The New Democrats
No, no, no no no! Not those New Democrats!
These New Democrats - Yellowcake Democrats.
Getting Incendiary With It At the NAACP
"They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division. Their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon. Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."
- Juilan Bond, Chairman of the NAACP
PittsburghLIVE.com - The ugly truth of black hypocrisy
"They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division. Their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon. Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."
- Juilan Bond, Chairman of the NAACP
PittsburghLIVE.com - The ugly truth of black hypocrisy
Friday, August 01, 2003
QUESTION OF THE DAY:
Do you ever wonder why the Lefties, who railed against the US for having a tepid alliance with Saddam during his war against the Khomenites and never hesitated to assert the spurious notion that we armed Saddam with chemical and biological weapons, never similarly condemn the former Soviet Union for the aid and support given to their former client state, North Korea?
Do you ever wonder why the Lefties, who railed against the US for having a tepid alliance with Saddam during his war against the Khomenites and never hesitated to assert the spurious notion that we armed Saddam with chemical and biological weapons, never similarly condemn the former Soviet Union for the aid and support given to their former client state, North Korea?
Uhhhhhh, The BBC
Heard about those stories from the BBC that purport to demonstrate that Tony Blair lied?
Well, it looks like maybe those reports are, ummm, errrrrrrrrr, well, lies.
Heard about those stories from the BBC that purport to demonstrate that Tony Blair lied?
Well, it looks like maybe those reports are, ummm, errrrrrrrrr, well, lies.
The Stance on Iraq
Oh, dear!
What Liberals used to say about Iraq.
Also: I have updated The Resources with a section for Media Bias (Thanks, TVE).
Oh, dear!
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
What Liberals used to say about Iraq.
Also: I have updated The Resources with a section for Media Bias (Thanks, TVE).
Future Rather Strives to Match the Original's Biased Reporting
It seems John Roberts wants to be just like his "Rather" Biased C.B.S. comrade.*
Roberts reported that he'd asked G.W. a question and that the he'd tried to dodge his penetrating inquiry. "When asked by this reporter why he took the world to war on what critics say was shaky evidence, Mr. Bush promptly changed the subject."
To prove the point, Roberts played a short, 28-word clip that was taken from the 300+ words the president used to reply to his question.
GEORGE W. BUSH: ...people of the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible in a world that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs freedom.
Based on these 28 words where Bush was not talking about weapons of mass destruction, Roberts proclaimed, "It was a clear example of how the White House is shifting the goalposts on Iraq: from weapons as a rationale for war to liberating the Iraqi people to now promoting global security." But that was far from the truth. Contrary to Roberts's pronoucement that the president had "promptly changed the subject," Bush did address his query.
Here is the exchange:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Building sort of on that idea, it's impossible to deny that the world is a better place in the region, certainly a better place without Saddam Hussein. But there's a sense here in this country, and a feeling around the world, that the U.S. has lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or, some people have complained, non-existent evidence. And I'm just wondering, sir, why did you choose to take the world to war in that way?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, look, in my line of work, it's always best to produce results. And I understand that. The -- for a while the questions were, could you conceivably achieve a military victory in Iraq? You know, the dust storms have slowed you down. And I was a patient man because I realized that we would be successful in achieving our military objective.
Now, of course, the question is, will Iraq ever be free, and will it be peaceful? And I believe it will. I remind some of my friends that it took us a while to go from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution. Even our own experiment with democracy didn't happen overnight. I never have expected Thomas Jefferson to emerge in Iraq in a 90-day period.
And so, this is going to take time. And the world will see what I mean when I say, a free Iraq will help peace in the Middle East, and a free Iraq will be important for changing the attitudes of the people in the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible in a world that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs freedom.
Let me finish for a minute, John, please. Just getting warmed up. I'm kind of finding my feet. (Laughter.)
Saddam Hussein was a threat. The United Nations viewed him as a threat. That's why they passed 12 resolutions. Predecessors of mine viewed him as a threat. We gathered a lot of intelligence. That intelligence was good, sound intelligence on which I made a decision.
And in order to placate the critics and the cynics about intentions of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program. I want to remind you, he actually used his weapons program on his own people at one point in time, which is pretty tangible evidence. But I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision.
Hold on for a second. You're through. John.
So Bush did not try to change the subject and avoid charges of "shaky evidence." At the end of the president's explanation, Roberts demanded another question, even though Bush had already given him more than 300 words and addressed his complaint. The president silenced him: "Hold on for a second. You're through."
It must have boiled Roberts blood to be told he was through with his slanted questioning. >:D
Entire news conference
Examples of bias at C.B.S. are abundant at the ratherbiased.com ....check it out!
What liberal media? OH! THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!
* I would have preferred a link to the story that didn't expire. This news item was posted to the website on 2003-08-01 03:02:40 ET for future reference.
The Valiant Elephant
It seems John Roberts wants to be just like his "Rather" Biased C.B.S. comrade.*
Roberts reported that he'd asked G.W. a question and that the he'd tried to dodge his penetrating inquiry. "When asked by this reporter why he took the world to war on what critics say was shaky evidence, Mr. Bush promptly changed the subject."
To prove the point, Roberts played a short, 28-word clip that was taken from the 300+ words the president used to reply to his question.
GEORGE W. BUSH: ...people of the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible in a world that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs freedom.
Based on these 28 words where Bush was not talking about weapons of mass destruction, Roberts proclaimed, "It was a clear example of how the White House is shifting the goalposts on Iraq: from weapons as a rationale for war to liberating the Iraqi people to now promoting global security." But that was far from the truth. Contrary to Roberts's pronoucement that the president had "promptly changed the subject," Bush did address his query.
Here is the exchange:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Building sort of on that idea, it's impossible to deny that the world is a better place in the region, certainly a better place without Saddam Hussein. But there's a sense here in this country, and a feeling around the world, that the U.S. has lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or, some people have complained, non-existent evidence. And I'm just wondering, sir, why did you choose to take the world to war in that way?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, look, in my line of work, it's always best to produce results. And I understand that. The -- for a while the questions were, could you conceivably achieve a military victory in Iraq? You know, the dust storms have slowed you down. And I was a patient man because I realized that we would be successful in achieving our military objective.
Now, of course, the question is, will Iraq ever be free, and will it be peaceful? And I believe it will. I remind some of my friends that it took us a while to go from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution. Even our own experiment with democracy didn't happen overnight. I never have expected Thomas Jefferson to emerge in Iraq in a 90-day period.
And so, this is going to take time. And the world will see what I mean when I say, a free Iraq will help peace in the Middle East, and a free Iraq will be important for changing the attitudes of the people in the Middle East. A free Iraq will show what is possible in a world that needs freedom, in a part of the world that needs freedom.
Let me finish for a minute, John, please. Just getting warmed up. I'm kind of finding my feet. (Laughter.)
Saddam Hussein was a threat. The United Nations viewed him as a threat. That's why they passed 12 resolutions. Predecessors of mine viewed him as a threat. We gathered a lot of intelligence. That intelligence was good, sound intelligence on which I made a decision.
And in order to placate the critics and the cynics about intentions of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program. I want to remind you, he actually used his weapons program on his own people at one point in time, which is pretty tangible evidence. But I'm confident history will prove the decision we made to be the right decision.
Hold on for a second. You're through. John.
So Bush did not try to change the subject and avoid charges of "shaky evidence." At the end of the president's explanation, Roberts demanded another question, even though Bush had already given him more than 300 words and addressed his complaint. The president silenced him: "Hold on for a second. You're through."
It must have boiled Roberts blood to be told he was through with his slanted questioning. >:D
Entire news conference
Examples of bias at C.B.S. are abundant at the ratherbiased.com ....check it out!
What liberal media? OH! THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!
* I would have preferred a link to the story that didn't expire. This news item was posted to the website on 2003-08-01 03:02:40 ET for future reference.
The Valiant Elephant
Hahahahahahahaaa!
The Onion | Gigli Focus Groups Demand New Ending In Which Both Affleck And Lopez Die
Thanks be to Kyle.
The Onion | Gigli Focus Groups Demand New Ending In Which Both Affleck And Lopez Die
Thanks be to Kyle.
So you say you disdain Reuters???
"The Reuters news group and one of its US subsidiaries is being sued for racial discrimination over allegations that a 'white, public school attitude' tolerated and encouraged a racist environment in which black employees were abused and persecuted."
Reuters accused of widespread racism in US class-action lawsuit
via Instapundit
"The Reuters news group and one of its US subsidiaries is being sued for racial discrimination over allegations that a 'white, public school attitude' tolerated and encouraged a racist environment in which black employees were abused and persecuted."
Reuters accused of widespread racism in US class-action lawsuit
via Instapundit
Reading the Minds of the Unemployed
How's this for a spot of sleight of hand?
"...much of decline's July represented the exodus of 470,000 discouraged people who abandoned job searches because they believed no jobs were available."
Yahoo! News - Unemployment Rate Declines 6.2 Percent
How's this for a spot of sleight of hand?
"...much of decline's July represented the exodus of 470,000 discouraged people who abandoned job searches because they believed no jobs were available."
Yahoo! News - Unemployment Rate Declines 6.2 Percent
A clear piece about not only the liberal bias in the media but the general hostility to religion by the mainstream press. For those irrational leftists who insist there is no left-wing bias in the mainstream press, you must answer how it is that the only positive press about religious nuns occurs when they take an extreme left-wing position? Religious nuns who much more quietly eschew abortion are just lucky to escape the label of 'extremist.' It's simply amazing how callous the automatons on the left are. We have reached the point where those who honestly believe they are saving lives are called, "extremists." Talk about spiritual bankruptcy. But I digress....
OpinionJournal - Taste
OpinionJournal - Taste
Tony Blankley makes a great point.
Whose side are you on? - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED: "Democratic Sen. Lieberman has said that Democrats Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt and John Kerry are sending a message that they are 'not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom.' Would it be unfair for a fearless Washington press corps to ask those men, 'Whose side are you on?' "
It really is time for those of us who are serious about maintaining the American way of life to ask those who work assiduously to undermine our efforts in Iraq: "Whose side are you on?"
While none of the Jackals in the Democratic party have demanded that we pull the troops out of Iraq, they would like the American people to believe we are there on false pretenses. If they had their wish, that a substantial majority here believed such things, would it be even conceivable that W could keep the troops there? How could a political leader keep over 150,000 troops in hostile territory taking casualties everyday if 75% of the country believed we were fooled into going there in the first place? The point is that even though the Dems do not have to call for us to retreat from Iraq, the implications of their irresponsible attacks are clear.
Retreating from Iraq would be worse than never ousting Saddam in the first place. I don't believe it is hyperbole to say that if we retreated now the end of the 'American Century' would be near. Our credibility would be worse than the Dems falsely claim it is now. The terrorists would be more empowered than if they had committed a dozen 9/11s. The global madmen of the world would plunge forward their nuclear programs without caution. The serene notion that freedom is slowly winning the global battle against tyranny by proving it is more powerful and secure would evaporate to reveal a deep sense of doom and fatalism.
This is what would happen if most in the party of the Apocalypse won over the American people with their ideas on the war.
It is indeed time to ask Dean, Kucinich, McAuliffe, and Kerry, whose side are you on?
Whose side are you on? - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED: "Democratic Sen. Lieberman has said that Democrats Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt and John Kerry are sending a message that they are 'not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom.' Would it be unfair for a fearless Washington press corps to ask those men, 'Whose side are you on?' "
It really is time for those of us who are serious about maintaining the American way of life to ask those who work assiduously to undermine our efforts in Iraq: "Whose side are you on?"
While none of the Jackals in the Democratic party have demanded that we pull the troops out of Iraq, they would like the American people to believe we are there on false pretenses. If they had their wish, that a substantial majority here believed such things, would it be even conceivable that W could keep the troops there? How could a political leader keep over 150,000 troops in hostile territory taking casualties everyday if 75% of the country believed we were fooled into going there in the first place? The point is that even though the Dems do not have to call for us to retreat from Iraq, the implications of their irresponsible attacks are clear.
Retreating from Iraq would be worse than never ousting Saddam in the first place. I don't believe it is hyperbole to say that if we retreated now the end of the 'American Century' would be near. Our credibility would be worse than the Dems falsely claim it is now. The terrorists would be more empowered than if they had committed a dozen 9/11s. The global madmen of the world would plunge forward their nuclear programs without caution. The serene notion that freedom is slowly winning the global battle against tyranny by proving it is more powerful and secure would evaporate to reveal a deep sense of doom and fatalism.
This is what would happen if most in the party of the Apocalypse won over the American people with their ideas on the war.
It is indeed time to ask Dean, Kucinich, McAuliffe, and Kerry, whose side are you on?
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Is there a drug that can cure Liberals of the "Berlin Wall Syndrome"?
Liberals have always suffered from a mental disorder that I call "Berlin Wall Syndrome". I have named it this, because during all of the years that the Berlin Wall was standing, Liberals never took it as a sign that Communist Europe was a place that you might not want to live, or that Communism was a force worth fighting. The suffering and oppression that victims of Communist tyranny had to live under was so great, that their masters had to erect a wall to keep them imprisoned. Lord only knows how many people risked and/or lost their lives trying to escape to The West, and freedom.
I keep waiting for the day when Liberal revisionist historians will write that the Berlin Wall was built to keep people out, not in. These are people who think that the most evil men of the 20th Century have been:
1. Adolf Hitler
2. Ronald Reagan
3. George W. Bush
Which brings us next to Cuba, and its universal health care system. Liberals have always loved Cuba, and by God, they absolutely love that health care system. For example, during the Elian Gonzales saga, Michael Moore wrote this Marx-inspired piece about how Elian would be so much better off in Cuba, thanks in large part to their wonderful health care system, and how his mother "kidnapped" him so that she could make more money. Liberals just can't get enough of government health care. Jimmy Carter, who has Pathological Dictator Appeasement Disorder, can't get enough of Fidel Castro, period.
I mention this, because last week I saw this story , which proves that the "Berlin Wall Syndrome" is still alive and well amongst Liberals. Some Cuban refugees were so desperate to escape the misery and oppression of Cuba, that they fashioned a makeshift raft out of a '51 Chevy and attempted to float to Miami. Yes, that's right, a '51 Chevy, mounted on a bunch of empty 55-gallon drums. It's amazing how hard people will try to escape from Jimmy Carter's favorite vacation spots.
They came close to getting to America, but they failed, and were turned back. It proves, once again, the desperate measures that Cubans will take to risk their lives and escape to America, and it proves, once again, who the real oppressors of the world are. If people risk their lives time-and-time again so that they can escape from one country to another, it says an awful lot about the governments and lifestyles of those two countries. When we defeat a sadistic, murderous tyrant, we are not the liberators, not the oppressors. Don't expect Liberals to figue that out any time soon.
Liberals have always suffered from a mental disorder that I call "Berlin Wall Syndrome". I have named it this, because during all of the years that the Berlin Wall was standing, Liberals never took it as a sign that Communist Europe was a place that you might not want to live, or that Communism was a force worth fighting. The suffering and oppression that victims of Communist tyranny had to live under was so great, that their masters had to erect a wall to keep them imprisoned. Lord only knows how many people risked and/or lost their lives trying to escape to The West, and freedom.
I keep waiting for the day when Liberal revisionist historians will write that the Berlin Wall was built to keep people out, not in. These are people who think that the most evil men of the 20th Century have been:
1. Adolf Hitler
2. Ronald Reagan
3. George W. Bush
Which brings us next to Cuba, and its universal health care system. Liberals have always loved Cuba, and by God, they absolutely love that health care system. For example, during the Elian Gonzales saga, Michael Moore wrote this Marx-inspired piece about how Elian would be so much better off in Cuba, thanks in large part to their wonderful health care system, and how his mother "kidnapped" him so that she could make more money. Liberals just can't get enough of government health care. Jimmy Carter, who has Pathological Dictator Appeasement Disorder, can't get enough of Fidel Castro, period.
I mention this, because last week I saw this story , which proves that the "Berlin Wall Syndrome" is still alive and well amongst Liberals. Some Cuban refugees were so desperate to escape the misery and oppression of Cuba, that they fashioned a makeshift raft out of a '51 Chevy and attempted to float to Miami. Yes, that's right, a '51 Chevy, mounted on a bunch of empty 55-gallon drums. It's amazing how hard people will try to escape from Jimmy Carter's favorite vacation spots.
They came close to getting to America, but they failed, and were turned back. It proves, once again, the desperate measures that Cubans will take to risk their lives and escape to America, and it proves, once again, who the real oppressors of the world are. If people risk their lives time-and-time again so that they can escape from one country to another, it says an awful lot about the governments and lifestyles of those two countries. When we defeat a sadistic, murderous tyrant, we are not the liberators, not the oppressors. Don't expect Liberals to figue that out any time soon.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Visiting Iraq
I found this at Sgt. Stryker's place.
A note of thanks to those who serve
I found this at Sgt. Stryker's place.
When I told friends about my pilgrimage to Iraq to thank the U.S. troops, reaction was underwhelming at best.
Some were blunt. "Why are you going there?" They could not understand why it was important for me, a 9/11 widow, to express my support for the men and women stationed today in the Gulf.
But the reason seemed clear to me: 200,000 troops have been sent halfway around the world to stabilize the kind of culture that breeds terrorists like those who I believe began World War III on Sept. 11, 2001. Reaction was so politely negative that I began to doubt my role on the first USO/Tribeca Institute tour into newly occupied Iraq where, on average, a soldier a day is killed.
Besides, with Robert De Niro, Kid Rock, Rebecca and John Stamos, Wayne Newton, Gary Sinise, and Lee Ann Womack, who needed me?
Did they really want to hear about my husband, Neil Levin, who went to work as director of the New York Port Authority on Sept.11 and never came home? How would they relate to the two others traveling with me: Ginny Bauer, a New Jersey homemaker and the mother of three who lost her husband, David; and former Marine Jon Vigiano, who lost his only sons, Jon, a firefighter and Joe, a policeman.
A note of thanks to those who serve
Thanks, Lee!
Strongly suggest you email Lee at Right-Thinking from the Left Coast for blogrolling us.
Strongly suggest you email Lee at Right-Thinking from the Left Coast for blogrolling us.
ALLU ACK---AH CRAP!
Courtesy of the Anti-Idiotarian Rott, we find out that some of the turbaned twits had a rude awakening while they were supporting the Mass-Murdering Mustachioed Moron of Mesopotamia.
Some choice quotes....
However, one of the many news features highlighted a Palestinian jihad warrior who went to Iraq for the sake of Allah only to discover, to his shock, the Iraqi people rejected him and were intent on getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
....
A Lebanese volunteer who returned from Iraq said Iraqi officials isolated the volunteers and the Iraqis themselves "hunted them whenever they could, reported the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat of London.
....
One volunteer from Lebanon said he was exposed "to more Iraqi friendly fire than American fire."
"The Iraqi people refused to accept the volunteers among them and betrayed them by leaving them exposed," he said.
....
"Exhausted, tense and with almost no food or drink for several days, I reached a house where I thought I could finally find shelter," he said. After an Iraqi man opened the door, Abu Khaled announced proudly his identity as an Arab jihad fighter. "The man slapped the door in my face and said, 'Go away we do not want you in our country,'" he said.
....
"To his astonishment," the paper said, "he was later told that the Iraqis wanted to get rid of the dictatorship and oppression of Saddam Hussein at any cost." In this context, said the paper, "the Arab volunteers were regarded by them as supporters of the regime, who are cashing dollars, only to prolong the Iraqi suffering."
BWAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA! Ow, my ribs....... I love it when the stupid and ignorant get a dose of reality. Welcome to the real world, you idiots!
Some choice quotes....
However, one of the many news features highlighted a Palestinian jihad warrior who went to Iraq for the sake of Allah only to discover, to his shock, the Iraqi people rejected him and were intent on getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
....
A Lebanese volunteer who returned from Iraq said Iraqi officials isolated the volunteers and the Iraqis themselves "hunted them whenever they could, reported the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat of London.
....
One volunteer from Lebanon said he was exposed "to more Iraqi friendly fire than American fire."
"The Iraqi people refused to accept the volunteers among them and betrayed them by leaving them exposed," he said.
....
"Exhausted, tense and with almost no food or drink for several days, I reached a house where I thought I could finally find shelter," he said. After an Iraqi man opened the door, Abu Khaled announced proudly his identity as an Arab jihad fighter. "The man slapped the door in my face and said, 'Go away we do not want you in our country,'" he said.
....
"To his astonishment," the paper said, "he was later told that the Iraqis wanted to get rid of the dictatorship and oppression of Saddam Hussein at any cost." In this context, said the paper, "the Arab volunteers were regarded by them as supporters of the regime, who are cashing dollars, only to prolong the Iraqi suffering."
BWAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAA! Ow, my ribs....... I love it when the stupid and ignorant get a dose of reality. Welcome to the real world, you idiots!
Realizations about Reuters
Since 9-11, we Americans have learned a lot. One unpleasant truth that I have become aware of is just how Left Wing and anti-American foreign media are. I first got a taste of this when I went to Australia during the Gulf War this year, and the Australian newspapers openly rooted for Iraq. When I was in Sydney, the morning newspaper gleefully posted pictures of American POW's on the front page, and boasted about how they were showing pictures that you couldn't see in America. Later, the BBC laughably reported that the entire Jessica Lynch rescue was a phony incident that was staged for the cameras. People overseas worship Michael Moore, and they actually think that "Bowling for Columbine" is a legitimate documentary. It's impossible for foreigners to get a remotely accurate picture of America and its policies with the deck so stacked against it.
And then there's Reuters, the British news service whose anti-American, Left Wing agenda makes The New York Times look Conservative. Reuters has provided us with Liberal Commandments like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It openly editorializes with its "news", and routinely sticks anti-American digs in places where they don't belong. Here is a little blurb from their Bob Hope obituary yesterday:
During the Vietnam war Hope was criticized for being a "hawk" who supported the conflict. But he said he was really a middle-of-the-road supporter who wanted the war ended and even tried twice to visit Hanoi and arrange prisoner releases. His support of the Vietnam played a major part in eroding his national reputation with many Americans questioning whether he was funny anymore.
Here is another much less subtle example:
Recovery and debris removal work continues at the site of the World Trade Center known as "ground zero" in New York, March 25, 2002. Human rights around the world have been a casualty of the U.S. "war on terror" since September 11. REUTERS/Peter Morgan
This is why America is right to ignore overseas public opinion about her foreign policy. People who receive such unbalanced news cannot possibly make an informed judgement.
Since 9-11, we Americans have learned a lot. One unpleasant truth that I have become aware of is just how Left Wing and anti-American foreign media are. I first got a taste of this when I went to Australia during the Gulf War this year, and the Australian newspapers openly rooted for Iraq. When I was in Sydney, the morning newspaper gleefully posted pictures of American POW's on the front page, and boasted about how they were showing pictures that you couldn't see in America. Later, the BBC laughably reported that the entire Jessica Lynch rescue was a phony incident that was staged for the cameras. People overseas worship Michael Moore, and they actually think that "Bowling for Columbine" is a legitimate documentary. It's impossible for foreigners to get a remotely accurate picture of America and its policies with the deck so stacked against it.
And then there's Reuters, the British news service whose anti-American, Left Wing agenda makes The New York Times look Conservative. Reuters has provided us with Liberal Commandments like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It openly editorializes with its "news", and routinely sticks anti-American digs in places where they don't belong. Here is a little blurb from their Bob Hope obituary yesterday:
During the Vietnam war Hope was criticized for being a "hawk" who supported the conflict. But he said he was really a middle-of-the-road supporter who wanted the war ended and even tried twice to visit Hanoi and arrange prisoner releases. His support of the Vietnam played a major part in eroding his national reputation with many Americans questioning whether he was funny anymore.
Here is another much less subtle example:
Recovery and debris removal work continues at the site of the World Trade Center known as "ground zero" in New York, March 25, 2002. Human rights around the world have been a casualty of the U.S. "war on terror" since September 11. REUTERS/Peter Morgan
This is why America is right to ignore overseas public opinion about her foreign policy. People who receive such unbalanced news cannot possibly make an informed judgement.
NOT THE TIMES AGAIN!
Dowd is a gifted writer with a trenchant wit, though her talent is largely squandered: She seldom expresses a constructive thought. As I put it in an earlier column, she is mainly a standup comic specializing in insults -- Don Rickles with an exceptionally high language quotient.
The disgusting and puerile Maureen Dowd gets her ass torn, but good.
Dowd is a gifted writer with a trenchant wit, though her talent is largely squandered: She seldom expresses a constructive thought. As I put it in an earlier column, she is mainly a standup comic specializing in insults -- Don Rickles with an exceptionally high language quotient.
The disgusting and puerile Maureen Dowd gets her ass torn, but good.
Are Things Going Well in Iraq?
The errrr, "mainstream" media seem to be unable to report anything but the deaths of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens. They seem to always find a way to manage to get some disenchanted Iraqi in front of a camera to bemoan the lack of jobs, water, and electricity. Is the news being slanted?
That was a rhetorical question. Let's try some cheerier stuff:
Paul Wolfowitz says progress is slow, as many Iraqis blanch from thneir newfound freedom the way someone trapped in a cave for ten days will find sunlight painful. Andrew Sullivan says the Left are using "the future [of the Iraqi people] and their lives as pawns in a domestic political squabble". Paul Gigot sounds off: "Most reporting from Iraq suggests that the U.S. "occupation" isn't welcome here. But following Mr. Wolfowitz around the country I found precisely the opposite to be true." Michael Barone lists the accomplishments thus far.
If you read any of these, read this one: U.S. Army Maj. Eric Rydbom in Iraq.
Good stuff, all.
The errrr, "mainstream" media seem to be unable to report anything but the deaths of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens. They seem to always find a way to manage to get some disenchanted Iraqi in front of a camera to bemoan the lack of jobs, water, and electricity. Is the news being slanted?
That was a rhetorical question. Let's try some cheerier stuff:
Paul Wolfowitz says progress is slow, as many Iraqis blanch from thneir newfound freedom the way someone trapped in a cave for ten days will find sunlight painful. Andrew Sullivan says the Left are using "the future [of the Iraqi people] and their lives as pawns in a domestic political squabble". Paul Gigot sounds off: "Most reporting from Iraq suggests that the U.S. "occupation" isn't welcome here. But following Mr. Wolfowitz around the country I found precisely the opposite to be true." Michael Barone lists the accomplishments thus far.
If you read any of these, read this one: U.S. Army Maj. Eric Rydbom in Iraq.
Good stuff, all.
"Thank God my ancestors got out."
And the meaning of it all, for Richburg, the feelings: "Revulsion. Sorrow. Pity. These sentiments began nagging me soon after I first set foot in Africa. It's a gnawing feeling that I was really unable to express out loud until the end, as I was packing my bags to leave, a feeling I felt pained to admit, a sentiment that, when uttered aloud, might come across as callous, even racist. And yet I know exactly this feeling that haunts me; I've just been too embarrassed to say it. So let me drop the charade and put it as simply as I know how: There but for the grace of God go I."
No return? Thank God
And the meaning of it all, for Richburg, the feelings: "Revulsion. Sorrow. Pity. These sentiments began nagging me soon after I first set foot in Africa. It's a gnawing feeling that I was really unable to express out loud until the end, as I was packing my bags to leave, a feeling I felt pained to admit, a sentiment that, when uttered aloud, might come across as callous, even racist. And yet I know exactly this feeling that haunts me; I've just been too embarrassed to say it. So let me drop the charade and put it as simply as I know how: There but for the grace of God go I."
No return? Thank God
Celebrating The Death of Tyrants
Here in America, the killing of Uday and Qusay was seen by many Liberals as a barbaric act.
In Baghdad, there was celebration.
"It was the capital's most raucous celebration since the government fell April 9," reported Brian MacQuarrie, writing from Baghdad for The Boston Globe. "From a high-story balcony at the Palestine Hotel downtown, blasts of machine-gun fire echoed against the tall buildings for more than 30 minutes. Flares rose from the rooftops, as people scampered up to the tops of buildings to join in the celebration."
Two bad dudes
Here in America, the killing of Uday and Qusay was seen by many Liberals as a barbaric act.
In Baghdad, there was celebration.
"It was the capital's most raucous celebration since the government fell April 9," reported Brian MacQuarrie, writing from Baghdad for The Boston Globe. "From a high-story balcony at the Palestine Hotel downtown, blasts of machine-gun fire echoed against the tall buildings for more than 30 minutes. Flares rose from the rooftops, as people scampered up to the tops of buildings to join in the celebration."
Two bad dudes
They're Bored, They're Stupid, They'll Probably Vote For Howie Dean
''I guess it's hard to see the point,'' said David Danzig, 32, who has attended the last three flash mobs in New York. ''For me, that's a reason to keep going and to try and figure out the point. It's art.''
Flash Mobs
''I guess it's hard to see the point,'' said David Danzig, 32, who has attended the last three flash mobs in New York. ''For me, that's a reason to keep going and to try and figure out the point. It's art.''
Flash Mobs
This poll is hardly surprising. What it means is that either the Dems continue to slide left and lose to Bush in 2004 or the party continues to fracture and Nader gets more votes in 2004 than in 2000 leading to another Bush win. The election is a light-year away in political time, and anything can happen, but unless Bush really screws up or there is another 9/11 his reelection seems very likely.
Yahoo! News - Moderate Democrats Warn Party on 2004 Prospects
Yahoo! News - Moderate Democrats Warn Party on 2004 Prospects
Monday, July 28, 2003
For those of you who enjoy forums:
Former Detroit Free Press Politics Forum
This one is populated by a few lucid Conservatives who find themselves in the minority, opposed by some of the most noxious and nefarious nimrods ever to call themselves "Democrat".
Former Detroit Free Press Politics Forum
This one is populated by a few lucid Conservatives who find themselves in the minority, opposed by some of the most noxious and nefarious nimrods ever to call themselves "Democrat".
Pay no attention to that funny glow....
During the blogsurf, I found this little piece over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
I had to read it twice, just to make sure that I was actually seeing it correctly.
"French President Jacques Chirac said decades of controversial nuclear tests in the South Pacific did not give islanders cancer, as hundreds of former test site workers and relatives protested in the capital."
So let me get this clear.... this same asshat is in the group screaming about how the US military's DU rounds are causing cancer in Iraq, but setting off 193 nuclear weapons is just fine and dandy? Am I reading this correctly?
"There are no health consequences, either in the short-term or long-term," he (Chirac) told daily newspaper Les Nouvelles de Tahiti in an interview published on Friday, adding the IAEA experts had concluded detailed radiation surveys were not needed.
I. Am. Almost. Speechless.
I say almost, because my boss just walked in and told me that my cussing was creating a blue cloud that was fogging up the building. This slimy, lying, worthless, hipocritical, spineless, corrupt, two-faced, dictator-felching, money grabbing, communist appeasing, bloviating, walking pile of shit deserves to have every joint in his body broken with a baseball bat. I want to be wielding said bat. This overblown waste of skin has shown himself ONCE AGAIN to be nothing but a runty parasite clinging to the anus of humanity, and in desperate need of a flushing. Are there any depths to which this choad-sucking worm won't lower himself? Just so we're clear on why this oxygen theif needs to be removed from the gene pool in a permanant fashion:
He blocked all US attempts to deal with Iraq in the UN.
Negotiated the sale of a nuclear reactor to Saddam in the 80's.
Sold Iraq weapons and supplies in violation of the UN sanctions he claimed to support.
May have given members of the Baa'thist regiem EU passports during Gulf War 2. (still unsubstantiated)
Presided over one of the most virulent Anti-American french governments in modern times.
I'm not even going to get into the TotalFinaElf scandal, (with ties to Canada's own Cretin) and I won't mention his preference for a genocidal dictator (Mugabe), or the way his country accepts the most repulsive vermin known to man (You raped a 14 year old girl? Welcome to Paris, friend!). I won't get into how 1/3 of the french population was rooting for Saddam. I won't get into the socialist/economic hellhole that this leech on humanity has put france into. I won't mention his treatment of the former Eastern Bloc countries ("They missed a good opportunity to shut up", is it Jaq?) or how this country of surrender monkeys wields it's power in the EU as a club to bend other countries to france's will. I won't mention how this blathering fuckwit calls America an "imperialist power" while maintaining control over it's colonies in the South Pacific.
But I will say this: It's time for someone to put this half-rate country back into it's place as the global whipping boy. France is a joke. A very old, very bad joke. And it needs to be treated as such.
(Yes, I know the name is spelled "Chretien", but "Cretin" fits to a tee. You elected him up there, now you deal with it.)
I had to read it twice, just to make sure that I was actually seeing it correctly.
"French President Jacques Chirac said decades of controversial nuclear tests in the South Pacific did not give islanders cancer, as hundreds of former test site workers and relatives protested in the capital."
So let me get this clear.... this same asshat is in the group screaming about how the US military's DU rounds are causing cancer in Iraq, but setting off 193 nuclear weapons is just fine and dandy? Am I reading this correctly?
"There are no health consequences, either in the short-term or long-term," he (Chirac) told daily newspaper Les Nouvelles de Tahiti in an interview published on Friday, adding the IAEA experts had concluded detailed radiation surveys were not needed.
I. Am. Almost. Speechless.
I say almost, because my boss just walked in and told me that my cussing was creating a blue cloud that was fogging up the building. This slimy, lying, worthless, hipocritical, spineless, corrupt, two-faced, dictator-felching, money grabbing, communist appeasing, bloviating, walking pile of shit deserves to have every joint in his body broken with a baseball bat. I want to be wielding said bat. This overblown waste of skin has shown himself ONCE AGAIN to be nothing but a runty parasite clinging to the anus of humanity, and in desperate need of a flushing. Are there any depths to which this choad-sucking worm won't lower himself? Just so we're clear on why this oxygen theif needs to be removed from the gene pool in a permanant fashion:
He blocked all US attempts to deal with Iraq in the UN.
Negotiated the sale of a nuclear reactor to Saddam in the 80's.
Sold Iraq weapons and supplies in violation of the UN sanctions he claimed to support.
May have given members of the Baa'thist regiem EU passports during Gulf War 2. (still unsubstantiated)
Presided over one of the most virulent Anti-American french governments in modern times.
I'm not even going to get into the TotalFinaElf scandal, (with ties to Canada's own Cretin) and I won't mention his preference for a genocidal dictator (Mugabe), or the way his country accepts the most repulsive vermin known to man (You raped a 14 year old girl? Welcome to Paris, friend!). I won't get into how 1/3 of the french population was rooting for Saddam. I won't get into the socialist/economic hellhole that this leech on humanity has put france into. I won't mention his treatment of the former Eastern Bloc countries ("They missed a good opportunity to shut up", is it Jaq?) or how this country of surrender monkeys wields it's power in the EU as a club to bend other countries to france's will. I won't mention how this blathering fuckwit calls America an "imperialist power" while maintaining control over it's colonies in the South Pacific.
But I will say this: It's time for someone to put this half-rate country back into it's place as the global whipping boy. France is a joke. A very old, very bad joke. And it needs to be treated as such.
(Yes, I know the name is spelled "Chretien", but "Cretin" fits to a tee. You elected him up there, now you deal with it.)
The New York Times: At It Again
The Times sez: "The SEC said most of the money would go to victims of Enron's collapse amid allegations of massive accounting irregularities -- the first in a string of scandals that have tainted corporate America since 2001."
Since 2001?
Enron Fraud started in 1998, of course: http://www.enronfraud.com/
ALL OF THE FRAUD DISCOVERED DURING THIS BUSH ADMINISTRATION BEGAN DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. All of it. Of course, the Times would be loathe to concede that much of Clinton's "Eight Years of Prosperity" was steeped in fraud and deceit.
Clinton, Fraud, and Deceit.
Go figure.
Here's the Times piece: Banks Settle With S.E.C. for Roles in Enron's Fraud
The Times sez: "The SEC said most of the money would go to victims of Enron's collapse amid allegations of massive accounting irregularities -- the first in a string of scandals that have tainted corporate America since 2001."
Since 2001?
Enron Fraud started in 1998, of course: http://www.enronfraud.com/
ALL OF THE FRAUD DISCOVERED DURING THIS BUSH ADMINISTRATION BEGAN DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. All of it. Of course, the Times would be loathe to concede that much of Clinton's "Eight Years of Prosperity" was steeped in fraud and deceit.
Clinton, Fraud, and Deceit.
Go figure.
Here's the Times piece: Banks Settle With S.E.C. for Roles in Enron's Fraud
QUARANTINE THEM!
It is working for SARS...
"The number of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with HIV , the virus that causes AIDS, climbed for the third consecutive year in the United States in 2002, fueling fears that the disease might be poised for a major comeback in this high-risk group."
HIV Cases Climb Among Gay, Bisexual Men in U.S.
It is working for SARS...
"The number of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with HIV , the virus that causes AIDS, climbed for the third consecutive year in the United States in 2002, fueling fears that the disease might be poised for a major comeback in this high-risk group."
HIV Cases Climb Among Gay, Bisexual Men in U.S.
Be careful what you wish for....
"The people of Puerto Rico are facing some unanticipated consequences from a victory they won in 2001.
"For several years, Puerto Rican protesters demanded that the U.S. Navy leave the island of Vieques (search). Groups staged violent protests outside the main gate of 'Camp Garcia,' saying they were sick and tired of the live-fire bombing exercises.
"The violence resulted in the gates of the base being torn down. Several U.S. troops and police dogs were injured in the demonstrations.
"In response to the years of protest, former President Clinton agreed to stop Navy exercises there. Congress and President Bush ratified the deal and live-fire exercises were halted last May. But with its mission muzzled after 60 years, the Navy has decided to pull out of Puerto Rico completely.
That means the largest employer on the island, the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, is now slated for closure that could come as early as October."
FOXNews.com
"The people of Puerto Rico are facing some unanticipated consequences from a victory they won in 2001.
"For several years, Puerto Rican protesters demanded that the U.S. Navy leave the island of Vieques (search). Groups staged violent protests outside the main gate of 'Camp Garcia,' saying they were sick and tired of the live-fire bombing exercises.
"The violence resulted in the gates of the base being torn down. Several U.S. troops and police dogs were injured in the demonstrations.
"In response to the years of protest, former President Clinton agreed to stop Navy exercises there. Congress and President Bush ratified the deal and live-fire exercises were halted last May. But with its mission muzzled after 60 years, the Navy has decided to pull out of Puerto Rico completely.
That means the largest employer on the island, the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, is now slated for closure that could come as early as October."
FOXNews.com
Sunday, July 27, 2003
While on the Daily Blog Rounds
I found something at Obnoxious Fumes, an interesting blog by someone who actually sounds as pissed off as me. It seems that the Dimmy Donk nine haven't been doing their jobs, while they bitch and moan about the President.
The job of an elected official is, in part, to vote on legislation put before them. The job of a political candidate is, in part, to campaign so as to meet as many people as possible. Therein lies the conflict. Several Democrat presidential candidates have missed a significant number of votes on Capitol Hill, including important votes dealing with Iraq, while campaigning for the White House and attacking President George W. Bush for his handling of the Iraq conflict.
(....)
So far it's the same old news. But it gets better, once you see the numbers.
Congressional Quarterly has been tracking votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during this session. There have been 397 votes cast in the 108th session in the House and 290 votes cast in the Senate. So far, Gephardt has missed 356 (90%) House votes.
He missed 90% of the frigging votes?!?!?! And yet he thinks he has the right to bitch about government policy? "I stand against this bill on the strongest terms!" Well then, you voted against it, right? "Um, well, I stand against this bill on the strongest terms!" Right. WHY THE HELL ARE WE PAYING THIS BUTTNUGGET?
Kerry and his fellow White House hopefuls have been pressing hard against the Bush administration on Iraq and the war on terror. Kerry, however, missed votes this year that dealt with Iraq's reconstruction and the Iraqi Intelligence Commission. In total, Kerry has missed 52 percent of the votes cast in the Senate this year
So he had a chance to say something, but didn't do a damn thing! Now he just bitches at the president. Hey, great leadership there, you worthless non-working partisan puke! Maybe just once you could take time out of your busy schedual from raping the unsuspecting taxpayer with a sandpaper condom and DO YOUR FRIGGING JOB!
Most of the others among the Democrat field have also missed votes this year. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has missed 115 votes as of Monday. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who announced his candidacy in May, has missed 72 votes. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) has missed 20 percent of the votes cast this year.
I guess it would be too much to expect these walking wastes of oxygen to actually work for a living, but when they can't even be bothered to cast votes on policies and bills that decide the fate of our nation, they've stopped being just annoying poster children for retro-active abortion and gone to blood-sucking parasites that simply need to be eradicated. Preferably with a 12 guage shotgun.
And who is the only one of the Loony Left Nine to actually show up to work? Dennis Kucinich. Quite possibly the farthest left of the bunch. It really makes you wonder just how the Donks plan on running the country, doesn't it?
The job of an elected official is, in part, to vote on legislation put before them. The job of a political candidate is, in part, to campaign so as to meet as many people as possible. Therein lies the conflict. Several Democrat presidential candidates have missed a significant number of votes on Capitol Hill, including important votes dealing with Iraq, while campaigning for the White House and attacking President George W. Bush for his handling of the Iraq conflict.
(....)
So far it's the same old news. But it gets better, once you see the numbers.
Congressional Quarterly has been tracking votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during this session. There have been 397 votes cast in the 108th session in the House and 290 votes cast in the Senate. So far, Gephardt has missed 356 (90%) House votes.
He missed 90% of the frigging votes?!?!?! And yet he thinks he has the right to bitch about government policy? "I stand against this bill on the strongest terms!" Well then, you voted against it, right? "Um, well, I stand against this bill on the strongest terms!" Right. WHY THE HELL ARE WE PAYING THIS BUTTNUGGET?
Kerry and his fellow White House hopefuls have been pressing hard against the Bush administration on Iraq and the war on terror. Kerry, however, missed votes this year that dealt with Iraq's reconstruction and the Iraqi Intelligence Commission. In total, Kerry has missed 52 percent of the votes cast in the Senate this year
So he had a chance to say something, but didn't do a damn thing! Now he just bitches at the president. Hey, great leadership there, you worthless non-working partisan puke! Maybe just once you could take time out of your busy schedual from raping the unsuspecting taxpayer with a sandpaper condom and DO YOUR FRIGGING JOB!
Most of the others among the Democrat field have also missed votes this year. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has missed 115 votes as of Monday. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who announced his candidacy in May, has missed 72 votes. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) has missed 20 percent of the votes cast this year.
I guess it would be too much to expect these walking wastes of oxygen to actually work for a living, but when they can't even be bothered to cast votes on policies and bills that decide the fate of our nation, they've stopped being just annoying poster children for retro-active abortion and gone to blood-sucking parasites that simply need to be eradicated. Preferably with a 12 guage shotgun.
And who is the only one of the Loony Left Nine to actually show up to work? Dennis Kucinich. Quite possibly the farthest left of the bunch. It really makes you wonder just how the Donks plan on running the country, doesn't it?
Quotes Needed
The folks over at Random Nuclear Strikes have come up with a contest/research project/curiosity that might be of some interest. For years now, we've heard the Left scream about how "hatefull" and "full of rage" we on the Right are. (Well, I am full of rage, but not because of MY politics) Here's what they want. They want a list of documentable quotes, from both the Left and the Right, of derogitory statements. The statements MUST HAVE documentation, otherwise they don't count.
Let's see if we can get this thing going, because I'm interested in the results!
Update: The link is fixed now. My apologies.
Let's see if we can get this thing going, because I'm interested in the results!
Update: The link is fixed now. My apologies.
This is truly sick. It is beyond description. You must read it for yourself to get the unavoidable chilling sense of what would still be going on today if the Dems had their way. What's most amazing is that the mainstream press never ever covers the manifest implications for Iraqis and human decency had the anti-Bush feckless Dems won the Iraq war debate.
Times Online: "He was also involved in barbarous “pyramid” executions in which the victims were split down the middle. Using a special vice to hold the head, a swordsman split victims as they kneeled; another executioner carved the body into two, like a slaughterman in an abattoir. "
Times Online: "He was also involved in barbarous “pyramid” executions in which the victims were split down the middle. Using a special vice to hold the head, a swordsman split victims as they kneeled; another executioner carved the body into two, like a slaughterman in an abattoir. "
This simple sentence explains the phenomenon of the media's biased and bloodthirsty coverage of not only Iraq but just about any conflict where a modern-day democrat's ass is not on the line:
"Because shipwrecks make news, headlines about sinking ships are not a reliable measure of maritime safety. "
I love that sentence. It falls into what I call: WDIST (Why Didn't I Say That?)
Read the whole op-ed, it's pretty good.
"Because shipwrecks make news, headlines about sinking ships are not a reliable measure of maritime safety. "
I love that sentence. It falls into what I call: WDIST (Why Didn't I Say That?)
Read the whole op-ed, it's pretty good.