Wednesday, November 30, 2005

'Peace' Activists Defend Terrorists

In typical leftist fashion, Christian Peacemaker Teams, the group to which the recent abductees in Iraq belong, blamed America rather than the hostage takers for their member’s abductions.

Peace group blames U.S., U.K. for Iraq hostages

A peace group blamed the United States and Britain for the abduction of four activists shown in an insurgent video, saying the kidnapping was the direct result of the occupation of Iraq.

The workers, the group said, were working against the occupation of Iraq.

We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people,” the group said.

“We are some of the few internationals left in Iraq who are telling the truth about what is happening to the Iraqi people,”

Perhaps they don’t read news, as the media and the majority of the American Left have been towing that line for quite a while now. (See Cindy Sheehan)

And let’s be clear on who these folks are. They are not ‘peace’ activists. They are political activists.

Christian Peacemaker Teams

The left has long blamed the right for twisting religion to suit its goals. Well, take a look at this site. And all the while, they spend their energy defending fanatics and terrorists that make Jim Jones look like a moderate.

Check out the failed ‘Adopt-a-Detainee Campaign’. I find that particular item to be hilarious.

Slapped in the face with reality, these folks defend the murderers and assail the United States, along with Israel, Britain and various others who don’t subscribe to their ‘roll over and die’ philosophy.


Tuesday, November 29, 2005

France's Big Stick

One must wonder what France will resort to next? I’m hard pressed to guess which entity Iran must fear most. France itself, the UN, or the EU. All three have shown such resolve and fortitude in the past decade.

French PM: We'll take Iran to U.N.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has said if Iran does not accept Europe's current proposal aimed at preventing that country from acquiring a nuclear weapons program "we will have to go then to the Security Council."

The horror... the horror...

In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour, de Villepin said that France and the international community must put "all its forces together" to prevent a civil war in Iraq and to blunt terrorism.

Lets see, all its forces…, that would be the US Military as far as I can tell.

If they don't accept -- then we will have to go then to the Security Council."

Well that ought to scare the turbans off of the Mad Mullahs. Anyone want to take bets on when France will invade?


Sunday, November 27, 2005

A Comedy Troupe in Crawford

Bring on the contortionist. This is getting pathetic.

Few Attend Dueling Rallies at Bush Ranch

…about 200 people rallied around Cindy Sheehan in a continuation of California woman's summer protest against the war that claimed her son.

A real people power movement there.

Some 20 demonstrators also stood in a ditch beside the other checkpoint about a mile away…

A ditch seems appropriate.

"We have both of his exits covered," said Sheehan…

Someone should let them know of the invention of the helicopter approximately six decades ago.

"We are exercising our patriotic duty to dissent," she said.

Well, we do have a constitutional right to be delusional I guess.

Both sides attributed Saturday's low turnout to the holiday weekend and rainy weather.

Or, perhaps, America’s recognition of the fact that Sheehan is advocating a simple political position, not expressing some concern for Iraqis or American troops.

The day's biggest demonstration in Crawford turned out to be one involving about 500 Americans from Ethiopia, which has experienced political unrest and violence since the disputed May election.

Now that’s just funny.


Monday, November 21, 2005

I'll be back

Off for a bit...

Friday, November 18, 2005

House to Vote on US Surrender in Iraq

The House will vote on whether or not the United States should surrender to a group of terrorists and insurgents. Time for Dems to put their money where their mouth is.

Republicans seek vote on Iraq withdrawal proposal

House Republicans sought a showdown Friday with Democrats on a proposal by one of their most senior members to force an end to the U.S. deployment of troops in Iraq.

Well, we are a republic. Let them vote. God help us when a real war comes along.

"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders routinely give to Pentagon reporters.

Oh come on Colonel, the Democrats are just looking out for you. With friends like this...

Update: The results are in: The vote, held as lawmakers rushed toward a two-week Thanksgiving break, was 403-3.

Does this mean House Democrats will support the war or the troops? Not a chance.

House spurns calls for immediate Iraq pullout

“A disgrace,” declared House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame,” added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Congress Can't Cut Spending

Lets be clear about who refused to tighten the belt.

House rejects education, health spending bill

Legislation to fund many of the nation’s health, education and social programs went down to a startling defeat in the House Thursday, led by Democrats who said cuts in the bill hurt some of America’s neediest people.

Republicans said they may have lost votes because this year’s bill, down $1.5 billion from last year, included no special projects or earmarks for lawmakers.

Jim Walsh, R-N.Y., said the bill represented more spending than the entire budgets of Russia or China.

They (Democrats) insisted the attempted budget cuts were the result of GOP-driven tax cuts.


Monday, November 14, 2005

Jacques Speaks

Jacques Chirac finally speaks up following two weeks of uncontrolled bedlam around France.

Chirac vows firm action on unrest

"We will respond by being firm, by being fair and by being faithful to the values of France," Chirac said

Translation: We will keep our head in the sand, implement more government programs, and blame America.

Chirac called for calm, urged people to rally together and said the main priority remained to restore public order.

This is an absolute disgrace, brought to you by the country that felt a need to look down its nose at the US following Hurricane Katrina. At least we had a natural disaster to blame. The crisis in France is purely of French construction.

The government approved emergency powers last week that went into force on November 9 for 12 days.

On Monday, it agreed on a draft law to extend the measures until February.

The Communist Party plans to boycott the vote and the main opposition Socialists are expected to oppose the law.

A typical left wing response to a crisis. They must be getting advice from Harry Reid.

And now to the root of the problem:

"The government is not serious. They are not doing enough for us ... We don't have a proper cinema, nothing. Nothing is going to change," said a 16-year-old in Clichy-sous-Bois who gave his name only as Ali.

They want movies!


Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Washington Post Outs 'Sissy Six'

The Washington Post is going to war with Congress over a story that it ran yesterday in which it divulged classified information from multiple sources in the CIA.

GOP Leaders Urge Probe in Prisons Leak

Congress's top Republican leaders yesterday demanded an immediate joint House and Senate investigation into the disclosure of classified information to The Washington Post that detailed a web of secret prisons being used to house and interrogate terrorism suspects.

No need to say much more than that. Now, on to the defense.

Such referrals are made at the rate of three to four per week, according to intelligence officials.

Ahh, those illusive ‘intelligence officials’ again.

The Post did not publish the names of the Eastern European countries involved, at the request of senior U.S. officials. The article said the officials argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere, and could make them targets of terrorist retaliation.

Well, what about Thailand? The Thais have been long standing allies of the United States. Does the Post not care if terrorists retaliate there? Do 'intelligence officials' not care?

Lawmakers from both parties immediately expressed misgivings about the request. Democrats pounced on it, suggesting that if the GOP leaders believe the disclosure of information on secret prisons deserves to be investigated, so does the leak of inaccurate intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and White House officials identifying Plame as a covert CIA operative.

Newsflash for Democrats: We just had investigations into Plame and came away with very little. We will be entertaining the Democrat's defense of Saddam soon enough.

The Post goes on to quote a couple of lawmakers that support their position. Of course, no one in the article actually defends the actions of the leakers or the Post. Nor do they make the opposing point made so many times during the Valerie Plame debacle; that divulging classified information is illegal and dangerous for the country and its allies. They once again try to turn it into a WMD discussion. They make generic statements such as:

More generally, Republicans suggested it is unwise to pick a fight with the media over an issue that exposes so many political vulnerabilities for their party.

Oh Bull. We have known about these detention centers for quite a while. We can argue whether or not terrorists deserve due process or if water boarding is torture until we all keel over. That does not excuse those ‘intelligence officials’ which turn to the press to affect a political outcome by exposing real classified information. Dana Priest should be brought before Congress or a Grand Jury, just as Judy Miller, and told to give up her many sources inside the CIA.

Then it gets hilarious. In an Op-ed, the Post calls those that might have influence on the situation sissies. Dumb move.

Tough Times for the 'Sissy Six'

Then there are the half-dozen senators negotiating this week over a new intelligence committee probe: "The Sissy Six."

The Democratic members of the Sissy Six -- Jay D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) -- filed through the frosted-glass doors of the intelligence committee office just after 10 a.m. Two Republican members -- Bond and Trent Lott (Miss.) -- followed, but Roberts kept them waiting until 10:15.

An entire article with no point other than to coin a term.

I have an idea. Polygraph everyone at the CIA. Ask them; ‘have you ever divulged classified information to the press in an unauthorized manner?’ I would start with Valerie Plame.


Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Someone Plug the Hole


(Quick Note: I've been tipped off that Drudge leans to the right. Who knew?)

This is interesting. Since when did CIA operatives start airing their political opinions in the press? Someone better put the lid on those guys. First someone attempted to affect an election by sending political hack Joe Wilson to Niger. Now this.

CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons

Personally, I don’t care if they send those that would kill myself and my family to the edge of the universe. But can they not keep anything quiet?

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States…

…and, apparently, the entire press corp.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system.

You’ve got to be kidding. Who gives a damn what Amnesty International or France think about it? And since when is the CIA supposed to be anything other than ‘opaque’?

…said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons.

…according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials

…according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials and foreign sources

…according to current and former intelligence officers and two other U.S. government officials.

…said current and former and U.S. and foreign government and intelligence officials.

…said a former senior intelligence officer who worked in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, during that period.

…another former senior CIA official said.

…but the consensus among current and former intelligence and other government officials interviewed for this article is that he did not have to.

…according to several former and current U.S. government and intelligence officials.

…said a senior CIA officer.

…current and former officials said.

…said several former and current intelligence officials.

…according to four current and former officials.

…one intelligence official said.

Several former and current intelligence officials, as well as several other U.S. government officials with knowledge of the program, express frustration that the White House…

…said the intelligence official.

I only have two questions. When does the Grand Jury stand up and when do the Congressional hearings begin? With Democrats now concerned with leaked CIA information, it should be no problem bringing these leakers to justice.


Monday, November 07, 2005

Cowards Unite! We Accept Credit Cards.

I am always hesitant to link to Foxnews or the Washington Times. No matter how often I quote the Washington Post and NY Times, whenever I use a conservative voice, I get accused of presenting slanted information. But when I read the following article, I ran across an insignificant tidbit that I can’t ignore.

The following article is on active duty military recruiting.

Recruits join armed forces seeking war

It seems that recruiting is going fairly well, despite all of the doom and gloom from the left. Only the Army missed its goal for last year, and that was the first time since 9/11.

For four out of the past five years, the Army has exceeded its goal for active-duty recruits, while regularly increasing the number desired. Fiscal 2005, which ended Sept. 30, was the first year it fell short, getting 92 percent of its 80,000 goal.

The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have all met or exceeded their annual recruiting goals for every year since September 11, although some monthly and quarterly shortfalls have occurred.

Then I ran across this quote:

J.E. McNeil, executive director of the District-based Center on Conscience & War, an organization established to defend the rights of conscientious objectors, calls the figures "trumpetry" from the military.

"I haven't looked at the numbers this time around, but I do know that [earlier this year] when the Army did not make its goal, they lowered goal numbers in order to make goal," she said.

No they didn’t. They admitted that they wouldn’t make their goal for FY05.

Last year, the vaunted Washington Post ran a puff piece on this group of traitors. I was none too happy about that at the time.

Washington Post Promotes Cowardice

How worthless one must feel to spend all of that energy promoting a cause that is dependent on a scenario that is never going to happen. There is no draft. There will not be a draft. And these guys aren’t attempting to help conscientious objectors. They are helping those cowards among us abuse the conscientious objector statutes. In any case, it’s good to see they are still promoting their fantasy world. And they are still the good capitalists.

Ex-Deadhead Turned Moonbat Store

My favorite is the ‘You Can’t Be All You Can Be If You’re Dead’ postcard.


Sunday, November 06, 2005

Lazy Sunday

I need a break from the politicos today. So on that note, I will state that Terry Bradshaw just picked Carolina to win the Superbowl, and it is that topic with which I intend to concern myself for the afternoon. Have a great Sunday!


Friday, November 04, 2005

Jimmy's Back

I am not the first to say that Jimmy Carter is off his rocker. He was a failure as a president, bringing America to its knees with his well intentioned, yet bad policies. His handling of the takeover of American Embassy in Tehran may well be considered America’s greatest embarrassment of all times. All of that aside, I find the following article quite interesting.

Carter condemns abortion culture

Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday condemned all abortions and chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion.

"I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion."


"I can't deny I'm a better ex-president than I was a president,"

I can’t deny that either, though he’s a pretty weird ex-president as well. It turns out Jimmy is writing a book to bash Bush. What a novel idea (I just can’t stop the puns lately). I was going to bash Jimmy, but I think I’ll hold off until the book comes out. Stand by for military, economic, international standing, and social comparisons between the Carter Administration and the Bush II Administration. It’s almost too easy.

The worst treatment he's received, the former president said, was from President Clinton.

You’re not the only one brother!

Democrats must "let the deeply religious people and the moderates on social issues like abortion feel that the Democratic party cares about them and understands them," he said, adding that many Democrats, like him, "have some concern about, say, late-term abortions, where you kill a baby as it's emerging from its mother's womb."

Well, he’s definitely crazy, but he may be the one Democrat other than Howard Dean who actually says what he thinks.

Note: Today is the 26th anniversary of the beginning of the Islamist War on America. On Nov. 4, 1979 Islamist students in Tehran overan the U.S. embassy.


Thursday, November 03, 2005

Congress Saves Wives

A bit of good news comes out of Congress for once. Kelo is getting beat back.

House Votes To Block Land Seizure

Contending that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society, the sanctity of the home, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers.

The bill, passed 376-38, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.

Just so you know, 36 of the 38 nays were Democrats. One of those was Nancy Pelosi.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue.

The House bill would cut off for two years all federal economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for property seizures. It also would bar the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.

But here is what I’m really worried about. If they can take your house, how long before they can take your wife!

House With a Bride (No pun intended. That’s actually the name of this site)

Finally I decided to give my best effort towards something whereby that special man could “find me”. eBay offered an opportunity for a “non-binding” transaction, which provides a means to advertise my house (and myself), with neither party being obligated to complete the transaction.

You might be wondering why I have my listing at $600,000.00 plus myself for bid as “priceless”. First, I estimate the value of the house with furnishings at approximately $600,000.00. When I asked my girlfriends their advice on what I (the “bride”) was worth, most responded that I was “priceless”.

OK, but if your house comes with the wife, what’s to stop local municipalities from taking them both?


Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Pack of Liars

As we have been reminded over and over by Democrats and the media, Bush lied about WMD in Iraq so as to steal Iraqi oil and expand US imperialism. The Wilson/Libby bruhaha has made it abundantly clear that Bush was up to no good. So once again, lets take a look at a few of the other liars of the past decade.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." -- Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002

I think that speaks for itself. From time to time, we just need to be reminded of who said what, and when they said it.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Democrats Standing Up for the American People

This is going to get hilarious.

Reactions to the Alito Nomination

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "The nomination of Judge Alito requires an especially long, hard look by the Senate because of what happened last week to Harriet Miers. Conservative activists forced Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them. Now the Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people."

Translation: We will continue to speak for the American people. So what if those same people have not elected us to the White House since 1996 and have tossed us out of the majority in both houses of Congress. We know how they really feel.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "With turmoil engulfing the White House, with no way out of the disastrous and deadly occupation of Iraq, with a worsening federal debt, and with obscenely high profits that continue to pile up for the Administration’s Big Oil friends, catering to an extreme wing of one political party risks removing checks and balances for the majority of Americans. It is unfortunate that the President felt he was in such a weak position that he had to bend to a narrow but vocal faction of his political base. The Supreme Court is the ultimate check and balance in our system that protects the fundamental rights of all Americans."

Translation: Though this has nothing to do with Iraq, the debt, Joe Wilson or Big Oil, I couldn’t help but use the occasion to opine on all of them. The extreme wing of the Republican Party now consists of at least 51 Senators, as that, at a minimum, is how many are going to vote to confirm this nominee absent a filibuster. So the extreme and the majority are now synonymous and we must filibuster because only our minority really speaks for the majority of Americans. The Supreme Court and the filibuster are the only tools we have left to usurp the opinion of the majority, and we risk losing both of them at once.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us. This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."

Translation: It’s just not fair, and besides, he’s a white guy! Oh wait, so am I. Am I? He can’t possibly speak for the American people like we do. Do I sound like Daschle?

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not strength."

Translation: Damned it all! Hiccup. @$&##!

More bad news for Dems:

Key Republican backs Alito, warns Democrats

Sen. Mike DeWine, who met with President Bush’s latest high court choice earlier Tuesday, warned Democrats he would side with GOP leaders to eliminate the judicial filibuster if the minority party uses it against the New Jersey judge.

“It’s hard for me to envision that anyone would think about filibustering this nominee,” said DeWine, an Ohio Republican who sided with 13 other Republicans and Democrats earlier this year to end a Senate stalemate over judicial filibusters.

I feel a filibuster buster coming on. The next two months should be exciting.