Prominent Politician Wears Cross -- Liberals Upset?

Guess Who.

Every time President Bush even mentions God, liberals go ballistic. I can't wait to hear their reaction to this prominent female politician who openly wears a cross as part of her wardrobe.

I can imagine the chat in the Democrats online dungeon going something like this:

SillyLib1: Can you believe it? Another Christian is trying to shove their religion in our face.
SillyLib2: First their wearing flags shoving their patriotism at us. Now this. These Christians are worse than the Taliban. They're the real fascists and terrorists.
SillyLib3: This must be another of those Ann Coulter conservatives out to make the rest of us bow to their God.
SensibleLib: Pssstt.... That's HILLARY CLINTON wearing the cross!
SillyLib1: Oh, well that's different. Democrat Christians are great!
SillyLib2: I don't mind Hillary pushing religion in my face. I hope she campaigns in churches like Al Gore.
SillyLib3: Yeah, it's about time we got a religious left. Does tree worshipping count?

Yes, it's the Hillwoman... NOT named, as we now learn, after Sir Edmund Hillary. More proof of sociopathology?

President Bush Dedicates Air Force Memorial

(Reader note: Turn on your computer audio for the "Air Force Hymn")

On Saturday, President Bush joined Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and a glittering array of Air Force heroes from both the past and present to dedicate the Air Force Memorial.

The Memorial is a stunning visual display with three stainless steel spires rising 270 feet from a promontory point near the Pentagon. The design is meant to invoke memories of Air Force fighter jets taking off into the sky. It's a major addition to the skyline of the monument studded Capital area.

In his remarks, the President recalled his own experience in military aviation and that of his father and those who have and are now serving:

THE PRESIDENT: ...Having flown an F-102, I know the exhilaration of flight; and as a son of an aviator who was shot down in combat, I am keenly aware of its dangers. I have spent a lot of time with the aviators, and one thing about them that has always struck me, aviators, by their nature, are optimistic people. It takes an optimist to climb into a steel tube, race to the sky at 1,500 miles an hour heading toward danger, and expect to return home safely. Yet this is precisely what the men and women of the Air Force do for our country every day.

America is grateful for your service, and I'm proud to be the Commander-in-Chief of such fine men and women. (Applause.)
...
Every man and woman who has worn the Air Force uniform is part of a great history. From the Berlin Airlift to the Korea War, to Vietnam, to the Gulf War, to Kosovo and today's war on terror, a long blue line of heroes has defended freedom in the skies above. To all who have climbed sunward and chased the shouting wind, America stops to say: Your service and sacrifice will be remembered forever, and honored in this place by the citizens of a free and grateful nation.

May God bless you all. (Applause.)

The Memorial is such a visual experience, fewer words and more photos seemed appropriate:

The Commander in Chief salutes Airmen on his arrival.

A lighter moment with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

U.S. Air Force F-16 aircraft from the Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron Thunderbirds (official site here) perform their signature "bomb burst" maneuver, the inspiration for the memorial, at the closing of the dedication ceremony.

As a tribute to our men and women who wear the blue, I've added the "Air Force Hymn" as musical tribute on this page. It's available, along with a wide collection of other patriotic music, from the collection of online music available from the US Air Force Band.

Learn more about the memorial from the Air Force Memorial Foundation.

Who ARE These Democrats Who Would Lead the Nation?

The American news media wasted two weeks with stories about EX Republican Congressman Mark Foley and his disgusting emails and online chats.

The one good thing this scandalmongering did was focus the American voter's attention on ethics and responsible behavior in our elected officials. Right? I mean, we all want to make sure that those who serve in our nation's government have the highest ethical and moral standards if we are to trust them to lead our great country in a time of war.

At Mike's America, we've already discussed the curious phenomenon where the scandal of an EX GOP Congressman generates millions and millions of articles in the online search giant Google's database and yet the financial scandal of Senator Harry Reid, who would lead the Senate if Democrats take control, gets less than 400,000 articles in the Google index.

Shouldn't we know at least as much about Democrats who would take control over the Legislative Branch of government as we do about an EX Congressman? Isn't that the primary function of the news media? To inform American voters?

Who is John Conyers and Why You Should Care

If Democrats take control of the House of Representatives Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) will take over as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Not important you say? Consider that the current Chairman, James Sensenbrenner, has been at the forefront of Congressional battles to keep the Patriot Act strong and fight illegal immigration. All that could be undone by Conyers.

Chicken Hawk Express has more on Conyers and his radical far left beliefs. He would be at the heart of efforts to investigate and, if possible, impeach President Bush. Instead of improving the nation's national security, he would instead push issues like reparations for slavery.

Conyers is a hero to the hate-Bush left. Lewis H. Lapham, former editor of Harper's magazine lauded Conyers for daring to take on President Bush, who Lapham describes as "[A] thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use."

What About a Man Who Steals Thanksgiving Turkeys From the Poor ?

In the minds of the left, Conyers is some great moral crusader out to save us all from King George! But as usual, reality is something a bit different from that fantasy world the left inhabits.

Serious unresolved ethics questions, which the mainstream media seems mostly to ignore, continue to swirl around Conyers.

In March, 2006 The Hill newspaper, a daily newspaper focusing on Congress, reported that two former Conyers' aides had made detailed and documented complaints of ethical misconduct in Conyers' congressional office to the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office. In the report "they allege that Conyers demanded that aides work on several local and state campaigns and forced them to baby-sit and chauffeur his children. They also charge that some aides illegally used Conyers' congressional offices to enrich themselves. "

"I could not tolerate any longer being involved with continual unethical, if not criminal, practices which were accepted as 'business as usual,'" Maher wrote in a letter to the ethics panel dated Jan. 13, 2006.

Well you can hear the lefty apologists now: "No big deal" they will say. They've said as much regarding Senate Minority Leader Reid's financial scandal. So sweep these unethical, improper and possibly illegal matters under that bumpy rug that hides more Democrat scandals than dust bunnies.

But can those same Democrats, all proclaimed defenders of the poor, minorities, the hungry pooh-pooh this:

Where Are The Turkeys, Congressman Conyers?
By Joel Thurtell
Detroit Free Press (reprinted in MIGOP.ORG)
January 5, 2005

The director of a Detroit food bank wants to know what happened to 60 turkeys -- 720 pounds of frozen birds -- that his charity gave to members of U.S. Rep. John Conyers' local staff two days before Thanksgiving to give to needy people.

Conyers' Detroit office promised an accounting of any turkey distribution by Dec. 27, but the Gleaners Community Food Bank had received no paperwork as of Tuesday, said the charity's director, Agostinho Fernandes.

Fernandes said he became suspicious that the turkeys didn't get to poor people after hearing from a friend that a federal court worker had said he was offered free turkeys from a member of Conyers' staff.

Conyers' press secretary Karen Morgan said Tuesday that she was told that some of Conyers' staffers gave the turkeys to poor people whose names were provided by the state Family Independence Agency. A fax with those names, she said, was to be sent Tuesday or today to Gleaners.

Maureen Sorbet, a spokeswoman for the FIA, said Tuesday, "I spoke to the central FIA office in Wayne County, and they were unaware of the turkey situation.

"Normally, we don't provide names" of FIA clients, Sorbet added. "Sometimes at Christmastime we might if people self-disclose. It's remotely possible."

By mid-afternoon Tuesday, Fernandes said he had received nothing from Conyers' office.

"I've got to tell you that our mission of feeding hungry people has been violated by the people who should have been guardians of our mission," Fernandes said.

Fernandes said Conyers staffer Elisa Grubbs signed a Gleaners invoice Nov. 23 acknowledging she picked up the turkeys on the congressman's behalf. Fernandes sent the Free Press a copy of the invoice.

Morgan said the staffers who picked up the turkeys had promised to provide Gleaners with an accounting by Dec. 27. Morgan said she would ask Conyers to call the Free Press to answer questions about the turkeys, but he did not.

Morgan said Tuesday that she had been assured that a list of recipients exists, but added that she had not seen it.

"You can imagine how we feel," Fernandes said. "They didn't pay anything. This was donations to them to help the needy. We get calls from different representatives who want to put together food baskets for their needy constituents and you have faith that these people are going to bring the food to the people it's intended to go to."

A Conyers staff member who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal told the Free Press that Grubbs and her cousin, Conyers' Detroit deputy chief of staff Marion Brown, along with a former Conyers aide, DeWayne Boyd, picked up the turkeys and later gave contradictory accounts of what happened to the birds.

The unnamed staff member raised concerns in a memo sent to both the FBI and House ethics committee. Conyers was the target of an informal ethics committee inquiry last year following a Free Press investigation about use of staff members during work hours for political campaigns.

Boyd, who was fired from Conyers' Detroit office in 2002, was convicted on seven counts of fraud last month in U.S. District Court in connection with a scam he ran from Conyers' office in 1999.

With serious allegations that food meant for the Thanksgiving table of poor people in Detroit went instead to reward political supporters of a Congressman, you would think the anointed watchdogs of ethics and morality that have spent weeks pillorying Republicans in the Foley matter would have been just as outraged when the Conyer's scandal was disclosed. You would be wrong.

CREW, or the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has been at the forefront of the Foley scandal. You won't find any mention of serious concerns in CREW statements regarding the man who could be the most powerful shaper of judicial and legal matters in the new congress.

Why is that? Simple: Melanie Sloan, who serves as CREW's Executive Director, was employed by Congressman John Conyers on the Democrat staff of the House Judiciary Committee.

Once again, rules of conduct, ethics and standards of behavior are being applied only to Republican members of congress. And the same news media and ethics watchdogs which trumpet GOP wrongdoing with such amazing zeal all but ignore serious questions regarding those who would lead Congress if Democrats take control.

Where are those turkeys Congressman Conyers? Working for CREW!

Little Miss Chatterbox: Get Well Soon!

Little Miss Chatterbox, one of our favorite bloggers has been taken seriously ill with ulcers this week. She's in hospital recovering and hopes to be home soon. No doubt she got those ulcers from the moonbats who seem to have more bile than brains.

When the White House learned of the news, we got the message at right from our Commander in Chief.

Drop on over to The Chatterbox Chronicles and wish LMC Well.

RADIATION CONFIRMED IN NK BLAST!

This news came in just as delusionist commenter "Arthur" was crowing about no nuke evidence found in North Korea blast:

U.S.: Test Points to N. Korea Nuke Blast
Oct 13 7:55 PM US/Eastern

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

The U.S. government has determined that one scientific test, among many conducted since North Korea's announced nuclear test, was consistent with a nuclear explosion, a senior administration official said Friday night.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, cautioned that the administration has not made a definitive conclusion about the nature of the explosion.

"The betting is that this was an attempt at a nuclear test that failed," the official said. "We don't think they were trying to fake a nuclear test, but it may have been a nuclear fizzle _ an effort that failed." The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.

Poor Moonbat! WRONG AGAIN!

Harry Reid Financial Scandal Gets Mostly Media YAWN!

In the last 24 hours, the number of Google stories which mention the "Mark Foley Page Scandal" has grown by 200,000 articles to 11,700,000.

Meanwhile, the number of stories relating to the Senate MINORITY Leader Harry Reid's real estate scandal has stayed steady at about 315,000.

One man, a rather minor Congressional Republican, resigned from Congress when allegations about improper and offensive online contact with House Pages was brought to light. Another man, the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, basically shrugs off allegations of financial wrongdoing and mob ties with seeming impunity.

Priorities and Focus A Bit Out of Whack? You Bet!

There was enormous pressure on House Speaker Denny Hastert to resign in the wake of the Foley scandal, claiming Hastert didn't do enough to protect the Pages from Foley's online messages. That theme was echoed by some House Republicans and conservative newspapers like the Washington Times.

Please name for me the Democrats in the Senate, or their media allies who have called on Reid to resign? Is this deja vu with Clinton all over again? Laws, ethics and rules of conduct are ONLY meant to be applied to Republicans?

The few editorials run on the subject of Reid's behavior tend to be both damning, and yet somewhat forgiving when it comes to accountability.

The Philadelphia Inquirer comes about as close to suggesting Reid go when they say: "Unless Reid comes up with a better explanation for this lack of disclosure, Democrats should not keep him as their leader in the new Congress in 2007."

Well yee haw! Any Republican in Congress even suspected of wrongdoing is thrown out before Democrats can say "RAISE TAXES" and the best the Inquirer could do is that?

The Washington Post Editorial on this subject couldn't even bring itself to so mild a rebuke as the Philly Inquirer. Though they did give details on the damaging aspects of this hidden scandal:

THE BEST CASE for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is that he was sloppy about financial disclosure rules in accounting for a real estate deal on which he made a $700,000 profit. The more unattractive case is that the senator's inaccurate description of the investment was an effort to disguise his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer who's never been charged with wrongdoing but whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s.
...
"Everything I did was transparent," Mr. Reid said at a news conference Wednesday, after the story broke. "Everything is fully disclosed to the ethics committee and everyone else. As I said, if there is some technical change that the ethics committee wants, I'll be happy to do that."

Mr. Reid's professions of transparency and full disclosure are transparently wrong. His investment was not reported in a manner that made clear his partnership with Mr. Brown.

"Sloppy about financial disclosure rules?" Well excuse me! "Sloppy" reminds me of the excuse put forward by the Clintonistas to explain former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger's illegal removal of highly classified documents from the National Archives relating to terrorism and then destroying them.

The "sloppy" excuse is the latest variation of the famous "bureaucratic snafu" which Clinton used to explain how 1,000 highly sensitive FBI files on major Republicans wound up as nighttime reading material at the Clinton White House.

It's clear that there will be no meaningful ethics reform in Washington if the entire process is co-opted by the Democrat Party as a tool to bash Republicans while Democrats with WORSE violations are shielded by the lamestream media and any accountability within their own party.

Finally, ask yourself: Is the Democrat Senator from Massachusetts who left a woman to slowly suffocate while he went to bed following an accident he failed to report until the next day still a respected member of the Senate Democrat caucus?

Congrats to the Strata-Sphere for his extensive work on the Reid story. He got a big thumbs up today from Rush Limbaugh.

More on Missile Defense

Defense against ballistic missiles, or ballistic missile defense (BMD) will remain a hot topic this election year and beyond.

Conservative Intelligence Report (CIR) adds to this important topic with this post. CIR points out that missile defense, like every other military and non-military techonology has a growth and learning curve.

Either we undertake that process and develop missile defense, or as Democrats suggest, we abandon it because it doesn't work 100% the first time it's tested.

We never would have gotten to the moon had we expected the Mercury rocket to get us there and back the first time.

Visit Conservative Intelligence Report for more.

You Want Reid to Control the Senate?

Here's another question for voters about to elect a Senator this fall: Do you want Senator Harry Reid, the current MINORITY Leader to take over as the Leader of the Senate with the power to decide which legislation get's advanced and which gets ignored?

With all the focus in the media on accountability in the Mark Foley scandal, we're wondering if there will be the same accountability for Reid, who just accidentally? failed to include a real estate transaction in Nevada that netted him a $700,000 profit on required Senate Ethics Reports. Reid and his wife bought property for $400,000 in 1998 and sold it for $1.1 million. The sale amounts to a 270% profit for Reid.

With such evident business skill, we think Reid would be proud to include the deal on his required Senate filings. But in addition to forgetting to disclose the deal, it appears that Reid took steps to conceal his role.

This is the same man who last year constantly lectured Republicans on the "culture of corruption."

And Reid's latest trick isn't anything new. Here's a reminder of Democrat ethics:

Click on image above, or here, to view the LA Times chart describing how every male member of Reid's family has gotten rich lobbying their father on legislation for their big business clients. It makes the Jack Abramoff scandal (reminds me, Reid took buckets of cash from Abramoff too) look like small potatoes.

A vote for any Democrat for Senate this fall is a vote for Harry Reid and business as usual in Washington (but only if you are a Democrat).

Key Campaign Issue: Where Does Your Rep./Senator Stand on Missile Defense?

Democrats have deliberately squandered 12 days of the 2006 election debate focused on the rather narrow issue of Mark Foley's offensive behavior. The goal was, as one Democrat described it, to "distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism ."

North Korea's detonation of what may have been a nuclear weapon reminded voters that while Congressman Foley's actions were disgraceful, they hardly represent the threat to world peace that a nuclear North Korea does.

North Korea followed up it's illegal and highly provocative act with threats to launch a nuclear armed missile at the United States if we failed to agree to their demands for direct talks.

One North Korean "spokesman" went so far as to say that: "the main theater [of war] will be the continental US, with major cities transformed into towering infernos. "

David Albright (relation to former Secretary of State unknown) a former UN nuclear inspector (bio), warned that Pyongyang may be further along the path of weapons development than commonly assumed. "I would not trust reports saying North Korea is not weapon-ized," Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, told CNN television.

Regardless of the debate among experts as to how advanced North Korea's missile and nuclear technology is, the question becomes: how well prepared is the United States to defend against a missile attack from a rogue regime like North Korea or Iran?

How long can we wait to complete development and deploy an effective defense against ballistic missiles?

It's a question that needs to be asked to every candidate for federal office in the 2006 election.

Were Democrats Against Missile Defense Before They Were For It?

In the wake of the North Korean explosion, Democrats who had hoped to continue talking about relatively trivial issues, while avoiding any accountability for matters that truly are life and death were forced to retool their rhetoric.

And predictably, some Democrats are now insisting they have been for missile defense all along. But, as with everything else they do, understanding their meaning of the word "for" like the meaning of the word "is" is important.

Take Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (DEMOCRAT-CA). Ms. Tauscher, a member of the House Armed Services Committee was on a C-Span call-in program this morning where she denied that Democrats have voted against missile defenses. Her answer defies reason considering her 1999 vote against a straightforward House Resolution supporting missile defenses.

Yet, Democrat antipathy and opposition to missile defense has been a long standing plank in their platform of anti-military opposition to nearly any and all defensive systems proposed by the U.S. military.

Their derision of "Star Wars" when President Reagan first proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative in March, 1983 (speech here) was followed by repeated attempts to curtail, cut or eliminate the program altogether. Never mind that the early program was essential in helping the U.S. win the Cold War and bring down the Iron Curtain. The Democrat rule is: if it's a Republican idea, we're against it.

That attitude continued into the 1990's even though President Clinton dropped his threat to veto further development of missile defense and the majority of Senate Democrats supported some continuation of the program. House Democrats in that same period continued to vote against missile defense. In 1999, 184 Democrats, including Tauscher, voted against a simple resolution which stated:

"It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack."

During the debate, Congressman John Lewis (DEMOCRAT-GA) implored Representatives to vote against the resolution stating: "I URGE MY COLLEAGUES, DO NOT CHOOSE BULLETS OVER BABIES, BOMBS OVER BOOKS, MISSILES OVER MEDICINE." No matter that the Congress has spent trillions in a "war on poverty" with no end in sight. Apparently, protecting failed liberal social programs is more important than protecting the lives of Americans.

Little Has Changed in the Bush Era

"The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile."

House MINORITY Leader, Nancy Pelosi, in San Francisco, April 2003

President Bush disagrees. During the 2004 campaign he stated:

"I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system don't understand the threats of the 21st century."

President George W. Bush, August 2004 in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania

Liberal and progressive organizations which track votes on missile defense are an excellent resource for documenting Democrat's votes against missile defense. Both Progressive Punch and the Union of Concerned Scientists are only too happy to underscore Democrat opposition and obstruction to development and deployment of missile defenses.

It's important to note that should Democrats take control of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees in either or both houses of Congress, Democrats like Senator Carl Levin who have been at the forefront in opposing missile defenses would be in control.

In the final weeks of the 2006 campaign, every candidate for federal office should be asked for his or her stand on missile defense and whether they support the immediate deployment of that system before they take the following oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

Hilarious Madeline Albright Video!

You have got to see this:

According to the Drudge Report: "the advertisement was deemed "too hot" by GOP strategists all across Washington, DC who have refused to use it!" Why the hell not? Dems are calling President Bush every name in the book and we can't poke fun at Allbright?

Democrat Leak: Foley Scandal Was Political Hit!

Not that we're surprised:

Saved by Foley
Washington Prowler

One of the stories going around Democrat Party circles is that party operatives like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and American Family Voices weren't quite ready for primetime with the opposition research materials they had gathered for the 2006 election cycle.

According to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations, "I'm hearing the Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed the coup de grace, not the first shot."

So why the rush? According to another DNC operative: bad polling numbers across the country. "Bush's national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. We were seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida Pennsylvania, even parts of New York," says the operative. "A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling barely held a five-seat majority if the election were to be held at the end of August. That was doable for Democrats from September 1 to November 7. But by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority. In the Senate, it looked like a wash. We held seats in Florida, Nebraska, picked up seats in Pennsylvania, but that that was about it. They were holding in Missouri and possibly within reach of Maryland and Washington. We [Dems] were looking at a disaster in the making."

So how to remedy? "You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq."

"Republicans had to have known we'd be looking to change the national debate," says a House Democrat leadership aide. "You had our leadership looking at cratering polling numbers. A majority within grasp wasn't drifting away, it was being yanked back by Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if Foley had to be bumped up on the scandal schedule. That makes a lot of sense given where we were two weeks ago, and where we are now."

Conventional wisdom had Republicans seeing improving numbers in races across the country throughout the month of September after Congress spent the month of August home campaigning in their districts. But some Republicans don't disagree that the polls were improving that dramatically. "I've seen some of the polls and I don't buy into the notion that we were making up tons of ground in a lot of these races," says one GOP political consultant. "Some of the underlying data led me to believe that the polling was somewhat flawed, and that this was a lot of spin to re-energize a base that was growing disenchanted."

What no one disputes, however, was that the GOP was sensing some wind at its back and reinvigorated base with Bush on the stump, and Congress quietly at home not creating any more messes for the media to hit on. Now, of course, the Foley story has left a far bigger mess a month out of Election Day than anyone had expected.

Doesn't this just confirm what we already knew? That Democrats have NO ideas, NO alternative to offer the American people on "issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism --. " Democrats offer nothing but the "ugly" and more hate and obstruction.