Sunday, July 31, 2005

Dean Misleads Young Dems, Blames "Bush Right Wing Supreme Court" for Kelo Eminent Domain

I started using w.bloggar as a tool in creating and editing post. Apparently, it's wires got crossed with blogger and replaced the post on Dean disinformation and the move to use eminent domain to take Supreme Justice Breyer's estate in New Hampshire for a public park. Here's a partial reconstruction for those who missed it:

It's become abundantly clear that Democrats are so devoid of substantive contributions to make to the much neeed political dialogue in this country that they are willing to make it up or fake it up in a crass effort to manipulate the willingly misled acolytes of Bush hate and fear scaremongers which sadly populates the base of the Democrat Party these days.

But you would think SOME of them would be smart enough to know when what they are being told is just flat wrong! I would assume that at a meeting of College Democrats in Ohio, students in the room would be well enough acquainted with reality to realize that their Party's leader, Howie Dean either erred or deliberately misled his audience when he told them the following:
CNS News.Com: "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.

Dean's reference to the "right-wing" court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the fourth dissenter. The court's liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.
Oh well, how inconvenient... reality interferes once again with Democrat propaganda. No matter, the same gaggle of demented parrots that used to shout "HALLIBURTON, HALLIBURTON" will just take up their latest squawk about "KARL ROVE, KARL ROVE" not that it makes the slightest difference that Rove did nothing wrong according to the national "mainstream" media consortium's legal team.

Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on land taking have proposed seizing a justice's vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state. Organizers are trying to collect enough signatures to go before the town next spring to ask to use Justice Stephen G. Breyer's 167-acre Plainfield property for a "Constitution Park" with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions. "In the spirit of the ruling, we're recreating the same use of eminent domain," said John Babiarz, the Libertarian Party's state chairman.

The plot mirrors the party's ongoing effort to get the town of Weare, about 45 miles to the southeast, to seize Justice David H. Souter's home. Justice Souter's property is also the focus of a proposal by a California man who suggested the town turn the farmhouse into a "Lost Liberty Hotel."

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Pro-American Art Display in CA: No Taxpayer Funds Required!

Move America Forward hosted a display of patriotic art on Thursday in Sacramento, California outside the office of the State Attorney General who used taxpayer funds to display and publicize offensive, anti-American displays on state property. Had I made a contribution to the pro-American displays, the following would have been my inspiration.

A young Iraqi holds a sign which says "still safer here than at Michael Jackson's!"

Captured in Iraq is this poster of Saddam Hussein shown celebrating the atrocities of September 11th. Of course he only offered bin Laden sanctuary in Iraq, money and WMD training, but no discovered DIRECT link to the attacks (yeah, right!).

Senator Ted Kennedy said in January that the U.S. was "losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Ask this Iraqi what he thinks."

Liberals TALK about making a better world for children. Republicans deliver."

London Terrorist Demands his "Rights"

As Police surrounded one of the captured London terrorists, a witness heard one of the men say "I've got rights."

This from subhuman scum who was out to deny the essential right to life and liberty to London commuters only a week before.

This from a creature who was taken in by a benevolent English society, freeing him from the oppression of whatever vile hellhole he crawled out of, given shelter and a living at taxpayer expense.

This monster threw away any "rights" to belong to the human race when he attempted to explode a nail bomb on a bus or in the subway. He should be tortured to learn whatever information he has regarding other terror cells then slowly drowned in pig blood guaranteeing that he won't enter Islamo-heaven and collect his quota of virgins.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Charles Krauthammer: Bush Derangement Syndrome

Thank GOD President Bush approved a prescription drug benefit for Medicare... But perhaps we should extend that to the wider population in predominately blue states, where an obvious oxygen deficiency (no doubt brought on by pollution and global warming) has been coupled with a rapid increase in at least one type of mental illness as described below, by research Psychiatrist Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

Charles Krauthammer: Bush Derangement Syndrome:
It has been 25 years since I discovered a psychiatric syndrome (for the record: ``Secondary Mania,'' Archives of General Psychiatry, November 1978), and in the interim I haven't been looking for new ones. But it's time to don the white coat again. A plague is abroad in the land.
Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.
Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that ``the most interesting'' theory as to why the president is ``suppressing'' the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies.
The virus is spreading.

It is, of course, epidemic in New York's Upper West Side and the tonier parts of Los Angeles, where the very sight of the president -- say, smiling while holding a tray of Thanksgiving turkey in a Baghdad mess hall -- caused dozens of cases of apoplexy in otherwise healthy adults. What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state.

Moreover, Dean is very smart. Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood. Barbra Streisand, for example, wrote her famous September 2002 memo to Dick Gephardt warning that the president was dragging us toward war to satisfy, among the usual corporate malefactors who ``clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq,'' the logging industry -- timber being a major industry in a country that is two-thirds desert.
That's what has researchers so alarmed about Dean. He had none of the usual risk factors: Dean has never opined for a living, and has no detectable sense of humor. Even worse is the fact that he is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian.

Chris Matthews: ``Would you break up Fox?''

Howard Dean: ``On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but ... I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. ... What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.''

Some clinicians consider this delusion -- that Americans can only get their news from one part of the political spectrum -- the gravest of all. They report that no matter how many times sufferers in padded cells are presented with flash cards with the symbols ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times -- they remain unresponsive, some in a terrifying near-catatonic torpor.

The sad news is that there is no cure. But there is hope. There are many fine researchers seeking that cure. Your donation to the BDS Foundation, no matter how small, can help. Mailing address: Republican National Committee, Washington DC, Attention: psychiatric department. Just make sure your amount does not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple).

Ginsburg the Standard for Supreme Court Confirmation?

Edward Whelan on Supreme Court on National Review Online:
At her 1993 confirmation hearing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, invoking her ethical obligation as a judge to maintain both the fact and the appearance of impartiality, steadfastly declined to answer any questions about her current views on issues that might come before the Court. As she explained the Ginsburg Standard in answering a question about "sexual orientation": "I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews." On issue after issue after issue, Ginsburg applied this standard in not answering questions.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats. respected the line that Ginsburg drew. Senate Republicans, embracing the principle that President Clinton's nominee was entitled to substantial deference, joined Senate Democrats in expeditiously confirming Ginsburg by a 96-3 vote.

Think the Senate will maintain the much ballyhooed comity exhibited when a Democrat president made a nomination? File this one under the heading "More Reasons Why There is a Real Difference Between Republicans and Democrats!"

Make sure to read the full piece which describes Ginsburg's opposition to Mother's Day and the Boy Scouts if you want to know what Senator Kennedy means when he talks about "mainstream" judges.

Mark Steyn: Wake Up! It's WAR!

The Spectator.co.uk:
That's why I regretfully have to disagree with the editor of this great publication in his prescription of the current situation which appeared in these pages a week or two back under the headline "Just don't call it war". As you'll have gathered, the boss objects to the language of war, whether cultural or military.... Last week's bombs were placed not by martyrs nor by soldiers, but by criminals.

Sorry, but that's the way to lose. A narrowly focused 'criminal' approach means entrusting the whole business to the state bureaucracy. The obvious problem with that is that it's mostly reactive: blow somewhere up, we'll seal it off, and detectives will investigate it as a crime scene. You could make the approach less reactive by a sustained effort to improve scrutiny of immigration, entitlement to welfare and other matters within the purview of government. But consider those two snippets from the Tuesday papers and then figure out the likelihood of that happening. A 'criminal' approach gives terrorists all the rights of criminals, and between British and European 'human rights' that's quite a bundle. If it's a war, you can take wartime measures -- including withdrawal from the UN Convention on Refugees, repeal of the European Human Rights Act, and a clawback of sovereignty from the EU. But if you fight this thing as a law-enforcement matter, Islamist welfare queens will use all the above to their full extent and continue openly promoting the murder of the Prime Minister, British troops, etc. with impunity.

For more examples of vile, violent and anti-democratic, anti-American behavior by those lovers of diversity and tolerance, click above image. Don't even TRY and tell me that Republicans are just as bad (lefties will just make it up anyway).

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Liberal Thugs: Lovers of Diversity and Tolerance... But Only Approved Varieties

Readers may recall Howard Dean's comment in Kansas in February: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

Well apparently some of those "good" people think that Republicans should be denied rights to free expression. Will, of Willisms was out changing a tire in his Houston neighborhood, when someone walked over and to threaten and insult him for displaying a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on his vehicle. Saying: "You need to get outta here. You are a bigot" and "When word gets around, it is going to be miserable for you.....you need to take that sticker off your car and stop showing your ignorance."

My own mother reports being harangued in a doctor's office for admitting she watches Fox News.

I'm reminded of the following photo from the 2004 campaign of a little girl holding a Bush sign, only to have it ripped from her hands by a union thug (pictured left -- of course) who proceded to taunt her as she sat crying on her father's shoulders:

And Illinois Senator Dick Durbin equates the actions of our troops to Nazis? So much for liberal love of diversity, tolerance, peace and free expression...Oh, I forgot, those ideals are only applicable for socialists!

Those clever folks at The People's Cube are at it again. Poking fun at the random bag search idiocy now on display in the New York City transit system. If trends continue, they suggest the Fire Department may randomly hose down one house per neighborhood per week to prevent fires. (click image to view site)

Thank Political Left for Terrorism

I've said it a few times before: proponents on the political left have the blood of innocents on their hands. Whether it's because they actively seek to undermine or blindly obstruct effective measures to combat terrorism, or perhaps they continue to appease, apologize or excuse terrorism; the result is the same: more killing of men, women and children targeted deliberately for the sake of an Islamic pathology.

Dennis Prager's column in Real Clear Politics echoes a similar sentiment:

In the last few weeks, innocent men, women and children have been blown up, paralyzed, brain damaged and otherwise had their lives ruined by Muslim suicide bombers in Britain, Egypt and Iraq.

Who can we thank for this man-made plague? Palestinians and the Left.

We need to thank Palestinians for their major contribution to humanity -- religiously sanctioned mass murder of innocents through suicide. Prior to the Palestinians, this did not exist.
Palestinian Muslims -- no Palestinian Christians have committed a suicide bombing -- have created a religious and moral basis for mass murder and did so within a worldwide religion with a billion adherents. When the Palestinians sent brainwashed young men to blow themselves up in Israeli buses, cafes and discos, they offered justifications that provided the basis for many others to do the same.

They said that blowing up Jews in Israel -- of any age and in any location -- was an act that glorified Allah, that one who engaged in such atrocities was a Muslim equivalent to a saint, and would be rewarded in heaven by many beautiful virgins. I do not know of any Muslim religious organization or leader who condemned this Palestinian Muslim terror-theology as anti-Islamic.

...What therefore happened was that the religious justification for murdering innocent people took hold in the Muslim world. It apparently never occurred to Muslim leaders that once you justify evil, that evil will eventually be unleashed against you, too.

If blowing up Jewish children is OK, so is blowing up Egyptian, Moroccan, Iraqi, British, Spanish and Russian children.

And that is where the Left comes in. They have provided the secular and universal justification for Palestinian Islamic terror against Jews.

According to the world's Left, it's OK for Palestinians to put bombs in an Israeli student cafeteria because:

1. Israel occupies Palestinian land (even though a leftist Israeli government offered 97 percent of it to Yasser Arafat)

2. Therefore, Palestinians are engaging in legitimate resistance

3. Since Palestinians don't have sophisticated weaponry, they use their weapon, the suicide bomber

4. Israelis kill Palestinian civilians, so there is a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians (even though the Palestinians target Jewish innocents and the Israelis do not target Palestinian innocents)

But, alas, the anti-Israel Left (an almost redundant description), too, did not understand the genie it had helped unleash onto the world. Why is it all right for Muslims to blow up Israeli children, but not Russian children? Israeli buses, but not British buses? Jews in Israel, but not Muslims in Iraq?

Actually, for many on the Left, it is all right. The socialist mayor of London himself blames the terror in his city on British support for America and Israel, not on Islamic terror-theology.

Like London's mayor, the Left around the world blames Israel for the Palestinian suicide bombers, and blames America for those in Iraq. Without the Left around the world, the Palestinian God-based mass murder through suicide would have been an isolated phenomenon, universally condemned as the evil it is.

And who is to blame for the Muslim terror in other Muslim countries such as Morocco and Egypt? Here, the leftist and Muslim apologists for Palestinian terror enter cognitive dissonance.

The next time you read of men, women and children blown apart by a young Muslim praising Allah, you can thank Palestinians and the Left.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Xray image of one of the unexploded bombs found in the trunk of the car rented by one of the London terror bombers in Lutton, where the bombers boarded a train for London. Nails attached to the outside of the container are designed to inflict maximum casualties in addition to the blast. ABC News has this exclusive photo report with more.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Clinton "What? Me Worry?" War On Terror

Next time some leftie asks you "Why hasn't Bush caught bin Laden?" Ask them why Clinton, their superman hero, couldn't capture bin Laden after nearly 8 years of trying. In case anyone needs refreshing, here are some insights into the years that led up to September 11.

From the Dick Morris Book: Off with Their Heads : Traitors, Crooks & Obstructionists in American Politics, Media & Business

Clinton knew every statistic, argument, and nuance of the issues he had made his own-welfare reform, deficit reduction, student performance, Head Start availability, crime, export promotion, and so on. But on terrorism, during his first term-the period I witnessed firsthand-he knew little and cared less.

All our terrorist problems were born during the Clinton years.

It was during his eight years in office that al Qaeda began its campaign of bombing and destruction aimed at the United States. It was then that the terrorist group orchestrated its first attack on the World Trade Center; hatched a plan to destroy New York's bridges and tunnels and the U.N. building; conceived an effort to destroy eleven U.S. passenger jetliners; twice bombed U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, killing nine-teen Americans; bombed American embassies in Africa; and attacked the U.S.S. Cole. Bill Clinton and his advisers were alerted to the group's power and intentions by these attacks. But they did nothing to stop al Qaeda from building up its resources for the big blow on 9/11.

Iraq was a subjugated nation when Clinton took office. Recently defeated in the Gulf War, its military infrastructure was largely destroyed. But under Clinton's intermittent and easily distracted gaze, Saddam Hussein took the opportunity to rebuild his military, expel U.N. arms inspectors, and open a spigot to get the money he needed to rearm under the so-called "oil for food" program. Moreover, on Clinton's watch the Iraqi dictator was able to rekindle his efforts to build nuclear weapons and further develop other arms of mass destruction.

North Korea first signaled its interest in developing nuclear weapons in 1994, when the issue was whether or not it would permit inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor the disposition of spent nuclear fuel rods from its electric plant at Yongbyon, North Korea. The international crisis that followed reportedly led even President Clinton to contemplate a preemptive strike to destroy the fuel rods before they could be turned into fission-able material for nuclear bombs.

To defuse the crisis, former President Jimmy Carter traveled to Pyongyang to meet with North Korean leaders and see if a compromise could be reached. The agreement Clinton ultimately negotiated required North Korea to refrain from using the spent fuel rods to produce bomb-grade material and obliged them to accept IAEA inspection of the site. In return, the United States, Japan, and South Korea agreed to join in financing nonnuclear power plants in North Korea and to ship fuel and food to that beleaguered nation.

But Clinton was so eager to declare victory that he failed to monitor the enforcement of the deal as he should have. Americans were shocked in October 2002 when North Korea admitted it hadn't kept its end of the bargain-and was manufacturing fissionable material at a secret underground location.

All three critical situations America faces today-al Qaeda, Iraq, and North Korea-were either incubated or exacerbated on Bill Clinton's watch.
He didn't go [to the site of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993] because he chose to treat the attack as an isolated criminal act, devoid of serious foreign policy or military implications. The fact that this was the first foreign terrorist attack on American soil seems to have set off no alarm bells at the young Clinton White House. The president treated it as a crime rather than as a foreign policy emergency. He defined terrorism as a law enforcement problem, not as a matter of national security. To Bill Clinton, it was not unlike any other homicide.

Commenting on the former president's approach to fighting terror, Bill Gertz, in his best-selling book Breakdown, underscores how the administration saw terrorism in the context of law enforcement: "The Administration's primary goal here [in response to terrorism], as always was to identify terrorists, capture them, and return them for prosecution in a court of law. It was a reactive strategy that did nothing to deter attacks."

Excerpted from the PBS Frontline Program: The Man Who Knew

-Feb. 26, 1993: First WTC bombing.
-April 1993 Al Queda returns to Somalia to train locals for attacks on US forces.
-July 1993 Bojinka Plot: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed meets with the Pakastani later convicted for trying to blow up 12 planes, expressing keen interest in airline hijacking.
-Oct. 3-4, 1993 BLACK HAWK DOWN. Clinton response is trumpeted around the Arab world to this day showing weakness of USA.
-Late 1993 Al Queda plans Nairobi attack.
-January 1994 bin Laden funds Sudan terror training camps.
-August 1994 Morocco hotel attack linked to Afghan jihadi group
-December 1994 Bojinka Plot -- A Test Run Ramzi Yousef plants a small bomb on a Philippine Airlines plane.
-January 1995 Bojinka Plot discovered Khalid Shaikh Mohammed heavily involved.
-Jan. 20, 1995 In the Bojinka investigation, Manila police interview Abdul Hakim Murad. Murad describes his discussions with Ramzi Yousef about hijacking a commercial aircraft and flying it into the headquarters of the CIA.
March 4, 1995, policy directive issued to the CIA and the FBI by Jamie Gorelick, who was then Janet Reno's Assistant Attorney General, That policy directive, which in Gorelick's words was intended to "go beyond what is legally required," ordered the the FBI and the CIA to adopt procedures that would make impossible the sharing of international terrorist intelligence with domestic law enforcement agencies. (added from The View from 1776)
-August 1995 Bin Laden sends an open letter to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calling for a campaign against U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia.
-January 1996 WHERE IS BIN LADEN? The FBI and CIA create a joint station, code-named ?Alex,? with the mission of tracking down bin Laden. Richard Clarke would later say that with the establishment of Station Alex, ?We were able over the course of about 18 months to go from thinking there was a bin Laden network to seeing it in 56 countries.?
-May 1996 Sudan Expels Bin Laden Clinton passes up FIRST OPPORTUNITY to get bin Laden.
-June 25, 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Nineteen American soldiers are killed and 500 people injured .
-May 22, 1997 The Associated Press reports that senior FBI officials have determined terrorist groups are operating in America.
-Aug. 21, 1997 Evidence of Nairobi Al Qaeda Cell. No action taken.
-Feb. 23, 1998 Al Qaeda Calls for Killing Americans .
-August 1998 FAA Warns of Hijackings .
-Aug. 6, 1998 Egyptian Jihad's Warning The group, led by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, warns of a ?message? they will be sending to Americans, ?which we hope they read with care, because we will write it, with God's help, in a language they will understand.?
-Aug. 7, 1998 Bombing of U.S. Embassies American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania are bombed almost simultaneously. The Kenya bombing kills 213 and injures 4,500; the Dar es Salaam bombing kills 11 and injures 85.
-June 7, 1999 Bin Laden Added to FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" List .
-December 1999 Alert: A Malaysia Meeting The CIA intercepts a phone conversation The callers discuss an upcoming January 2000 meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Officials learn that Khalid Almidhar, a Yemeni citizen believed to be the son-in-law of Al-Hada, and Nawaf Alhazmi, thought to be a Saudi national, will be attending the meeting. Both Almidhar and Alhazmi will later be hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 on Sept. 11.
-Dec. 14, 1999 Algerian native Ahmed Ressam is caught entering the U.S. with 130 pounds of explosives at the Canadian border at Port Angeles, Washington.
-January 2000 The Malaysia Meeting Several individuals linked to Al Qaeda meet in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. At the CIA's request, Malaysian agents photograph the meeting.
-Jan. 3, 2000 A cell of Yemeni terrorists try bombing the USS The Sullivans in Yemen's Aden Harbor, but fail when their overloaded skiff sinks.
-April 17, 2000 The Phoenix office of the FBI begins to investigate Zakaria Mustapha Soubra, a Phoenix flight school student suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.
-August 2000 Italian investigators begin to record the conversations of Abdulsalam Ali Ali Abdulrahman. In one of the conversations Abdulrahman tells Abdelkader Moahmoud Es Sayad, an Egyptian suspected terrorist, that planes could be used as weapons against the U.S. According to the article, the FBI was aware of the conversations.
-Oct. 12, 2000 Attack on the USS Cole Two men in a skiff pull alongside the American destroyer and detonate an explosive that rips through the hull and kills 17 U.S. sailors.

So, nearly two years BEFORE September 11, we knew that terrorists had been planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons. We knew that terror cells were operating in the United States. We knew that the eventual hijackers on September 11 had been at a big pow-wow in Malaysia. We knew suspected Al Queda members were taking flight training in the United States.

But we couldn't "connect the dots" because A. Bill Clinton was not interested and B. His Assistant Attorney General had made it impossible for the FBI and CIA to effectively share this information.

Who's to blame for September 11 and the missed opportunites to snuff out Al Queda?

Monday, July 25, 2005

After London, Tough Questions for Muslims

From The Washington Post

"But most of all, the London bombings rid me of all patience with the excuse that 'George Bush [or Tony Blair or take your pick of Western leaders] made me do it.' We don't know who was behind Thursday's explosions, but an Arab analyst told a satellite channel that if Blair hadn't learned the mistake of the Iraq war, these new attacks were a firm reminder.

I never bought the explanation that U.S. foreign policy had 'brought on' the Sept. 11 attacks, and I certainly don't buy the idea that the Iraq war is behind the attacks in London. Many people across the world have opposed U.S. and British foreign policy, but that doesn't mean they are rushing to fly planes into buildings or to blow up buses and Underground trains in London.

I was against the invasion of Iraq and would not have voted for George Bush if I were a U.S. citizen, but I'm done with the 'George Bush made me do it' excuse. We must accept responsibility for this mess if we are ever to find a way out.

And for those non-Muslims who accept the George Bush excuse, I have a question: Do you think Muslims are incapable of accepting responsibility? It is at least in some way bigoted to think that Muslims can only react violently.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Londonistan Rises Against Us

From the London Times: "We all just sat back and let Londonistan rise against us" by MICHAEL PORTILLO

...As democrats we feel some sympathy for those who voice opposition to autocratic regimes. Maybe our response has been coloured by memories of the brave French resistance sabotaging the Nazis under control from London. It has taken us a long time to accept that not all enemies of dictatorships are either democrats or patriots. ...

During the past week there have been several attempts (notably by the journalist John Pilger) to blame the bombings on Blair because of the war in Iraq. According to opinion polls a majority thinks that the conflict has increased our vulnerability.

We cannot know for sure. But we should at least recall history accurately. Al-Qaeda set off a truck bomb in the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, almost a decade before George Bush invaded Iraq. President Clinton, the darling of the left, had been inaugurated a month before. It would be difficult to blame US foreign policy for the attack. America had gone to the aid of Muslim Kuwait and freed it from Iraqi occupation. Observing the letter of its United Nations mandate, it withdrew from Iraq and left Saddam Hussein in place (although it kept forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with the agreement of those governments).

A few months later Clinton withdrew American forces from Somalia following the Black Hawk Down incident, in which 18 soldiers died. Osama Bin Laden commented that the decision demonstrated the weakness, feebleness and cowardliness of the US soldier who had fled in the dark of night.

During the Clinton presidency, as American forces went to the rescue of Muslims in Bosnia and as the president toiled alongside Ehud Barak, Israels prime minister, to bring peace to Palestine, Al-Qaeda escalated its attacks on the United States, bombing its embassies in east Africa and attacking the warship USS Cole. Clintons response firing a few cruise missiles into supposed terrorist camps was feeble.

Long before George W Bush became president a policy of turning the other cheek was met by a sharp intensification of the terrorist onslaught on America, culminating in the September 11 attacks.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Your Taxpayer Dollars At Work

As if the anti-American propagda being displayed on government property in California and promoted with taxpayer dollars was not bad enough, Ann Coulter, in a column from last June lists a few more examples of how American tax dollars are being used to fund and promote extreme and offensive views.

Can you imagine a church going to the National Edowment for the Arts to request a grant to put on a Christmas play?

The very same leftwing freaks that think the following is "art" are also the vanguard of the movement which will do ANYTHING to prevent the United States from taking effective action in the war on terror.

It's time to put a stop this garbage. It's not censorship, they can raise money to pay for this crap themselves at their next tree worship service. Frankly, let them scream all they want, lefties like this are so completely irrelevant to a mature political dialogue they should be slapped down HARD!

AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT RELIGION:

-A photo of a woman breastfeeding an infant, titled 'Jesus Sucks.' NEA-funded performance

-A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex. NEA-funded performance.

-'F***- a Fetus' poster showing an unborn baby with the caption: 'For all you folks who consider a fetus more valuable than a woman, have a fetus cook for you, have a fetus affair, go to a fetus' house to ease your sexual frustration.' NEA-funded prformance.

-Performance of giant bloody tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot feces and vibrators. NEA-funded performance.

-A novel depicting the sexual molestation of a group of 10 children in a pedophile's garage, including acts of bestiality, with the children commenting on how much they enjoyed the pedophilia. NEA-funded publisher.

-Christ submerged in a jar of urine. NEA-funded exhibit.

-A female performer inserting a speculum into her vagina and inviting audience members on stage to view her cervix with a flashlight. NEA-funded performance.

-A performance of large, sexually explicit props covered with Bibles performing a wide variety of sex acts and concluding with a mass Bible-burning. NEA-funded performance (canceled by the venue in response to citizen protests)

-A show titled 'DEGENERATE WITH A CAPITAL D' featuring a display of the remains of the artist's own aborted baby. NEA-funded exhibit.

-A play titled 'Sincerity Forever,' depicting Christ using obscenities and endorsing any and all types of sexual activities as consistent with Biblical teaching. NEA-funded exhibit.

Gitmo Troops Rebuke Ted Kennedy

From Newsmax: "During his inspection tour of Guantanamo Bay this week, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy got an earful from U.S. troops running the facility, who blasted Kennedy for his anti-war statements and similar comments by other Democrats.

Soldiers from Kennedy's home state gave him 'a piece of their mind,' Pentagon officials told the Washington Times Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough.

One official said that Kennedy 'got a stiff reaction from those home-state soldiers. The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag.'

Hawaii Democrat Daniel Akaka, who visited Gitmo along with Kennedy, reportedly got a similar reaction. "

London terrorist gang used nail bombs

This by way of Rantburg:

From The Scotsman: "THE four devices used to target innocent Tube and bus passengers during yesterday's lunch hour in London are all believed to have been nail bombs. Each of the explosive packages is thought to have been packed with nails, nuts and bolts in an attempt to create maximum casualties.

Terrorism experts said the attacks were markedly different from those on July 7, which used conventional bombs to kill people with the impact of the blast. This time the terrorists were aiming to kill and cause horrific injuries on a wider scale with deadly shrapnel packed into the bombs.

Their target was not early-morning commuters - but families and tourists travelling in the lunch hour. One security source said: 'This was another attempt to bring mass murder to London. We have had an amazingly lucky escape.'

Friday, July 22, 2005

Your California Tax Dollars At Work

California Attorney General and the California Arts Council is using California tax dollars and government buildings to display and promote anti-American and offensive "art." Shown above is one of the most shocking examples, by Steve Pearcy, who is infamous for hanging in effigy one of our brave troops on the front of his home.

The accompanying caption for this "art" includes the following statement by the "artist:" "This country is going down the toilet (unjust occupation of Iraq; torture of detainees;censorship; conservative monopoly of medias; hiring more cops rather than teachers; paying cops more than teachers....Republicans' (sic) campaign to restrict freedom and civil rights; etc.) Click here to read the full statment.

Apparently, the Republican campaign to restrict freedom and our conservative monopoly of "medias" and censorship doesn't extend to this appalling misuse of government property and taxpayer funds.

Move America Forward has the full story on this disgusting exhibit here.

But you just try and put a copy of the Ten Commandments up in that building and watch out!

London Terror Bomber Wears New York Pullover. Is There a Message Here?

One of the four failed London Bombers on Thursday, July 21 wears a pullover jacket or sweatshirt with "New York" emblazened on the front. Ominous warning or taunting the September 11th victim's families? Let's catch this guy and send him to Guantanamo and find out. Photos of the other suspects are here.

Readers from Thursday's Mike's America will recall the story linking the mastermind of the London 7/7 terror attack to activity in the United States. From that earlier news excerpt I neglected to include the fact that he also spent time in New York before heading to Oregon and Seattle. Last Saturday, I ran excerpts from the news story linking the 7/7 bombers themselves to radical Islamists in New York by phone records.

New York City has already started random searches of subway riders looking for explosives. But at what point do we discuss, then implement more effective measures of rooting out this cult of death? Do we wait UNTIL the next attack in this country when all the liberals will bellow "It's George Bush's fault, IRAQ..." Or do we go beyond random searches and begin taking more active and effective measures that use our limited resources to target the threat?

Taking those active measures is sure to draw similar catterwalling from the looney left, but those people are becoming increasingly irrelevant and should be ignored. No matter what we do, they won't like it as along as a Republican is in the White House. But the primary responsiblity of our government is the safety of our people, not handholding a bunch of handwringers who seek to handcuff the good guys!

Pat Sajak Gives Up Arguing with Liberals

Gameshow great Pat Sajak solves the puzzle of liberal thought.
Vanna I'd like to buy a vowel!

Pat Sajak - Sajak Says...: "
Arguing with Liberals, and Why I've Stopped

Every time I argue with a Liberal, I'm reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn't threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was "worse than Hitler." Realizing she wasn't alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler's more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis, it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can?t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative?one of the bad guys?complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this ?hate speech? or ?politically incorrect? speech. (Of course, they?being the good guys?will decide exactly what that is.)

Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers? job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it?s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).

When Liberals want to legislate what you?re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can?t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.

In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left?s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those ?red state? voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, ?Well, don?t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?? It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they?re idiots, it?s time to talk about the weather.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Australian Prime Minister Rejects Idea Iraq War is to Blame for Terrorism

Shortly after the most recent attacks in London, British Prime Minister Blair and visiting Australian Prime Minister Howard held a joint press conference. One "journalist" suggested, as do many on the left, that the war in Iraq has created the terror threat. Howard's response follows:

Joint Press Conference with the Rt Hon Tony Blair MP Prime Minister of the United Kingdom No 10 Downing Street, London - 21 July 2005: "Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq; and could I remind you that the 11 September occurred before the operation in Iraq; can I also remind you that the very first occasion that Bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people, by implication, suggesting that we shouldn't have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on 7 July, they talked about British policy, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan? When Sergio de Melo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Queda gloated about that they referred specifically to the role that de Melo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don't know the mind of the terrorist, by definition you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber, I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq, and indeed all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances, rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder"

GOP Tries to Talk Katherine Harris Out of Florida Senate Run

Katherine Harris, the former Florida Secretary of State who certified the Florida election results for President Bush in 2000 wants to run for the U.S. Senate in 2006.

Currently a Congresswoman from Florida, Ms. Harris stood down from a Senate run in 2004 due to GOP pressure fearing a backlash that would hurt Presiden't Bush's re-election chances in Florida.

She has been extremely loyal to President Bush when her help was needed most and frankly, it's time for the Bush team to let her have her shot.

Karl Rove certainly has more data on her electability than I do, but I can't help thinking that she would bring out the Florida conservatives like few other people, thus negating the lefty moonbat factor.

We all want to hold as much advantage in the Senate as possible, yet you have to ask why no first tier candidate has come forward in Nebraska, one of the reddest of the red states to unseat weak incumbent Ben Nelson. Expecting Ms. Harris to carry the water one more time is too much to ask.
From The Washington Times: White House political strategist Karl Rove and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have been trying to talk Florida Rep. Katherine Harris out of running for the Senate next year, but have been unsuccessful thus far.

Mrs. Harris has had several private meetings with Mr. Rove and with NRSC officials, including Chairman Sen. Elizabeth Dole, North Carolina Republican, who have urged her to forgo the Republican Party's high-priority Senate race. Instead, they want her to run for a third House term, pointing to internal polling data that shows she cannot beat freshman Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in 2006.

But the congresswoman, who won national attention as Florida's secretary of state during the bitter ballot recount in the 2000 presidential election, has argued in these meetings that she has proved the polls wrong throughout her political career. To prove it again this time, she has put together a cadre of heavyweight campaign advisers, including Ed Rollins who managed President Reagan's 1984 campaign.

'I know I can win this,' she has told doubting party officials.

Mr. Nelson, who narrowly won his seat in 2000 with 51 percent of the vote, is one of the Democrats' most vulnerable incumbents, and Mrs. Dole and Mr. Rove, who has played a key role in the party's successful candidate recruitment, have made the senator one of their chief targets.

Polls show Mrs. Harris, who is popular with the state's conservatives, would be the clear front-runner in a party primary contest, but they also show she runs particularly poorly among independents and draws virtually no support among Democrats. A Quinnipiac University poll last month showed Mr. Nelson leading her in a head-to-head matchup 50 percent to 38 percent.

Multiculturalism is Societal Suicide

Once Again, Cox and Forkum hits the nail on the head. This latest cartoon which came out the day before the latest terror attack in London references another excellent column by Mike's America favorite Mark Steyn.

Our open societies welcomed Moslems into our midst, helping them escape the repression of Middle Eastern regimes. We took them in, allowed them to practice their religion freely, allowed them to publish their newspapers and spread their views.

In return for our benevolence, some Islamo-fascist terrorist killers came along with the tide of immigrants and poisoned the minds of many more Moslems in our countries and are now using them to attack and kill the very society which gave them their freedom.

Our lefty friends would ask us to take John Kerry's "global test" before we act. But will we wait until a worse attack to act against this enemy from within?

British Bomb Mastermind Active in US

From The London Times: THE British al-Qaeda leader linked to the London terrorist attacks was being questioned by police in Pakistan last night after the discovery of mobile phone records detailing his calls with the suicide bombers. Haroon Rashid Aswat has emerged as the figure that Scotland Yard have been hunting since he flew out of Britain just hours before the attacks which killed 56 people.
Intelligence sources claim that there were up to twenty calls between Aswat and two of the bombers in the days leading up to the bombing of three Tube trains and a double-decker bus. A senior Pakistani security source said: "We believe this man had a crucial part to play in what happened in London."
FBI documents obtained by The Times reveal details of how a London-based cleric sent Aswat to America in 1999 to set up camps in Oregon for US-born recruits.

The papers indicate that Aswat spent three months in America and engaged in firearms and poisons training but decided against using a remote ranch in Bly as an al-Qaeda camp. The CIA is keeping in close touch with Aswat's interrogation and British detectives are seeking permission to speak to him.

The FBI is to question a number of figures held in the US, including James Ujaama, an American convert to Islam who met Aswat, and a second al-Qaeda emissary in Seattle.

Ujaama has pleaded guilty to assisting the Taleban and is now a “co-operating witness who has given details of Aswat's activities in the US.
During November and December 1999, Aswat and Kassir met potential candidates for jihad training.

The FBI document details how they secured the Bly property with guard patrols and passwords and they and others received training in firearms and improvised poisons.

Aswat and Kassir were still in the United States in February 2000. They were living in Seattle where they expounded the writings and teachings of their London-based mentor in lectures to young Muslims at a city mosque.

Kassir also provided what the FBI described as urban tactical training.

In 2002, an associate of Kassir was arrested in Stockholm, the Swedish capital, attempting to board a flight to London carrying a revolver.

Kassir, a Lebanese-born Swede, was jailed for ten months in November 2003 for possessing illegal weapons at his home in Stockholm.

Charges that he was planning a terrorist attack were dropped.

Oh THANK YOU Sweden! You let this guy go?

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Media Leftwing? ABC Roberts' Profile VERY similar to People For American Way

If you want to know the foundation for the coming objections to John Roberts' confirmation to the Supreme Court, go to the folks who have Democrat members on the Judiciary Committee in their pocket: The People for the American Way, or PFAW.

If anything makes me think that President Bush's selection of John Roberts for the Supreme Court is a good idea, the PFAW squeal against Roberts in my mind is nothing short of a high recommendation. In nearly every one of the "disturbing" and "controversial" issues he has been involved in, I agree with his position.

PFAW also points out that some of Robert's so-called "controversial" rulings were overturned by five to four votes in the Supreme Court. With Roberts on the big bench, we can only imagine those rulings would be upheld by five to four.

And I was pleased to learn that he worked in the Reagan Administration, so you know he understands the difference between a conservative in principle and a conservative in public.

Later I read this post on the ABC News site. It doesn't have the vitriol of the PFAW profile, but aside from a few positive opening paragraphs it struck me as being nothing short of a distillation of the PFAW writeup, nearly matching the identical order of the list of so-called "controversial" issues.


The liberal left has long enjoyed a media advantage whereby their accomplices in the "mainstream" media willingly parrot talking points handed them by the left.

But here at Mike's America I'm declaring a left wing parrot free zone!

MoonBats Take Wing Tonight Over Roberts Nod

Keep the garlic, holy water and silver bullets handy... It's a full moon and the nomination of Judge Roberts is bound to send the moonbats into flight.


moon phases

Not only did he write a brief for the first Bush Administration suggesting Roe vs. Wade be overturned, he worked for Bush in the aftermath of the 2000 Florida election.

Roberts For Supreme Nod!

The suspense is over... Justice John G. Roberts Jr, currently on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (serving since 2003 and appointed by President G.W. Bush) is the nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court seat being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor.

The Washington Post has this initial comparison between Roberts and Justice J. Michael Luttig, who was also rumoured to be in the running.

Other information coming via television news is that the President met Roberts on Friday for the interview and made up his mind this morning.

Roberts is a mere 50 years old, so could conceivably serve for several decades.

Roberts has been a lawyer in the Washington, D.C. legal establishment with strong ties to both people in both political parties. It remains to be learned how strong his conservative credentials are, but as part of the George H.W. Bush administration he wrote a brief which suggested that Roe vs. Wade, the abortion case, should be overturned.

This from the Post Story:

Of the two, Roberts spent more time practicing law in Washington, where he has networked with many Democrats. When Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, Clinton's former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, called Roberts an "exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocate."

"He is a Washington lawyer, a conservative, not an ideologue," said Stuart H. Newberger, a lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who has argued cases against Roberts.

He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court -- but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.

That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Ooops!!! Suggested overturning Roe AND worked for Bush in Florida 2000. YIKES!

When Roberts was first confirmed in 2003, the vote was unanimous, but the story of his inital nomination for the federal bench goes back to 1992 when President George H. W. Bush nominated him. In June 2003, Alberto Gonzales, then Counselor to the President and the current Attorney General wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post (reprinted here at the Committee for Justice):

The Senate voted unanimously on May 8 to confirm Roberts to the D.C. Circuit. That vote is noteworthy for two reasons, however, both of which demonstrate the serious breakdown in the Senate confirmation process for federal appeals court nominees.

First, the long road from Roberts's nomination to his confirmation vote is impossible to defend. Roberts was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit more than 11 years ago, in January 1992, but did not receive a hearing before the end of President George H.W. Bush's term. President George W. Bush then nominated Roberts on May 9, 2001, shortly after taking office. But the Senate Judiciary Committee did not hold a hearing on the nomination during the last Congress, even though no serious objections were lodged against Roberts. President Bush then re-nominated him on Jan. 7, 2003. Finally, after two hearings this year, Roberts received his Senate vote, on May 8.It was unanimous, which makes the many years of delay all the more difficult to explain and justify.

More here from Real Clear Politics:

Appellate Court Judge Roberts is Bush Pick
• John G. Roberts: Biography Resumé Profile Wikipedia Background • Text of Roberts 2003 Confirmation Hearing: Part I Part II • Who Is John G. Roberts?• Roberts Could Go Both Ways on Roe• Hearing Won't Be Until Late August • Bench Memos Confirm Them How Appealing RedState SCOTUS Blog • Statements: Gary Bauer Committee For Justice Alliance For Justice People For the American Way Senator Thune Senator Santorum RNC Chair Ken Mehlman Senator Ben Nelson Senator Patrick Leahy Senator John Kerry

Monday, July 18, 2005

All Major Media KNEW Rove Not Guilty

Andrew McCarthty at National Review online has the latest nail (more like a giant spike) to drive into this Rove-CIA-Plame-Blame-GAME!

It turns out that nearly every big media company in this country hired high powered Washington lawyers Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford (whom I cited earlier for their expertise on this issue) to write a friend of the court brief explaining why no law was broken in this matter and hence, their media colleagues Miller and Cooper should not face jail for refusing to reveal their sources.

Andrew isn't pulling any punches here:

Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself? Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade — i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her? Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?

No, you say, you hadn't heard any of that. You heard that this was the crime of the century. A sort of Robert-Hanssen-meets-Watergate in which Rove is already cooked and we're all just waiting for the other shoe — or shoes — to drop on the den of corruption we know as the Bush administration. That, after all, is the inescapable impression from all the media coverage. So who is saying different? The organized media, that's who. How come you haven't heard?

Because they've decided not to tell you. Because they say one thing — one dark, transparently partisan thing — when they're talking to you in their news coverage, but they say something completely different when they think you're not listening.

You see, if you really want to know what the media think of the Plame case — if you want to discover what a comparative trifle they actually believe it to be — you need to close the paper and turn off the TV. You need, instead, to have a peek at what they write when they're talking to a court. It's a mind-bendingly different tale.

Don't take Andrew's word for it. Read for yourself here. Nearly every major news organization in the country says that no law was broken in the disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA status. So why the media firestorm? You know the answer!

Dick Durbin Slander Not Verified

A new investigation has not been able to verify the lone FBI email that Senator Durtbag Durbin used as he tossed gasoline on the flames of hatred.

Was this just another case of "fake, but accurate" or wishful thinking?

From The Washington Times :
"Military investigators did not substantiate major charges of prisoner abuse contained in one FBI agent's e-mail that was read on the Senate floor by Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin as an example of U.S.-sanctioned torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ...

Gen. Schmidt wrote in his report, "Another FBI agent stated she witnessed a detainee short shackled and lying in his own excrement. The [investigation] was unable to find any documentation, testimony, or other evidence corroborating the third agent's recollection to this allegation or her e-mail allegation that one of the detainees had pulled his hair out while short shackled." The Schmidt report also said, "We discovered no evidence to support the allegation that the detainees were denied food and water." In all, Gen. Schmidt said he found no evidence of torture, but did find cases of aggressive interrogations of reputed al Qaeda and Taliban members captured in Afghanistan.

Sunday, July 17, 2005

More Evidence of Camp Gitmo Torture

Cspan is replaying a lengthy video of a visit by media and Congressional Representatives to the detention facility for Moslem fanatics at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

From the taxpayer supplied prayer rugs, Korans, chess, backgammon checker boards and playing cards things look pretty swell for people whose previous habitation was some goat shack in Afghanistan.

But the army missed one important detail which will no doubt provide further fuel for the torture and abuse rumors at Camp Gitmo. In the soldiers mess, on a table, only partially hidden was a bottle of HEINZ ketchup. Proof that another multi-national corporation and it's fat-cat owners are exploiting these hapless detainees!

Imagine the humiliation if like the soldiers, the detainees are forced to eat the red sauce of the company owned by the shrew wife of the failed presidential candidate who would have set you free! Oh the irony of it all!

Frist Proposes Bill to Punish Illegal Use of Classified Information

In an amdendment to the Homeland Security Bill, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed to yank the security clearance from any Senator or Federal Officeholder who used classified information in an inappropriate or illegal manner.

So how did all the Democrats calling for Karl Rove to resign for allgedly outting a CIA Agent vote? You guessed it! They voted NO!

Apparently, Senators like Kerry, Durbin, Schumer et al. feel they have every right to misuse classified information when it suits their partisan purposes.

Senate Amendment 1223: "Any federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the United States Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to hold a security clearance for access to such information. "

Saturday, July 16, 2005

John Kerry Outed Real Undercover CIA Agent

Recently, one of our lefty commenters recited the law, which he wrongfully accuses Karl Rove of breaking in the Valerie Plame fracas:

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Now I know this is expecting a bit much, but would those same people huffing and puffing indignantly, yet wrongly, about Karl Rove care to demonstrate a shred of consistency? If so, when may we expect them to demand that John Kerry resign from the Senate, and be prosecuted for this clear violation of an ACTUAL covert agent whose identity the United States was "taking affirmative measures to conceal?"

From Newsmax: Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the agency asked that his identity be kept secret.

Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton.

Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?" - according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.

"When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name," the Times said.

Apparently the CIA directive wasn't good enough for Sen. Kerry - who outed Armstrong anyway.

Defunding Terror Recruitment in The U.S.

Last Sunday, I reposted an earlier study of how the ideology of fanatic Islamic hate, which is at the heart of today's terrorist threat, was being funded by the Saudi government in American mosques and around the world.

On Friday, an excellent column by Mark Steyn pointed the way to reducing this threat. Describing efforts in Britain, where the homegrown terrorist problem is all the more accute, he points the way to how we here in the United States could take steps to end the brainwashing that is providing gullible young jihadis to be used as cannon fodder in this war.

Stephen Schwartz, a moderate Muslim, has written extensively on the problem of the Saudi-Wahhabi death cult that is at the heart of today's war on terror. His articles at Tech Central Station, Front Page Magazine and The Weekly Standard are required reading for anyone wishing to understand not only the nature of the threat, but measures we have yet to take that would be more effective than airport screeners anyday.

Schwartz's June 10 FrontPage column describes efforts in the U.S. Congress to pass a Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005. The version of the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives is here.

The section relevant to Saudi funding of organizations in this country is here:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS C): End funding or other support by the Government of Saudi Arabia for charities, schools, and any other organizations or institutions outside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism anywhere in the world (hereafter in this Act referred to as `offshore terror organizations'), including by means of providing support for the families of individuals who have committed acts of terrorism;
Is "other organizations or institutions" strong enough language or should we be more specific and include "Mosques, Islamic Learning Centers, bookstores and social organizations?"

Here's the status of the bill in the House. I have emailed my Congressman, Joe Wilson to urge his support of this bill and encourage fellow constituents to do the same. I encourage all readers to do the same with their own representatives.

Face it folks... If you don't take the time to make your voice heard... It's unlikely that your voice will be heard!

London Bombers' Links to United States

We comfort ourselves by saying that the likelihood of homegrown attacks is lesser here, but how real is that assumption?

ABC News: July 15, 2005 — One of the bombers in last week's attacks made a direct phone call to a suspected recruiter for an extremist group in New York. Authorities told ABC News that records show Mohammed Sidique Khan, the eldest of the bombers now believed to be the field commander of the attacks, had called a person who is associated with the Islamic Center, a mosque in Queens, N.Y. Yet, a member of that mosque claimed they had no knowledge of the phone call.

In addition to Khan, two other men linked to the London bombings also had direct ties with the United States. "Whilst we are watching the ports and the airports trying to prevent people from coming in," said M.J. Gohel, a terrorism analyst at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, "al Qaeda and its global jihadi friends are a step ahead. They have already penetrated into the West and are recruiting Western born Muslims to join terrorism." Lindsay Germaine, one of the four dead bombers and a Jamaican who left behind a pregnant wife, had recently traveled to see relatives in Ohio.

Furthermore, Magdy El Nashar, 33, who was captured last night at his family's home outside of Cairo and then questioned by British agents, studied at North Carolina State University. Police believe he helped the bombers build their explosive devices. Now they want to know if there are more bombs and would-be bombers.

Niger-Iraq Uranium No Lie

The Karl Rove CIA no leak story is just cover chatter (or how about "hanging chads?") for the real underlying story here. Proof that all those clowns claiming President Bush "lied" are just WRONG!

I know it must be difficult for the looney left who cling desperately to the notion that "Bush lied" to see the light of day. After all, once you are invited to sing in that choir, you're only permitted to see the correct sheet music and somehow I doubt that Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Howard Dean et al have ever read the British Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction which is the equivalent of our Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Iraq.

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.
All of this information has been available for over a year. And yet you can bet some willingly ignorant lefty will completely ignore it and repeat their lies again and again and again.

Friday, July 15, 2005

One More Time: No Law Broken by Rove

The Washington Times: "A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an 'undercover agent,' saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

'She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat,' Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this..."

Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.

In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.

The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover CIA operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years."

"She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee."

And NOW, we discover that Karl Rove learned about Valerie Plame's role in the Wilson Niger Affair FROM Reporter, Robert Novak, not the other way around.

"Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony."
And how much more evidence do clear thinking rational people need to conclude that Iraq was up to something when it tried to acquire Niger's Uranium?

Again, no DIRECT evidence was uncovered that this interest in uranium was related to what WAS an ongoing nuclear weapons program, HELLO DUELFER REPORT!. Just as with Saddam Hussein's ties to Osama bin Laden and September 11, you have to ask: "WHAT WAS HE DOING WITH THIS STUFF?"

Oh well, I don't expect this recitation to penetrate the lefty fog which can only see President Bush as the problem. But when more innocent people die in terror attacks... just remember who wants to put the handcuffs on effective U.S. efforts to defend us from such evil!

Wilson and Plame Democrat Contributors and Other Tidbits

I'm getting a bit tired of the Valerie Plame affair. Anyone with half a brain, whether tied behind your back or not, knows that no law was broken here. The law clearly states that "United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent..." certainly does not apply to someone whose photograph appears in Vanity Fair.

And it also won't surprise anyone that both Wilson and Plame (using her married name) were big time contributors to Al Gore's 2000 presidential bid. Here's the disclosure form from the Federal Elections Commission.

Wilson, who appeared yesterday with Senator Chuck Schumer, claims to be "apolitical." Nearly two years ago, Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing posted a comprehensive roundup on this phony and the catalog of lies he spreads like butter on toast. Bill Hobbs also has the goods. Wilson is about as apolitical as Hillary Clinton and apparently suffers from the same level of truth deficit.

Oh, and don't forget... Wilson was an advisor to John Kerry's failed presidential bid... So CONSIDER THE SOURCE!
But it would appear that the left has nothing else to offer to our nation's political discourse than to rehash garbage day after day after day.

Mark Steyn: How to Win The War On Terror

I especially like the idea to forbid foreign funding of mosques. There should be some way we could do that here without violating a constitutional provision. Heck, if you can toss the Ten Commandments out of government buildings, we sure should be able to say NO to funding terror breeding mosques in this country.

Telegraph Opinion Islam does incubate terrorism: "Oh, dear. 'Britain can take it' (as they said in the Blitz): that's never been in doubt. The question is whether Britain can still dish it out. When events such as last Thursday's occur, two things happen, usually within hours if not minutes: first, spokespersons for Islamic lobby groups issue warnings about an imminent backlash against Muslims.

In fairness to British organisations, I believe they were beaten to the punch by the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress whose instant response to the London bombings was to issue a statement calling for prayers that 'Canadian Muslims will not pay a price for being found guilty by association'.

In most circumstances it would be regarded as appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual 'hate crime' by scaremongering about a non-existent one. But it seems the real tragedy of every act of 'intolerance' by Islamist bigots is that it might hypothetically provoke even more intolerance from us irredeemable white imperialist racists. My colleague Peter Simple must surely marvel at how the identity-group grievance industry has effortlessly diversified into pre-emptively complaining about acts of prejudice that have not yet occurred.

Among those of us who aren't Muslim, meanwhile, there's a stampede to be first to the microphone to say that "of course" we all know that "the vast majority of Muslims" are not terrorists but law-abiding peace-loving people who share our revulsion at these appalling events, etc.
Terrorism ends when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if "martyrdom" were not glorified by imams and politicians, if pictures of local "martyrs" were not proudly displayed in West Bank grocery stores, if Muslim banks did not offer special "martyrdom" accounts to the relicts thereof, if schools did not run essay competitions on "Why I want to grow up to be a martyr".

At this point, many readers will be indignantly protesting that this is all the fault of Israeli "occupation", but how does that explain suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there's not a Zionist oppressor for hundreds of miles? Islam has become the world's pre-eminent incubator of terrorism at its most depraved. Indeed, so far London has experienced only the lighter items on the bill of fare - random bombing of public transport rather than decapitation, child sacrifice and schoolhouse massacres.

Most of us instinctively understand that when a senior Metropolitan Police figure says bullishly that "Islam and terrorism don't go together", he's talking drivel.
Why are we surprised that "Muslim moderates" rarely speak out against the evil committed by their co-religionists when the likes of Mr Paddick keep assuring us there's no problem? It requires great courage to be a dissenting Muslim in communities dominated by heavy-handed imams and lobby groups that function effectively as thought-police.

Yet all you hear from Mr Paddick is: "Move along, folks, there's nothing to see here." this is the same approach, incidentally, that the authorities took in their long refusal to investigate seriously the 120 or so "honour killings" among British Muslims.

Just as the police did poor Muslim girls no favours by their excessive cultural sensitivity, so they're now doing the broader Muslim community no favours. The Blair-Paddick strategy only provides a slathering of mindless multiculti fudge topping over the many layers of constraint that prevent Islam beginning an honest conversation with itself.
Kill terrorists when the opportunity presents itself, as 1,200 "insurgents" were said to have been killed in one recent engagement on the Syria/Iraq border the other day. Constrain the ideology behind Thursday's bombing by outlawing Saudi funding of British mosques and other institutions. Coerce our more laggardly allies like General Musharraf into shutting down his section of the Saudi-Pakistani-Londonistan Wahhabist pipeline.

But the coaxing is what counts - wooing moderate Muslims into reclaiming their religion. We can take steps to prevent Islamic terrorists killing us, most of the time. But Islamic terrorists will only stop trying to kill us when their culture reviles them
rather than celebrates them.

Who Lied about Iraq and Niger Uranium?

All this nonsense about Karl Rove serves to hide the real issue here. Iraq WAS trying to buy Uranium in Niger and DID have a nuclear WMD program. No amount of purposeful misstatements of law and fact can cover that up.

Not that I expect reality to intrude on the looney left... but for everyone else, have a read:

From William Safire July 19, 2004:"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

-George W. Bush, State
of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003

Those were 'the 16 words' in a momentous message to a joint session of Congress that were pounced on by the wrong-war left to become the simple centerpiece of its angry accusation that 'Bush lied to us' - or, as John Kerry more delicately puts it - 'misled' us into thinking that Saddam's Iraq posed a danger to the U.S.

The he-lied-to-us charge was led by Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat sent in early 2002 by the C.I.A. to Niger to check out reports by several European intelligence services that Iraq had secretly tried to buy that African nation's only major export,
"yellowcake" uranium ore.

Wilson testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he had assured U.S. officials back in 2002 that "there was nothing to the story." When columnist Robert Novak raised the question of nepotism by reporting that he got the assignment at the urging of his C.I.A. wife, Wilson denied that heatedly and denounced her "outing," triggering an investigation. The skilled self-promoter was then embraced as an antiwar martyr, sold a book with "truth" in its title, appeared on the cover of Time and every TV talk show denouncing Bush.

Two exhaustive government reports came out last week showing that it is the president's lionized accuser, and not Mr. Bush, who has been having trouble with the truth. Contrary to his indignant claim that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" of selecting him for the African trip, the Senate published testimony that his C.I.A. wife had "offered up his name" and printed her memo to her boss that "my husband has good relations" with Niger officials and "lots of French contacts." Further destroying his credibility, Wilson now insists this strong pitch did not constitute a recommendation.

More important, it now turns out that senators believe his report to the C.I.A. after visiting Niger actually bolstered the case that Saddam sought - Bush's truthful verb was "sought" - yellowcake, the stuff of nuclear bombs. The C.I.A. gave Wilson's report a "good" grade because "the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium" - confirming what the British and Italian intelligence services had told us from their own sources.

But a C.I.A. analyst opined "the Brits have exaggerated this issue" because "the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

Isn't it amazing that those who screech loudest about "lying" seem to be the biggest liars?

China Threatens USA with Nuke Attack: Thank You Bill Clinton

We can all thank former President Clinton for allowing sensitive nuclear technology to be transfered to China during his administration. Now, the peace-loving Chinese have decided to flex a bit of muscle and threaten to destroy American Cities.

Thanks Bill.
From the Financial Times: China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.
"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," said General Zhu Chenghu.
“We will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities
east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.�

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Liberals Phony US History to Make Their Case

Regarding my post about the New York Times editorial in support of the liberal movement to turn the memorial at Ground Zero into a left wing freak show, a commenter who bills himself as "Thomas Jefferson" left the following which purports to be a quote from founding father Jefferson: ""Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

There's just one problem pal: There is no evidence that Mr. Jefferson ever said such a thing.

Do a simple Google Search on this quote and you'll find nearly 7,000 references to this quote, used mostly by left wing web sites to support their unprincipled obstruction of anything and everything Republican. But if you look a bit further, you'll also find something less familiar to the left's Orwellian revisionists. It's a little something called THE TRUTH.

Here's the bottom line from the Thomas Jefferson Library at Monticello:

Urban Legends and Folklore: "Thank you for addressing this issue. At the Jefferson Library, we are often asked to confirm Jefferson quotes, and this particular one comes up frequently. I was especially interested to see that you had pinned down a possible source for this misattributed quote. We have never found this quote, or anything like it, in any of Jefferson's writings. This of course does not mean he did not say it, but unless and/or until it is found in Jefferson's writings, it should not be attributed to him (as many seem determined to do).
Anna Berkes
Research Librarian
Jefferson Library
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.

'So many persons have of late found an interest or a passion gratified by imputing to me sayings and writings which I never said or wrote...."

--Thomas Jefferson to Alexander White, 10 September 1797

Both Urban Legends and Wikiquote cite the original source of this quote, a lefty "historian" giving an interview to a left wing online publication. The Anti Idolitarian Rotweiller also has more.

But isn't this just typical of the left? They are unable to make a case for their dangerous obstructionism without fabricating quotes, or facts or simply re-interpreting law or reality in any way which suits them.
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator