is here.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Readers Comments with Haloscan Experiencing Problems?

The Haloscan commenting system which permits you, the reader, to get in your two cents appears to be shakier today than usual.

I apologize for any difficulty you might be experiencing in participating in the discussion here at Mike's America.

I don't know what is worse: the occasional glitches and growing pains with Haloscan or the everyday nuisance of being asked to decipher gibberish with Google commenting word verification?

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Obama Attacks Hillary

You MUST see this video:


Just one problem: Obama isn't the solution!

Program Alert: Winston Churchill Bio on Fox News at 10 PM Sunday

churchill_karsh_photoOliver North's "War Stories" is presenting a one hour biography of Winston Churchill Sunday night at 10 PM EST on the Fox News Channel.

Winston Churchill defines leadership, vision and victory in the face of overwhelming odds. And his is a story that can and should inspire Americans as we face situations similar to those which confronted Great Britain in the 1930's.

I plan to tune in, and I hope you do too.

Winning the Propaganda War At Home: Lessons from the Gathering of Eagles

Let's Build on the Success of the Gathering!

Thanks again to all those who put boots on the ground (or mud as the case may be) at the Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. Folks who have now returned home are beginning to share more of their photos and recollections and I invite you to visit their sites via some of the links in the posts below.

What I'd like to do now, is reflect on the larger questions of how the successful event was portrayed in the wider media and make some suggestions for how we could do it even better next time.

The reason we need to ask and answer these questions is simple: Before we win the war against Islamic Fascism we must win the political battle against defeatism and delusion at home. Our troops are fighting and dying to secure military victory. It's our job to win the political victory.

Take A Page from Kookville's Play Book: A Good Photo Speaks Volumes

Editors putting together the next edition of the local newspaper have a variety of sources to choose from in deciding which photos to use to accompany text reporting on an event. Even if the text is fair and balanced, if the one photo picked gives a favorable impression to one side of the issue at hand, that's what sticks in most reader's minds and reinforces whatever positive coverage is in the text.

By now, we've all seen the photos of the masses of people gathered to protest against an American victory in Iraq or anywhere else (example). And you may also see photos of the Eagles, such as the one below:

But if you saw any lamestream media images emphasizing the crowd at the Gathering of Eagles, please drop me a link in the comments section. I haven't seen any.

One reason could be the choice of venue for setting up the stage for the Gathering. Cajun Tiger took this dramatic image of all the flags blowing in the wind at the Gathering with the Federal Reserve Building in the background. But it's difficult to get a sense of the crowd.

I realize that the Gathering organizers desired their site to be as close to the Vietnam War Memorial as possible. But perhaps it could have been oriented in such a way as to encourage news photographers to work harder to capture dramatic images of the crowd with the Vietnam War Memorial in the background.

The organizers of the kookville parade are old hands at site selection and even choose march routes that offer possibilities for the most dramatic images. They also work to make sure that news photographers are encouraged to exploit those carefully selected angles to best effect. If they need to pay to build a temporary platform to encourage the media to take better crowd images, they do it.

This is not a criticism of the Gathering organizers. I don't know what efforts they undertook to encourage better coverage. But it is a reflection on the experience and sophistication the lefties in kookville have gained from years of producing mass propaganda spectacles.

The Gathering of Eagles matched or exceeded the kookville crowd in numbers and the Eagles soared above the angry defeatists in spirit. And I am hoping they can capitalize on that spirit and unity of purpose with ever more successful events in the future.

Imagine how many more real Americans could be turned out with a redoubled effort at financing, organizing and communications?

Communications and coordination have always been a weak point for conservative groups. Tom Delay was on the radio last week discussing his new book: "The Hammer: Tom DeLay: God, Money, and the Rise of the Republican Congress." He correctly observed that by our nature, conservatives are independent, vs. the collectivist mindset in kookville. It's often difficult for conservatives to unite the various groups around a central event such as the Gathering.

This is not meant to suggest that we need to turn something as focused as the Gathering of Eagles into a hodgepodge of various conservative causes. But certainly, with wider participation in an event such as this success can be visibly multiplied without taking away from the central focus.

Do Your Part

We've previously discussed the failure of C-Span to cover both sides of this happening. I want to remind readers that they can make a difference by phoning or emailing C-Span to remind them of their responsibility to be fair and balanced.

And you can certainly send an email to the editor of your local paper reminding him or her and their readers that the Gathering matched or exceeded the kookville crowd, even if the media coverage did not.

Finally, The Gathering of Eagles has more information on their web site. Unfortunately, the lovers of lefty free speech have hacked the site again and taken down their photo gallery from the event. Talk about Nazi tactics! I would encourage those who are able to do so to make a contribution at the Gathering site and help them overcome that assault on our rights and get the message of the Gathering's success to an even wider audience.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

A VICTORY for Eagles Today

A victory for the Silent Majority!
A victory for common sense!
Victory1stMemorial
Today was the 40th anniversary of the mega protest against the Vietnam War which launched the anti-war movement into the mainstream of American politics.

Today was also the day when that movement of defeat and delusion was eclipsed by the Silent Majority of common sense Americans who refuse to be silent anymore.

The Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C. today matched and exceeded both the quantity and quality of protestors who showed up to protest for America's defeat in Iraq, Iran and throughout the world.

Despite a clear advantage in organization, funding and favorable media, the anti-war "peace" crowd, waving mass produced yellow, black and orange signs failed to match the hype of left wing organizers, let alone live up to the legacy set down by hippies and haters 40 years before.

It's clear from the reports at the scene that the Eagles who stood for honor, freedom and victory on the National Mall today are the vanguard of an America which refuses to be defeated and humiliated in the way this nation was following the abandonment of Vietnam forced on us by Democrats in Congress during the 1970's.

In every way, the Eagles this day achieved a moral and political victory in the propaganda war for the hearts and minds of Americans. That victory is just as important as any battle on the field.

Thank you Eagles! Job well done!

More from the folks who were there and supporters across the nation. This isn't so much a "blog roll" as an "honor roll:"

That list is hardly comprehensive. So please drop links to more posts in the comments section.

Demanding Media that's Fair and Balanced

For those left at home and upset with the poor quality of television coverage of the Gathering of Eagles, do your part. Contact C-Span and ask why they reran a boring congressional hearing in the morning during the time the Eagles were conducting an event, yet ran the anti-war rally live in the afternoon?

Email and phone contact information for C-Span is here.

You may also wish to write letters to the editor of your local paper and demand that coverage of the day's activities be balanced in closer accord with the numbers at the scene.

Eagles Returning to the Nest: Mission Accomplished!!!

2 PM: The Anti-American-war protesters are moving to the Pentagon for the next stage of their defeat America rally. News reports confirm what our Eagles have been telling us: that Eagles turnout at least matched, if not exceeded, that of the Anti-American-war types who had earlier bragged about 30-40,000 marchers.

Our own Eagles, some of whom started out well before dawn, are returning to the nest. Contingents of Eagles will remain at various war memorials on the National Mall to continue protecting them from threats to deface them as protesters did recently by spray painting at the U.S. Capitol.

We look forward to fuller reports from our Eagles as they return to warmer surroundings and better Internet access.

Reflections

Meanwhile, as we wait for those reports, a few reflections on the scene from this distant standpoint:
  • C-Span is currently covering the angry, hate filled bile being spewed by the various communist and defeat America groups. They did NOT cover any of the speeches at the Gathering of Eagles, despite the invitation. They choose instead to rerun a disinteresting (BORING) hearing with the Federal Communications Commissioners appearing before Congress on Wednesday. Clearly, with the large numbers of Eagles, some coverage by C-Span was warranted. C-Spans' contact page is here. We would encourage you to phone or email to express your disappointment at the one sided coverage.
  • Cajun Tiger pointed out that the Gathering of Eagles took place in a sea of American flags all snapping smartly in the brisk wind. But yet, when he surveyed the scene of the Anti-American-war protesters he saw more Palestinian flags than US flags. Grizzly Mama points out the American flags she observed were flying upside down and had been desecrated with slogans written on the fabric.
  • And if you look at news footage from the scene, you'll notice the color scheme for the anti-American-war types is heavy with yellow, orange and black. Aside from Halloween, which would explain many of the moonbats outfits, what do these colors symbolize?

Job well done Eagles. Go get warmed up!

Skye Helps Angry Lefty with Anger Management


Multiple reports that anti-American-war protesters are trying to provoke confrontations.

12:30 PM: Skye reports that she was compelled to intercede to prevent a physical confrontation between an angry anti-American-war protester who was slinging insults at a veteran in an attempt to provoke a physical confrontation.

At the point where the two men appeared close to a physical altercation Skye inserted herself between them and ordered the unruly hippie to back off and said "you're done here."

Let's hope she threw in a "get lost loser" for good measure!

The photo above is Skye with Monica, Troll and an American hero at the scene.
Larger image here. Keep in mind these are all cell phone photos and higher quality postings will have to wait until our Eagles return to the nest.

Eagles Rule the Roost!

Anti-American-war protesters light in attendance and intelligence. Our report from the scene continues...

11:30 AM:
Skye reports that the anti-American-war protesters (you'll notice they don't protest wars waged by communists/terrorists, just the good guys) crowd gathering near the Lincoln Memorial in preparation for their march to the Pentagon is rather light. The photo at right is from the assigned space reserved for America haters by the National Park Service.

(maps of the layout and where the Gathering of Eagles are located is available here)

Skye continues to post photos at Midnight Blue as she made her way through this sewer of anti-Americanism in search of a place to warm up before the main event begins. In her last cell phone report we could hear little but the shrill and angry voices of people who prefer to maintain their willful wall of ignorance, prejudice and delusion rather than face the painful reality of what this war is all about.

City Troll, Grizzly Mama Check Join The Gathering

Also reporting cold temperatures (gusting winds make it seem like 24 degrees F) but warm hearts are City Troll and Grizzly Mama who made their way down from Philadelphia in the early hours of this morning to show their support for our troops and respect for the sacrifice and honor America's war memorials represent. They've also met up with Always on Watch and Steve Harkonen.

City Troll (wish him a belated Happy Birthday) and Monica report that the Gathering of Eagles crowd continues to swell and that the media has been conducting interviews of the Eagles at the scene.

To illustrate the contrast between the two crowds, in both numbers and I.Q. Grizzly Mama (Monica) relates a confrontation she witnessed between some scrawny hippie America hater and some hulking biker type. It wasn't clear what caused the fracas, but the hippie was threatening to sue the biker who was simply standing there staring in disbelief at this stick insect. Wish we had a photo of that!

Cajun Tiger Confirms Anti-American-War crowd Light.

Noon: Cajun Tiger, who is also posting photos from the scene (see his photo of the Eagles at right) confirms that the Gathering outnumbers the anti-American-war protesters by "three to one."

Media reports also confirm that the large crowds predicted by anti-American-war protest organizers at 30-40,000 is also very light.

When last heard from Skye and Cajun Tiger were headed into Code Pinko land.

Stay tuned for the update from that bizarro world.

Early Bird Eagles Are On The Scene

10 AM: Skye, our eyes and ears on the ground at the Gathering of Eagles reports back that the early birds are already on the scene at the National Mall in Washington, DC.

The sun is shining but it's a cold day in Washington (weather channel page here) but that didn't stop Skye from getting out there to cover the first wave. Skye's report confirms that the Eagles have attracted very large numbers of patriotic Americans to the event venue in comparison to the anti-American-war crowd collecting a short distance away. No surprise that the professional protester class would be a bit late.

Among the early birds was this group, at right, from Rolling Thunder. They rode their motorcycles up from North Carolina to join the Patriot Guard Riders and show their respect to America's war memorials and the sacrifice, honor and duty they represent.

Skye reports that there are American flags everywhere, which is a sight to warm the heart, even on a cold day.

Our official event observer also notes that the media trucks assigned to cover this event are all parked in proximity to the anti-American-war demonstrators. Skye took this photo showing the Fox News truck with the banners for the communist group International ANSWER in the far background.

Blog Participants Check In

Part of our online effort today is to give those who cannot attend the ability to participate. We'll be taking your comments and forwarding them to Skye and others at the scene. Feel free to ask questions about what our folks on the ground are witnessing as well as suggest slogans to shout at the hippies.

Nanc, from It's Curtains for You, checked in this morning to remind readers that C Span has not committed to cover the Gathering of Eagles but has agreed to cover the anti-American-war crowd. Folks at home can help by calling C-Span and politely requesting they give equal time to both groups.

Main Number: (202) 737-3220FAX number 202-737-6226 (Assignment Desk)

Other early views from the scene are posted at Midnight Blue, as they will be throughout the day. To see full size photos, click on the individual images Skye posts. Unfortunately, editorial comment is difficult via cell phone postings, so stay tuned here for the full story.

Friday, March 16, 2007

The Eagles Have Landed

Skye is on the scene and files first report from Gathering of Eagles.

Skye of Midnight Blue arrived in Washington DC, despite the snow, and has been making the rounds of various groups in town for the Gathering of Eagles set for Saturday morning.

At her hotel, she bumped into a contingent from Florida, members of the "Boot Murtha" campaign. Members in this group, as well as many other Eagles related participants, include Vietnam veterans. They understand the danger of permitting Congress to recreate another Vietnam with an abrupt pullout from Iraq.

Lefty protestors who have threatened to deface the Vietnam War Memorial, claiming a bizarre free speech right, will think twice if these folks are on the scene.




Check C-Span and cable news channels for coverage of the events. But as usual, don't expect our side to get much air time.

Valerie Plame Under Oath

Yeah, but who thinks the same rules that applied to Scooter Libby will apply to her?

The woman at the heart of the most successful phony scandal and political fraud of all time, Valerie Plame Wilson testified to the House of Representatives Government Oversight Committee today.

Readers will recall that Scooter Libby was recently convicted for failing to remember what he had for breakfast three years ago.

Will the statements of Ms. Plame Wilson be held to the same standard of accountability as Scooter Libby? Yeah, sure they will. Just as soon as Sandy Berger and the Clinton cover up of destroying National Security documents is investigated further.

Byron York has ten questions he would like an answer to:
Ten Questions for Valerie Plame Wilson
By Byron York
National Review
March 15, 2007

1) In a 2004 report, the Senate Intelligence Committee quoted a memo you wrote to the deputy chief of the CIA’s counterproliferation division (CPD) on February 12, 2002. In it, you suggested your husband for a trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had sought uranium there. According to the Senate report, you wrote, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” Was that all your memo said? Was there any more? If so, what did it say?

2) Your memo was dated February 12, 2002. Was that before or after you learned that Vice President Cheney had asked a question about reports of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger?

3) On February 19, 2002, according to the Senate report, the CPD held a meeting with your husband to discuss a trip to Niger. A State Department report said the meeting was “apparently convened by [Joseph Wilson’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.” Is that accurate? Please describe what happened.

4) In January 2004, Vanity Fair published an article touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said
In early May [2003], Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.

Is that account accurate? If so, please describe what you said to your fellow attendees, either publicly or privately, at the Democratic Policy Committee meeting.

5) There have been some questions about the wording of the Vanity Fair paragraph quote above, which says that your husband met for breakfast with “Kristof and his wife.” Just to be clear: were you at that breakfast? If so, what was said?

6) On June 13, 2003, Kristof wrote a column about the Niger-uranium matter. He wrote that he was “piecing the story together from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it.” Were you one of those people?

7) A month earlier, on May 6, 2003, Kristof wrote a column reporting that “In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the CIA and State Department that the information [of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal] was unequivocally wrong and that the documents [purporting to show such a deal] had been forged.” Kristof was later forced to admit that the envoy, your husband, had not actually seen the documents he claimed to have debunked. Did you know that at the time? Did you play any role in the preparation of that article?

8) At the Lewis Libby trial, Judge Reggie Walton said that he did not know if your job status was covert, classified, or other on July 14, 2003, the day your name was published in a column by Robert Novak. What is the answer?

9) Was your job status changing, or had it changed, during your last years at the agency? If so, when, and for what reason?

10) If your status was either covert or classified, and if you did in fact meet with the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and with Nicholas Kristof, did you view it as part of your covert or classified work to meet with political groups and a columnist from the New York Times to discuss matters within your purview at the CIA?
We'll wait to see the answers she does provide, then hold our breath to see if Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald wishes to expand his investigation to include her statements.

Get Well Wishes for MD

MD, author of Conservative Intelligence Review suffered a serious accident with head trauma and a fractured skull while on military business.

If you would like to wish him well, please visit his blog and leave a comment to cheer him as he recovers.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Countdown to Gathering of Eagles

Lefties are already going berserk!


Saturday, March 17, 2007

Americans who are proud their nation leads the world in defending and spreading freedom will gather in a few hours time at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The Eagles are already in flight to the nation's capital, as reported earlier by Wordsmith who joined a contingent from California for the sendoff.

For those unable to attend, Mike's America, in a joint blogging effort with Skye at Midnight Blue will be presenting near real time updates from the scene.More information here.

We're proud to include Cajun Tiger on our team and hope he will be able to add his perspective to this important event.

If you drop by Cajun Tiger you might get a laugh from a commenter on his site who has somehow twisted Cajun and other's participation in this event as an effort to stifle the "freedom of speech" of those who have threatened to deface the Vietnam Memorial.

Somehow, the masters of delusion, the people who have so twisted the meaning of right and wrong to the point where Bush is the terrorist, also insist that our freedom of expression is a threat to their desire to disrespect America's war memorials with untrammelled impunity.

Check Back Saturday morning as the Eagles Gather to protect freedom!

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

9/11 Mastermind Confesses at Guantanamo

And Democrats still want to close Gitmo?

Al Qaeda Operative Admits to Masterminding 9/11 Attacks
By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 14, 2007 – Suspected al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Muhammad has admitted masterminding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as well as the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” an interpreter read from Muhammad’s statement to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal on March 10 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The tribunal was an administrative trial to determine only whether Muhammad could be designated as an enemy combatant. Muhammad used the opportunity to submit, through an interpreter, a two-part personal statement with 38 terrorism-related admissions.

He led the list by pledging his jihad allegiance to Osama bin Laden and finished with an admission to trying to destroy the American oil company in Indonesia owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Muhammad claimed responsibility for the 2001 attempted shoe bombing of American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris.

He offered a chilling confession to “managing and following up on the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax and others, and following up on Dirty Bomb Operations on American soil.”

He also named four other skyscrapers that were supposed to be destroyed in a “second wave” of attacks after 9/11. They were the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York City.

“I shared responsibility for the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II while he was visiting the Philippines,” Muhammad also admitted.

If you'd like to read the full confession and transcript, it is available at the bottom of the page here.
Thousands of American lives were saved because this man was stopped and brought to justice. It's fitting that he should be at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. If Democrats want to close that facility, I recommend Muhammad be transferred to their hometown.

US Deaths in Iraq Down 60% Since Surge Began

And Democrats continue efforts to stop the surge.

BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Suporting the troops means supporting the surge. Blocking the surge means the deaths of more Americans.

Meanwhile, when Matt Drudge posted the link above, he received death threats. It seems some "peace" activists are prepared to kill for their cause.

Welcome San Francisco Chronicle Readers!

chap1I have to salute the courage of SF Chronicle Columnist Cinnamon Stillwell, who today wrote a story about the hate-America indoctrination of children in SF public schools using the comic book "Addicted to War" citing our post on February 13.

Ms. Stillwell aptly names this effort "Comic Propaganda" and goes on to accurately describe this "textbook" as "anti-American and anti-capitalist ...America is made out to the undisputed bad guy of the world, with no redeeming qualities and a military bent only on conquest and destruction. "

Cinnamon, who blogs here (drop by and say hi) has obviously drawn a big target on her back for the peace fascists who will not tolerate any dissent from their scheme to defeat America and subject us all to the real evils which threaten our nation.

But looking at her list of recent articles at the SF Chronicle, I'm confident she understands what she is up against.

Using Public Education for Left Wing Indoctrination is Nothing New

Al Bore's scaremongering in "An Inconvenient Truth" is being force fed to students as if it were accepted fact. At progressive web sites like Common Dreams, you'll find techniques for increasing the propaganda value of this message by doubling it up with even more over the top scaremongering polemics like "Oil on Ice" which threatens dire consequences if we drill for oil in ANWR and undermines efforts at U.S. energy independence.

Do you think the same public schools will permit the showing of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (You Tube Video here) or the words of the native INUPIAT people who live in ANWR?
We all know the answer to that: HELL NO!

So why do we continue to pay taxes to support schools which insist they have the right to indoctrinate students with far left political beliefs?

The Latest Phony Scandal: Firing EIGHT U.S. Attorneys

Let's see, so far, the Democrats, staunch defenders of what Bill Clinton insisted would be "the most ethical Administration in history", haven't been able to hang anything more sinister on President Bush than the conviction of Scooter Libby, who forgot what he ate for breakfast three years ago.

And the Dems latest scandal du jour is just as lame.
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.
Opinion Journal
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in Chicago, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.

The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Albert Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.
...
No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.
No wonder Democrats are so upset with the firing of these 8 Democrat prosecutors. They have to protect the cushion of vote fraud they depend on to win elections in close races!

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Live Blogging from Gathering of Eagles THIS SATURDAY

Saturday, March 17, 2007

For those of us unable to attend the Gathering of Eagles (official site here), Philly blogger Skye at Midnight Blue along with the City Troll and Grizzly Mama have offered to be our eyes and ears. I'll be pleased to post instant photos and their reports from the scene during the day.

We'd like to invite readers to participate by checking in at Mike's America on Saturday and leave any comments or questions to be relayed to our team on the ground.

Note: The official Gathering of Eagles web site has been attacked by hackers. No doubt the criminals who perpetrated this act are vocal proponents of THEIR right to free speech. The site is back up for now. Isn't it just like these commie bastards to deny the rights to others they so loudly demand for themselves?

Democrats Created Anti-War Monster

Now the monster is stalking House Speakeasy Nancy Pelosi, at her SF home!

From KGO TV San Francisco
March 12, 2007

The push and pull over Iraq got personal this morning. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi awoke to protestors camped outside her Pacific Heights home.

Nancy Pelosi headed for the airport early this morning [editor: where Pelosi One was parked], obviously put out with the Code Pink protesters who were camped outside her house.

Code Pink Protester: "We represent your constituents, Nancy. We'd like you to talk with us just for an hour or two hours."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House: "But you aren't my constituents."

The speaker did not speak to reporters, saying only, "my home is my home."

If President Bush had said anything as remotely snide and dismissive as that to one of these nut cases it would be front page news for a week.

We wonder if Nancy Pelosi also urged President Bush to meet AGAIN with arch nut Cindy Sheehan? If so, perhaps she should show a bit more tolerance and compassion for these freaks camped outside her house.

We can only hope the nut cases followed their usual modus operandi and banged pots and pans all night.

QueenBeesBest

Hillary Clinton Proud of Her Paranoia

Hillary Clinton trotted out her famous line:"vast right wing conspiracy" in New Hampshire this week. Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today reminds us of the last time Mrs. Clinton used that phrase.

It was at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal on Jan. 27, 1998 with an appearance by Hillary on the "Today" show. After insisting that the entire scandal was nothing more than a political attack on her husband she added: "Well, I think that--if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true."

That of course was BEFORE the blue dress surfaced.

You would think that reminding people of that scandal, and her role in it, would be something Hillary would want to avoid. But we're dealing with an individual who redefines reality to suit her purposes.

I'm also reminded of this Hillary quote from June 2005 at a New York City fundraiser: "It’s very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they’re doing....It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."

It may be difficult to stop people who lie so easily, like Mrs. C., But we sure are gonna try!

Monday, March 12, 2007

NY Times Chills on Al Gore

Poor Al Bore. He's wins an Oscar for his scare propaganda film and even before the lights dim in the theatre, another raft of scientists come forward to explain that the "truth" in "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't so true after all.

We haven't even covered half the stories in the past weeks of eminent scientists who think Al Bore is nothing but hot air.

Now, even his friends are dumping on him:

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
New York Times
March 13, 2007

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.

“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,”
said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”

“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.

Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”

He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.

“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”

Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

“We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,” Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. “On the other hand,” Dr. Hansen said, “he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate.”

In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. “Of course,” he said, “there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.”

He said “not every single adviser” agreed with him on every point, “but we do agree on the fundamentals” — that warming is real and caused by humans.

Mr. Gore added that he perceived no general backlash among scientists against his work. “I have received a great deal of positive feedback,” he said. “I have also received comments about items that should be changed, and I have updated the book and slideshow to reflect these comments.” He gave no specifics on which points he had revised.

He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.”

While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised [$$$] Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”

Two Questions:

Gore and company have repeatedly claimed that no credible scientist opposes his views on global warming. What does it say about the strength of an argument when the proponent lies so brazenly?

After reading the above, are you more, or less likely to agree that our entire way of life must be radically restructured to avert disaster?
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator