WMC

Or, Weapons of Mass Confusion. Slimy, worthless Democrats (I know, it's redundant) are now saying that oil company executives lied to them during hearings last week.

On Wednesday, Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., called on Senate leaders to bring back the executives to account for what they say were outright lies.

To which I say, the oil executives should cut off all oil to New Jersey, California and Washington for a week and see what happens.

Spokesmen for Shell and ExxonMobil reached Wednesday stood by their executives' statements last week. A spokeswoman for BP America did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

As usual, the Dimocrats, who know jack shit about economics and oil commodities, want to blame their own abject failures to keep a proper supply of petroleum products on hand in America on the companies who supply those products.

After Hurricane Katrina, oil and gasoline prices skyrocketed, leading to record third-quarter profits by oil companies. The companies represented by the five executives that testified last week collectively reported more than $32.8 billion in third-quarter profits, an increase of more than 55 percent over the previous third-quarter profits. The earnings led senators to hold last week's hearings, where they questioned what executives were doing with their profits and what they were doing to lower gas prices.

It's called "Supply and Demand", Senators. I suggest you do some reading on that subject, since you obviously don't have a clue about it. Oil companies only get a percentage of their profits from gasoline. There's also diesel fuel, heating oil, various types of lubricating oil, and thousands of other petroleum products. But since you're Dimocrats, and therefore have the mental capacity of an alcohol soaked slug, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Lautenberg charged that the executives lied when they said they did not meet with an energy task force organized by Vice President Dick Cheney to develop the nation's energy policy. The Sierra Club and Judicial Watch unsuccessfully sued to open the task force records after they alleged that energy executives and lobbyists were consulted on national policy, but environmental groups and others were left out of negotiations.

Lautenberg cited a Washington Post report Wednesday that references a White House document listing meetings in 2001 between representatives of the oil companies and members of the task force staff. Officials from ExxonMobil, Conoco Ã?— before its merger with Phillips Ã?— Royal Dutch/Shell and Shell Oil and BP met with task force members between February and April 2001, the report says.

Let's see here, if you're trying to get together a task force on energy production, who are you going to get to attend that meeting? Um..... I guess if you're a Dimocrat, you invite fluffy bunnies and librarians. For people who live in the real world, you invite the people and companies responsible for PRODUCING THE FUCKING ENERGY!

And why in the name of all that's holy would an energy task force want to talk to the Sierra Club?

Seriously, you can't write irony that damn good. Can you imagine the transcript of that meeting?

Oil Company: Mr. Vice President, I think our best bet to replacforeigngn oil would be to drill in ANWR.

Sierra Club: YOU WANT TO HARRASS THE CARIBOU AND KILL BABY SEALS, YOU EARTH RAPING BASTARDS!

VP Cheney: Umm....

Last week, under direct questioning from Lautenberg, ExxonMobil President Lee Raymond, Chevron Chairman David O'Reilly and ConocoPhillips chief James Mulva also said they did not take part in the task force.

BP America President and CEO Ross Pillari said: "To be honest ... I wasn't here then."

"But your company was here," Lautenberg pressed.

"Yes," Pillari acknowledged.

OHMYGOD! AN OIL COMPANY WAS THERE! BUSHITLERMCHALIBURTON WANTS TO RULE THE WORLD!

Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister, who took the helm at Shell this year, said he did not know whether his company's representatives attended task force meetings.

Let's be honest, shall we? This wasn't so much a "Let's find out what happened" as it was a "Let's lambast the oil companies and blame them for everything including the death of Christ" moment on Capitol Hill.

On a narrower topic, Boxer called into question statements by Hofmeister about the sale of a Bakersfield, Calif., oil refinery that provides 2 percent of California's gasoline. At the hearing Boxer asked whether Shell had sought to close the refinery in 2004 in order to boost its profit margin.

"Was it because you wanted to control the supply of gasoline and make gasoline even more expensive for my people in California?" Boxer asked.

My response would have been: "I'll answer that question as soon as Sen. Boxer answers whether or not she has stopped molesting little boys. " Seriously, at this point I would have walked out. The very same people who have prevented any new refineries from being built in this country are now trying to blame the oil companies for the high price of gas! That botoxed bitch would better serve her country if she were shoved into a septic tank and left to ferment.

Hofmeister responded, in part: "We shopped the refinery around, unofficially, but did not find buyers. We then decided to close it" because, the refinery was old, small and difficult to work with because it was on multiple plots of land.

Hofmeister did not directly respond to Boxer's accusation of trying to short supply to drive up prices.

Gosh, who woulda thunk that a decades-old refinery would be expensive and hard to maintain? And Boxer's accusation amounts to nothing more than hysterical mud-slinging. Again, I say let's cut California off from the gasoline spigot and watch what happens.

On Wednesday, Boxer revealed she had received two letters in April and May 2004 from the then-company CEO, who said Shell had no plans to sell the plant and was not seeking buyers, although the company would keep the option open.

So let's accuse the person WHO WAS NOT IN CHARGE OF THE COMPANY WHEN THOSE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN of trying to drive prices up! Boxer, you stupid cunt, it would serve you right if every oil company just shut off shippments to California. I'd love to see that state go back into the stone-age. Maybe worthless hags like Boxer and Pelosi would be the first to be ravaged by murdering hordes. Maybe when San Fran and LA have bit the dust, we can turn the supply line back on.

For her part, Cantwell disputed claims by BP America CEO Ross Pillari about oil shipping practices and efforts to manipulate the price of oil by diverting its destination.

In last week's hearing, Cantwell asked the executives if they had diverted fuel away from U.S. markets in order to keep supplies low and prices high. The executives said they do not generally divert supplies, but in some instances oil shipments may have been turned away because there was no way to get them into port.

Cantwell on Wednesday said that the combination of testimony by state attorneys general, a 2001 report in The (Portland) Oregonian about BP America's price hikes and a 2003 RAND Corporation report about oil capacity reduction show that the oil company executives were deliberately misleading the panels.

Cantwell and morons like her are the reason I kicked the dust of Washington State off my feet as quickly as I could. Let's try this on for size, you stupid bint:

You accused an oil company of diverting shipments to keep supply low and demand high. Fine. I guess you have a right to be a moronic fucking pissant. But please, oh please, tell me you remember a little thing called HURRICANE FUCKING KATRINA! You know, that weather that DESTROYED THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS! And HURRICANE FUCKING RITA! You know, that little bit of weather that smacked into other parts of the Gulf Coast?

DO YOU THINK THAT MAYBE THEY HAD AN EFFECT ON WHERE A HUGE DAMN OIL TANKER COULD DOCK, YOU BRAINLESS FUCKING BITCH? DO YOU THINK THAT A SHIP TWO FOOTBALL FIELDS LONG CAN JUST PULL UP ANYWHERE AND UNLOAD MILLIONS OF GALLONS?

It's things like this that remind me just how unfit the Dimocrats are to have any power whatsoever in this country. It's things like this that remind me how LACKING in logic the Dimocrats are. Let's also keep a few things in mind, shall we?

Who has prevented the building of any new oil refineries in this country for the past quarter century?

DEMOCRATS.

Who has blocked any new drilling for oil off our coasts?

DEMOCRATS.

Who has consistantly blocked the exploration for oil in America?

DEMOCRATS.

So, having prevented this country from enlarging it's gas supply, the Dimocrats want to blame the oil companies. Having prevented America from reducing it's dependance on foriegn oil, the Dimocrats now want to blame the companies that bring oil to America. Having prevented this country from finding new supplies of oil, the Dimocrats want to scream at the companies that ensure we have gas.

Liberals really are that worthless and stupid, folks. And the Republicans who go along with the Dimocrats are JUST as stupid and worthless.

Where the hell is that reset button at, anyways?

By the way, I apologise for any spelling mistakes. I know I made a few of them.

DW's post reminded me....

In talking about tax laws, what we have to remember is that at this point in history, we're not dealing with theory anymore. We're dealing with learned lessons and true examples.

Communism fails. That's not a theory, that's a fact, and we know it's a fact because every communist economy has failed. Not just kinda failed, but miserably failed to support the country who tried it. The USSR is dead and gone, folks. Cuba is a stinking rathole. North Korea can't even produce enough food to feed it's citizens. China is long past the communist economy stage, even if the rest of the government is as commie as can be. China couldn't survive with a communist economy.

Socialism lowers the quality of life for people in a country. The "poor" in America have more material possessions and living space than the "middle class" in Europe. A socialist healthcare system drives people away, rather than actually helping them. Remember fwance's 10,000 dead a few summers ago?

Can anyone imagine 10,000 people dying off in a heatwave in America? Hell, we've lost one-fifth of that number in a frigging war, in a place where temps can get up to 140 degrees!

High taxes stifle economic growth. Again, this is not a theory, this is a fact. Look at every period of slow economic growth in America after the Great Depression. It's coupled with high tax rates. The opposite of that, low taxes spurring economic growth is also true. The last three big tax cuts were made by JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. EVERY TIME, once tax rates fell economic growth surged, resulting in increased tax revenues. This isn't theory. This. Is. Fact.

And the article that made me write this post?

Flat taxes work.

In 1994 under Mart Laar Estonia introduced a flat tax of 26 percent. The country prospered with rising revenues and economic growth year upon year. Now Estonia feels confident enough to approve a lower rate of 20 percent.

DW is right, an income tax is a punishment for effort. A progressive tax rate, (higher income earners pay more taxes) is the second plank of the fucking Communist Manifesto. A simple flat tax, where everybody pays the same amount, would skyrocket our economy right off this planet. Even better, make it a flat SALES tax, and nobody could touch us. I wouldn't quite be making love to my wife on top of $100 bills, but our economy would be going so damn fast that opportunities to make money would be everywhere. Why's that, you say?

Because a flat sales tax would not touch investments. A flat sales tax wouldn't punish people for making money. When I was living in Seattle, I was putting in assloads of overtime at my job. At one point, I worked 70-80 hours a week, trying to get some money to put into a savings account. When I got my check, do you know how much more money I had?

A few hundred bucks.

A few hundred bucks for FORTY FUCKING HOURS OF OVERTIME??? That's FORTY HOURS OF TIME AND A HALF! WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO?

One word: Taxes. With all the extra income I made, it pushed me up into the next tax bracket, and a huge chunk of that money was taken by Uncle Sam. Now, is that an incentive to work overtime? Does that make me want to put all those hours in?

Hell no.

Now, lets say that America had a 20% sales tax instead of an income tax. I keep ALL the money I make. All those overtime hours would mean more than $1500 extra in my paycheck. $500 goes into my savings account (which the bank uses for it's own purposes, like handing out loans and whatnot). $500 goes into a mutual fund. And $500 goes towards good cigars, fine scotch, and a dinner out for me and a friend. What do I get taxed on?

I get taxed on the cigars, the scotch, and the dinner out. At this point the Leftists are jumping up and down screeching "SEE! SEE! LOWER TAX REVENUES! EEEEEEEEEEK!" But that's because leftists are, by nature, dumb fucking morons. My money doesn't just sit in my savings account. The bank uses it. That's why there are checking accounts and savings accounts. Savings accounts have a higher rate of interest, because the bank is USING that money to conduct it's own business. Your bank may also offer CD's and retirement accounts. Did you ever wonder why there was a monetary penalty for early withdrawal of those funds? It's because once you put your money into those types of accounts, the bank uses it. THAT is why you're getting a higher rate of interest. To put it rather simply, YOU are giving the bank a loan when you open up a retirement account or a CD. The interest you receive in return is just like the interest you would pay a bank if you got a loan from them.

And what does the bank loan your money out for?

Opening businesses, perhaps. Home loans. Car loans. In short, rather than your money just sitting in a vault somewhere, it is being used to drive the economy forward. And your $100 dollar a month IRA which you might think is chicken feed is being used so that someone can buy a $500,000 home.

Now, factor in that 20% flat rate sales tax. What's 20% of $500,000?

A hell of a lot more than I would have paid in taxes under an income tax.

Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. Wealth is fluid, flexible, able to shrink and grow. If I buy $100 worth of stock, that doesn't remain fixed. It can grow into $150 worth of the very same stock, or it can shrink to $50 worth of stock. That very simple example is what the leftists and statists just don't seem to understand. And thus they play their class warfare games and attempt to tax the shit out of everyone.

In any case, everything I've written here isn't a theory, it's a fact, albeit not stated in the classiest or wisest prose. I never claimed to be a teacher or an economist, but the fact that a simple soldier like me can see what the Dimocrats cannot should give you pause when you hear them discussing ANYTHING about the economy.

I'll probably come back and re-word this later, when I've woken up.

There he goes again ...

"There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. His defiance of the will of the international community to allow UNSCOM to do its job cannot and will not be tolerated."

(Al Gore, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

More Cheney being Cheney

"Thank you very much, and good evening to all of you. I heard about your gathering, and since I work down the street from here I thought I’d drop in and say hello.

Let me thank the good people of Frontiers of Freedom – George Landrith, Kerri Houston, Al Lee – for bringing us all together this evening. I see many good friends in the room, including current and former office holders. It’s a pleasure to see all of you. I’m sorry that we couldn’t be joined by Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, or Jay Rockefeller. They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

Most people would probably agree that the Declaration of Independence has been the most powerful ideological and political force in U.S. history. Nearly all Americans are familiar with the following passage:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

It is my opinion that these words form the very foundation upon which the U.S. as a nation has been built, and that the words quoted above underlie much of what is American, not only politically both in terms of domestic and foreign policy, but economically, socially and culturally as well. Americans believe in those words and what they represent, and that belief is a big part of what makes us Americans.

Let's look closely at these words. First off, the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” indicates that what follows in the remainder of that particular sentence is not opinion but fact that is directly observable. If you take those words, “all men are created equal” literally, then they ring true in a way that is incontestable. We were all born as babies. (I am here making the same assumption as our Supreme Court did in 1973, i.e., created = born. In the U.S., unborn human beings do not have the right to life.) We were all created helpless, dependent, and for all practical purposes equal both mentally and physically – I do not think that at birth one could argue that one baby’s brain is superior to another’s, or if you believe in “souls” that one baby’s soul is more pure and innocent than another’s. Some babies do have female reproductive organs while others have male reproductive organs, but otherwise there are no apparent physical differences. I suppose one could argue the point - a mother’s own baby is the most beautiful baby that ever lived in her eyes - but from my perspective it does appear self-evident that we were all born fundamentally equal.

The point is that the founding fathers in 1776 were referring in this statement to human nature, not as they would have it perfected but as it is. All of us face the same world and, given the liberty to choose between them, we would face the same opportunities. (Infants and children have very limited liberties as their parents make most decisions for them, so here I am talking about adults.) I think that the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were referring to the way things are when they said that “all men are created equal” rather than asserting a right or entitlement. They were not saying that all individuals have a right to become equal to everyone else in any way, but only that we were created equal.

Unfortunately, equality as the basis for a system of government was not spelled out very well in the Declaration of Independence, nor was it well defined in the Constitution, and as a result the words are often used to argue not for equal opportunities for all, but equal outcomes or equal conditions for all, regardless of one’s efforts, abilities, or the choices one has made in life. Many have taken this idea that, “all men are created equal” and endowed with certain rights, and used it to imply that everyone should be equal, financially at least.

I don’t blame the founding fathers of my country for this – the phrasing of the Declaration of Independence regarding equality among mankind was, most likely, necessary to get the southern colonies to sign on since their economic wellbeing relied heavily on slave ownership – but this ambiguity was bad in that it allowed the concept of equal opportunity to become one alleging a right to equal living conditions and even equally valid moral principles, even if one set of principles contradicts another. Everyone wants to believe that he or she is as good as everyone else, but the fact is that some people are better at some things than other people, and the fact is that some belief systems match reality better than others, some decision criteria have consistently better outcomes than others, and I could go on. Egalitarianism has become more and more politically correct whether the framework is equality of moral principles, culture, or social acceptance - the founding fathers must be spinning in their graves!

One thing that both northern and southern colonists did agree on was a profound respect for property rights and hard work. This would be evident to anyone who has studied American history. The colonists of 1776 strongly believed that one should be rewarded for one’s effort and individual achievement. This is important because at that time, “pursuit of happiness” meant being able to reach for one’s dreams, to work hard and lay claim to the fruits of one’s labor. Such a claim is not possible without property rights for individuals. But now the original meaning of these words has eroded.

Why is it that when America is attacked on an ideological level it is almost always couched in terms of an attack on free-market capitalism? The Soviets called us, “capitalist pigs,” for example. Why is the businessman despised even more than the government, even when a government institution is usurping the people’s right to govern themselves? This has been true throughout history. And it’s not just that rich people are hated, but only certain rich people – the productive ones, the corporate executives and business people. Celebrities and athletes, like Britney Spears or Michael Jordan are not despised for their wealth, yet Bill Gates is. (Actually, I don’t like Bill Gates, but it has nothing to do with his being the richest man in the country.) Quite the contrary – celebrities are fawned over. It is their popularity that is the source of their wealth. But the inventor of a new vaccine, or the designer of a more efficient engine, they are often treated as if they do not have a right to be wealthier than the rest of us. Why?

I have lots more questions and I would like you, dear reader, to seriously try to answer them: Why is it always a major “problem” that there is economic inequality? And if the gap between rich and poor is wide, how is it the government’s job to fix the problem? How wide is too wide? Is it necessarily a bad thing for one to have more than another? Is it morally wrong? Is it true that if you extend democracy far enough (i.e., one person = one vote) you arrive at socialism? If we got rid of economic inequality, would we be rid of envy? Is the object of wealth redistribution to be free of want? Is it possible to be free of want? How can it be harmful to anyone if you are just being productive, being rewarded for your achievement, and accumulating wealth? Does the rich person’s income come at the expense of poor people? Is the reason that I cannot afford to buy a Lamborghini that someone else owns one? Yes, there is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S., but so what? Who creates the jobs? Who is better off, the poorest 5% of Americans or the poorest 90% of Africans? Does the fact that you answered, “The poorest 5% of Americans,” to that last question mean that Americans are just lucky and Africans unlucky? If so, what is the source of this luck?

(A side-note, and somebody fact-check me here: I think that the African continent has more natural resources in terms of raw materials, metals, minerals, timber, gas & oil than the rest of the world combined, yet the economy of the entire African continent is comparable in size to California's - not that California's economy is small.)

Poverty is simply defined as a lack of wealth. Poverty stricken nations in Africa have received more than half a trillion dollars in humanitarian aid from the U.S. over the past 40 years, much of it from private charities and churches, yet there is more poverty in Africa now than there was in the 1960s. Simply giving poor people money, while self-sacrificing and merciful, does not by itself eliminate the problem. Nobody has less wealth because somebody else has more.

There is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S.; the N.Y. Times reports this information about once a month and puts it in terms that imply that there is something wrong with our society because of this – that our society is falling apart (it is not, or if it is then that would not be because of disparities in income). A more meaningful and newsworthy statistic, if we are truly concerned with the welfare of the less fortunate, would be the percentage of Americans who are not able to survive given their economic resources. The (low) number of people who live below subsistence level is never reported as “news.”

When I criticize wealth redistribution and social programming, I am not criticizing the giving to people who would not otherwise be able to survive – such redistributions are out of compassion. But the fact is that only a very tiny percentage, maybe 1% of the wealth that is redistributed by our government from one group of people to another actually goes to people who would not otherwise be able to survive. (In this line of reasoning, I am treating Social Security as if it were a pension fund, though an unfunded one, rather than wealth redistribution.) Most wealth redistribution is based, not on compassion, but in my opinion it is based more on envy. And that, if true, is shameful – it is shameful that envy shapes our political culture.

Too harsh? Look at the current situation in Congress. In 2003 tax rates were cut across the board, for rich and poor alike – even those who did not pay taxes prior to 2003 got bigger “refund checks,” they effectively had a more negative tax rate. Everybody got a tax cut. The result we now know was a dramatic increase in tax revenue taken in by the U.S. Treasury, yet the Democrats in Congress have consistently fought against the tax cuts, and even the Republicans in Congress are reluctant to make the 2003 tax cuts permanent. Even knowing that raising tax rates back to pre-2003 levels would decrease the tax revenue collected by the government, these people still want to raise taxes. Why? I think it is because envy shapes our political culture. Because a majority has less and a minority has more, it is in the politicians’ interests to increase taxes on that minority which has more because it seems more fair to the majority group in the voting population, even knowing that total tax revenue would decrease as a direct result – even knowing that the majority group that has less would not be made better off economically. They just ‘feel better’ knowing that the rich and those “evil capitalist-pig” businessmen face higher tax rates. It is not about increasing tax revenue or decreasing the federal budget deficit; it is about reducing economic inequality, even when it benefits no one economically (except politicians).

Politicians are often heard saying that rich people are not paying their fair share. Well, how much is fair? If we take money from the rich by force and give it to the poor, are we increasing the general welfare? Let’s see, if there is a minority of wealthy people and a majority of relatively poor people, then doing this would increase the happiness of the majority of people (assuming that money makes people happy and that there are no other ethical considerations), and the minority of formerly rich people would be made less happy. Voilà – more happy people. Does this make it right? I would argue that this cannot result in an increase in "general welfare" but rather an increase in the welfare of one group at the expense of another. I personally would not want to benefit from the forced sacrifice of another person. I personally find the whole idea repulsive. I’d rather earn my keep. (By the way, Robin Hood did not take from the rich and give to the poor; what he did was he took from the government and gave back to the taxpayers what was rightfully theirs to begin with.)

The U.S. government doesn’t even tax wealth itself anyway. The primary tax paid to the federal government is the income tax, which is not a tax on wealth but a tax on productivity. (There is no federal sales tax, though some states have it. Sales tax would be a tax on consumption.) Income tax is a tax on physical and mental effort. The message our legislature seems to be sending is: “Don’t even bother to try!” Particularly for those whose means of support is a government check, there is a strong disincentive to work, because working and earning money will decrease your government check.

One final point: It seems to me that the primary beneficiaries of wealth redistribution programs are government bureaucrats & politicians. The freedoms of individuals and how they associate with each other (e.g., business organization) have been heavily restricted over this past century, and our increasingly centralized government has been growing in size, scope and in power to change people’s lives. The fact that this trend has continued into the twenty-first century probably explains why current poll ratings for government officials are so low, both for Congress (both parties and both houses) and the President. This trend makes many people uncomfortable, both here and abroad. Yes, Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress and they hold the Presidency, but at this point many republican voters are even angrier with our government than those who voted for democrats. Here’s why: When Republican politicians ran for office, they made campaign promises: drill for oil in ANWR so we can be less dependent on foreign oil, fix Social Security, simplify the tax code, make the 2003 tax cuts permanent, make government smaller, etc. These promises have yet to be filled. Particularly since gaining a majority in the Senate in the 2002 elections, Republican politicians have been acting more and more like Demonrats (i.e., socialist).

Ouch

This is friggin' awsome.

The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie. The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

Davey likey!

Got a sledgehammer?

It's about time to start using them, on the heads of our "Republican" Congresscritters.

When Republicans lose control of the House and Senate in 2006, and possibly the White House in 2008, they may want to ponder the following:

- Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold).
- Kelo vs. New London (property confiscation by the State).
- Free prescription drugs for seniors.
- No new domestic oilfields (eg. ANWR).
- No Social Security reform.
- No income tax reform.
- The abnormal influence of “moderate Republicans” (ie. really Democrats) like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee on the conservative agenda.
- Supporting moderates like Arlen Specter in the Republican primaries, for fear of alienating them. Yeah, that worked well: Specter hasn’t exactly been a stalwart defender of the President’s agenda since, has he?
- Outrageous growth in government spending, in a Congress controlled by Republicans.
- Unchecked illegal immigration, and talk of “amnesty” for illegals.
- Harriet Miers. Did GWB really think that this blatant cronyism would fly? And if this choice was not cronyism, but an attempt to avoid a fight with Democrat senators, did GWB not realize that we conservatives want a showdown with these socialist scum?

Here’s the thing. Almost all of the above give conservatives a simple message: passivity.

The Republicans seem to have forgotten that they are the majority party. It's either that, or they're just as big a group of statists as the Democrats.

Ronald Reagan used his post-1984 political capital to great effect, against a Democrat-controlled Congress. GWB hasn’t even come close to The Gipper in that regard, and that with Republican control of both House and Senate. Quickly: when was the last time you heard GWB say anything remotely like: “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves”, or “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ “?

Just about every single thing GWB and the Republican Party have done in the past two years has been in direct contradiction of those two statements.

Little wonder we conservatives are upset. We’re the ones who brought this President and this Republican Party to the dance: and they’re dancing with the others instead of with us.

The Dimocrats are looking at low poll numbers and gloating "See, I told you America thinks like we do!"

Uh, no we don't. The Republicans are polling low because the so-called Republican congresscritters are acting like FUCKING DIMOCRATS! Maybe if these spineless assholes would actually do WHAT WE ELECTED THEM TO DO, then their poll numbers wouldn't be low at all!

Grrrrrrrr......

Why We Win

Russian Space Boss Says:

80% of Military Satellites Need Replacing

Powerful Presentation - Donks on Saddam's WMD

DEMOCRATS ARE MISLEADING THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW

Hat tip: Curiouser and Curiouser

What Helly said, and more

The White House is mounting a counteroffensive regarding the Left's claims that President Bush lied America into war. It's about time, I dare say. Here are some links:

Gateway Pundit: White House Corrects the New York Times

Setting the Record Straight: Sen. Levin On Iraq

Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence


JustOneMinute: Hardly Seems Fair To Quote Them Now

Captain's Quarters: The Counter-Offensive Turns Into A Team Sport

Michelle Malkin: HERE IS WHY DEMOCRATS THOUGHT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT

Michelle Malkin: BUSH BATTLES BACK, ROUND II

(AP) Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate

I love that one. It reminds me of some woman who once tried to sell that President Nixon "expanded the Vietnam War into Laos". I started talking about how the other team was shelling Americans at Khe San from inside Laos before there was any conflict in Laos. She just couldn't hear it.

Power Line: Bush Lays the Wood to Terrorists, Democrats

Hammer away, Mr. President. Hammer away.

A new blog feature

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

(Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)

What they were saying

Watch the video.

Societal Evolution

This dog used to be French. What does it make you think of now?

The Independent Eulogizes a Terrorist

This is nauseating.

Did Bush Lie?

Google it.

Screaming by the Left to begin in 5..... 4...... 3....

Judge Alito in 1985 said that abortion is not a right. I expect the Left to have a meltdown at any time.

But he's correct. Abortion is not a right.

Notice that I did not mention anything at all about whether or not abortion should be legal. The legality of an action or object has nothing whatsoever to do on it's basis as a right nor not. Quite honestly, we can debate whether or not abortion is legal all you want to, and that is where the debate SHOULD be. But to claim that abortion is a right is rather absurd.

I think I like this Alito fellow.

A reminder

Democrats have been planning to launch an offensive against Republicans for some time, and they don't care who gets hurt when they do it. Isn't it nice when the enemy lays out all his dirty tricks for you to see?

Here's the difference between President Bush and the Dimocrats: Bush truly wants what is best for this country, and operates in good faith towards that goal. Dimocrats could give two shits about this country unless they're in charge, and until they are back in power will do anything and everything to obtain that power, even if it means sacrificing this country and the men and women who protect it.

Love of America vs. love of power. It really is that simple.

Just amazing

How badly does the Has-Been Media want to avoid calling the rioters in fwance "muslim"?

They have now begun calling them "African-American".

This is not a joke.

Your one stop shop

For debunking the Global Warming myth. DANEgerus does his thing and well.... tears the Enviro-loons a new asshole.

Just think about this: As I've mentioned before, back in the 70's, all the experts were saying that the world was cooling, we were going into another ice age, and we were all gonna die. They advocated spreading soot on the polar ice in order to reverse the "imminent" cooling trend.

If we had listened to them then, San Francisco would be under water now.

Hey, wait.........

"Capitalism is at a critical juncture"

A Moonbat and his money are soon parted.

Blood & Gore work out the details.

In the night sky ...

Bright Mars escorts a big Moon tonight. Go see.

Venezuela, Mexico Recall Their Ambassadors

President Bush is no longer alone in thinking Hugo Chavez to be an asshole.

Got a spare hour?

Via Instapundit, Tigerhawk has an updated and original writer approved synopsis of Steven den Beste's stratigic overview of the War on Terror.

It needs to be read by every proponent of the War on Terror, not only to remind us yet again of why we're there, but to counter all the halftruths, mistruths, and outright lies of the Left.

I'm going to save it in a Word document for my own perusal.

Still no cure in sight

Displacement--separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening.

Dr. Sanity takes on the nuances of Dr. Krauthammer's Bush Derangement Syndrome theory.

This is highly amusing and informative, yet frighteningly familiar material.

Live like a turkey ...

... die like a turkey.

Jack Black - Fit Throwing Enviro-Infant vs Evil Oil Guys

Wife and kids are watching The Wizard of Oz on TBS (yes, Tard Turner) and one of the commercials features uber-asshat Jack Black sitting at a big table with a bunch of suits and some little kids. The suits are Big Evil Corporate Oil guys who offer Jack and the kiddies a whole bunch of candy after they bitch about the dreaded leftist boogeyman - GLOBAL WARMING! Jack sees through this "clever ploy" and throws a giant fit waving his hands and papers around in the air, mussing up his hair and yelling "GLOBAL WARMING" several times. That'll show 'em. The commercial then lists a bunch of big rich jet-airplane riding Hollywood types that live in gigantic heated and air conditioned mansions such as Tom hanks who will champion an Earth Day event - Earth to America. Don'tcha just love the implied "wake up"? "Hey America, BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID" say the anointed on behalf of the "earth".

First, when rich leftists build their fantasy world, you have to love the way they portray their enemies: "Here's some candy!" Rather than: "Well first, Jack....you blithering fucking idiot....we'll get the Big Evil Oil guys on Mars on the phone RIGHT NOW and tell them to fix global warming there too. Now apologize to these kids and get the fuck out of our office."

Next, we live on the earth and that is why we focus on EVILOILCOMPANYGLOBALWARMING here, but what about that poor little red planet next door? No love for Mars?

"for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."

It's those DAMNED-SUVs!!!! EVIL OIL COMPANY GUYS!

Next, we offer the rational individual a choice (keep the Mars info in mind):

"the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer."

Now we all know it's the CO2 from fossil fuels (EVILOILHALIBURTONHITLER) that causes the greenhouse effect....WRONG:

95 percent of the greenhouse effect (atmospheric warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth) is due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin.

The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.

Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume, comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect not due to water vapor is much less than 99.4 percent — it's about 72 percent.

Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the greenhouse effect.

But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3 percent is from human activity.

That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that is, 3 percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

OH! BUT BUT BUT We just keep making more CO2!! And the biosphere eats it up! Plants and CO2....go figure:

"emission rates of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel have increased almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has stayed the same or even declined slightly."

Summing up:

Jack Black - Braying toad-like little Jackass out to scare you, not inform you.
You choose: Increased activity of that big ball-o-gas nuclear heater next door making the Earth and Mars warmer, OR that .11 percent of the greenhouse effect that human beings contribute to by putting out EVIL CO2 from OILCOMPANYHITLERBUSHCORPORATESUVs which is absorbed by plants that dig breathing.

What is their solution? Windmills? Solar cells? Hydro-electic? Bicycles? Little tiny cars? Laws against teenagers cruising the loop? Increased taxes to drive down demand that can be handed over to the anointed so they can spend their days pissing it away in pursuit of a perpetual motion machine? It sure as hell isn't nuclear power, or laws against rich asshat leftists flying private jets between big air conditioned mansions across the globe, or drilling and exploration, or anything else that puts affordable fuel in your car so that you can get yourself to work safely and reliably every day. They don't give a crap what the problems of the average American worker are. They're uber-wealthy and "green" and YOU should cower in fear when they throw fits about "GLOBAL WARMING"!!!!

How dumb is the Left?

We have assloads of Leftists all screaming the "BUSH LIED" mantra non-stop. Yet, when faced with what the leaders of the Left said themselves.......

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. 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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"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

"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

These are the very same people who are now chanting "BUSH LIED!" as a matter of faith. They had access to the same information the President did. They looked at the same intel that the President did. They had the same memos, photographs, reports, and access to material that the President did. They voted to authorise the war with Iraq.

And now they want to claim that the President lied.

That makes the Left, and it's supporters, some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth. They are either so mind-boggling incompetant that they should never be allowed in the Capitol Building ever again, or they're lying their asses off for political gain.

I say it's both.

Who Lied ...

... about WMDs? I forget now - who lied?

...AND FURTHERMORE: Matthew Heidt makes a strong case, and has something to say to our Democratic *cough/spit* leaders: "...repeating lies every day to get back at the President that beat you doesn't make them true; it makes you a traitor to this country and disloyal to the troops who are on this day protecting you." He carefully outlines the evidence and comes to the following conclusion:

While the garden variety liberal moonbat hanging on every word coming out of Cindy Sheehan’s piehole may not know that these charges of manipulation intelligence are false, liberals in the Senate are knowingly LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE every day. They are lying to gain an electoral advantage at the expense of the War on Terror and our troops. Paris is burning, Jordan, Britain, Spain, Turkey, Bali, Indonesia have been recently bombed, and the Aussies just rolled up a massive plot by AQ. The stakes in the War on Terror could not be higher and yet the Democrats shamelessly lie every day so that they can destroy the President of the United States. That is UNPATRIOTIC, and those who engage in this scheme are traitors of the lowest form. If you are a liberal reading this post and you followed all of those links and read that material, you now know. If you persist in this campaign of lies, you are UNPATRIOTIC, a TRAITOR, and SCUMBAG as well.

Go and read the whole thing - and check out the frenzied moonbats in his comments, too. I think somebody struck a nerve!

War of the Sexes

Steve H. at Hog On Ice has three posts up about sex, virginity, and women.

Read 'em all.

I think that Steve's main problem is that he lives in Florida. Florida, much like California, expects women to have Barbie-like measurments, blond hair, and skimpy clothing 100% of the time. Sorry folks, but women are not Barbie. The more you expect people to adhere to a plastic-like ideal, then the more plastic they will be. Seattle was filled with plastic people. All of them thinking alike, acting alike, dissenting alike. I've never seen so many people who styled themselves "free thinkers" all doing the same damn things the same way at the same time. Florida and California are much the same, but instead of everyone just ACTING alike, they also have to LOOK the same as well.

When you force a person to conform to an un-natural ideal, don't be surprised when they do conform.

Now, it's not Steve's fault that the women around him are plastic. As he says himself, men are to bear quite a bit of the blame.

I love it when horny men get red in the face and start squawking about how whorish women are "emancipated" and "strong." Suddenly they're FEMINISTS! Yes, when they manipulate a different foolish woman every week, get her in the sack, and then block her phone calls, it's because THEY'RE ALL ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS! They hate it when you threaten their supply of fresh tail.

And BOY are promiscuous men into reproductive rights! It's a WOMAN'S BODY! It's HER CHOICE! Yeah, right, Susan B. Anthony. Preach it. You lying stack of crap. Promiscuous men like abortion because they NEED it. It's cheap, it's quick, and it gets the bitch out of your life OR gets the playing field back in order. But, yeah, you support it because you respect women. You know what the alternative to abortion is? CONDOMS. And using a condom is like having sex with an oven mitt on Mr. Happy.

A promiscuous man will say or do ANYTHING to get sex. Anything. Why do you think men dance? Seventy-five percent of us hate it so much we’d rather go to the mall and hold your purse while you shop for shoes. But we’re out there on the floor anyway, jerking around and trying to look like we mean it. Oh, YEAH! We’re getting DOWN WITH OUR OWN BAD SELVES! You can tell we feel it, because sometimes we close our eyes. That’s SOUL, baby! White CPA by day, JAMES BROWN by night!

And if we’re REALLY smooth, we put lots of “sexy” hip motion into it, to make absolutely sure you understand that we’ve mastered the difficult task of PUSHING IT IN AND PULLING IT OUT. Are you impressed? Yes you are! Don’t lie! You know you want a piece of this! Rico! Suave! Can’t touch this! I’m cracking up as I write this. I have so many hilarious memories of watching other men make fools of themselves.

Men will do anything for sex. Flat out. I've seens guys do more rediculous shit in order to get laid than I care to think about. However, women don't help their own cause when they chase after the sex-crazed losers.

It’s really nice to get comments from women who agree with me when I say virginity is a virtue. In this age of perverted, backward values, a man who shows his respect for women by criticizing promiscuity is somehow seen as a misogynist. On the other hand, men who chase skirts and pay for abortions and treat women like specimen cups…they’re together guys who love and understand you. Go figure. I’m glad there are a few actual ladies left.

Ever heard the phrase "Nice guys finish last"? It's true, it really is. They guy who treats women well gets walked all over, while the careless asshole who just wants a piece of tail has women all over him. I've never figured it out. Maybe one day someone will explain it to me, but I've seen the truth with my own two eyes. I tried being a nice guy for a while. Seriously, stop laughing. I SAID STOP LAUGHING! I tried to be a sensative guy. I stopped objectifying women. I listened to their needs. I figured, "Hey, this is what women say they want. Why not listen to them?"

Yeah, right. You can forget it. I found out what it felt like to be a human doormat. If you ever want to be used up and discarded like yesterday's newspaper, be a "nice guy".

So I stopped being nice. I was an asshole. I showed absolutely no concern for a woman's feelings. I did what I wanted, when I wanted, and if a girl didn't like it, I pushed her out of my life and kept on going.

And I got laid more in a month than I had in a year.

Can someone explain that to me please? I'll admit that it was a time in my life when I thought more with my little head than my big head, but the lessons I learned in that time have stuck with me. When the priorities in my life turned into more than just getting laid, then I stopped playing games all together. You want to drive a modern women crazy? Be indifferent about sex.

A "modern" woman, i.e. one who has been raised with the modern feminist ideals that sex=power, simply cannot figure out a guy who doesn't care if he gets laid or not. By the time I moved to Seattle, I didn't care one whit about sex. Yeah, it was nice, but I expended absolutely NO energy towards obtaining it. I was just enjoying life on my terms. Drove the women there nuts.

That's when I found my then-to-be wife. But that's another story all together.

In any case, go read Steve's posts. Let me know if you agree or not.

Michael Scheuer - Another Lying Democrat

Michael Scheuer on Chris Matthews' blog:

"in the war against al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies."

Ok, Donks! Defend your lying comrade! I'll lay out the facts. Either refute them, or admit that you are nothing more than a pack of liars desperate to regain power and willing to say and do anything in order to accomplish that goal.

1) Scheuer was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit in 1998, when Clinton's Justice Department indicted bin Laden.


2) This is from Count 4 of the indictment:

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

3) In a recent issue of Commentary Magazine, Gabriel Schoenfeld wrote a devastating critique of the CIA titled "What Became of the CIA?" In the March edition of the magazine. Scheuer responded by writing a letter to the editor that was one of several published in the June edition. In his list of self-proclaimed accomplishments, Scheuer claimed that he and his team “supplied all of the information used in the federal indictment of Osama bin Laden.”


Also from the Powerline article, we learn:

In the 9-11 Commission Report “Mike” is referenced quite a bit. We now know that “Mike” is Michael Scheuer. Did he have any influence on the language in the report which said there was no “operational” relationship? If so, one of the 9-11 Commission’s sources has major credibility problems.

Democrats are LIARS, THEY LIE AND LIE AND LIE AND LIE and the media REFUSES to hold them accountable. And then they crow about how much damage their lies have done to the President of the United States.

ENOUGH!!!

"Toronto gripped by US gun violence"

In how many ways does it suck to be a neighbor of the United States?



At least one, it appears, but it's worth mentioning SIX TIMES (per AFP):

TORONTO, Canada (AFP) - Residents of Canada's biggest city are living in fear of increasing gun violence and blame their neighbour, the United States, for exporting their gun culture and weapons north, officials told AFP.
.
.
.
"There is fear of retaliation if they speak to police in some sectors of the community," Pilkington said, blaming mostly gangs, some with international links, fighting over turf and drug sales and using guns imported from the United States, for the violence.
.
.
.
The magazine blamed the rise in part on illegal arms from the neighboring United States.
.
.
.
In the past five years, Canadian authorities seized 5,400 weapons, mostly handguns. According to Maclean's, this represented a mere fraction of the guns that enter Canada from the United States.
.
.
.
"It's totally unacceptable. We don't want that kind of violence in our city," Toronto Mayor David Miller told AFP, echoing local residents who expressed concerns that America's gun culture is creeping north across the Canada-US border.
.
.
.
Last month, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew pressed US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to take action to stop the flow of guns north into Canada.

I like that last part, where we protect their borders. Gives a whole new meaning to "we stand on guard for thee", eh?

Toronto gripped by US gun violence - Yahoo! News

"Toronto gripped by US gun violence"

In how many ways does it suck to be a neighbor of the United States?



At least one, it appears, but it's worth mentioning SIX TIMES (per AFP):

TORONTO, Canada (AFP) - Residents of Canada's biggest city are living in fear of increasing gun violence and blame their neighbour, the United States, for exporting their gun culture and weapons north, officials told AFP.
.
.
.
"There is fear of retaliation if they speak to police in some sectors of the community," Pilkington said, blaming mostly gangs, some with international links, fighting over turf and drug sales and using guns imported from the United States, for the violence.
.
.
.
The magazine blamed the rise in part on illegal arms from the neighboring United States.
.
.
.
In the past five years, Canadian authorities seized 5,400 weapons, mostly handguns. According to Maclean's, this represented a mere fraction of the guns that enter Canada from the United States.
.
.
.
"It's totally unacceptable. We don't want that kind of violence in our city," Toronto Mayor David Miller told AFP, echoing local residents who expressed concerns that America's gun culture is creeping north across the Canada-US border.
.
.
.
Last month, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew pressed US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to take action to stop the flow of guns north into Canada.

I like that last part, where we protect their borders. Gives a whole new meaning to "we stand on guard for thee", eh?

Toronto gripped by US gun violence - Yahoo! News

Outrage of the Day

Peace = Surrender. That's the message from 'peace activists' who have planted 2,000 white flags on veterans' graves.

The display of 2,000 white flags, meant to remember U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, was set up at Veterans Memorial Park cemetery Oct. 30 under a permit issued to Waterville Area Bridges for Peace and Justice.

And today, on Veterans' Day of all days, when 10 people went to the cemetery and began removing the flags they were arrested. If I were within driving distance of Waterville, Maine, I'd be spending tonight in jail, too.

My favorite words for Veterans' Day

Remarks on Departure From Hickam Air Force Base in Honolulu, Hawaii

April 24, 1984

I have to take a moment and say to you here, in this particular place, what it means to me to be here with you men and women in uniform and with all of those who are not in uniform but who also serve; those who know some of the privations and hardships, the inconveniences -- your families, your wives, your children -- they, too, serve.

There are some among us who say that the military is one of the causes of war. I'm sure they're sincere in their belief, but they're dead wrong to believe that the uniform, that the military could be among the causes of war is like believing that the police department is responsible for crime. You are the peacemakers. The better you perform, the less likely it is that we will ever see combat or hostilities directed against our nation.

You know, many years ago in one of the four wars in my lifetime, an admiral stood on the bridge of a carrier watching the planes take off and out into the darkness, bent on a night combat mission, and then found himself asking with no one there to answer, just himself, to hear his own voice, he said, ``Where do we find such men?'' A decade or so ago, after spending an evening with the first returning POW's from Vietnam, Nancy and I found ourselves -- as the evening ended, having heard the stories of horror and brutality by men who had been confined as prisoners of war longer than any other fighting men in America's history -- found ourselves asking that same question, ``Where do we find such men?'' We find them where we've always found them when we need them. We find them where we found you -- on the main streets and the farms of America.

You are the product of the freest, the fairest, the most generous and humane society that has ever been created by man. God bless you all, and thank you. Thank you very much.

Note: President Reagan spoke at 10:50 a.m. at the base. Following the departure ceremony, the President boarded Air Force One for his trip to Guam.


To all the Veterans and their families who may read this: Thank you very much for being Such Men when we needed you.

Unintended Consequences

We all know about this--unforeseen circumstances throwing a wrench in the works. I've come to realize that most consequences can never be anticipated. Significant acts radiate far into an unknowable future. But we don't need to throw up our hands and surrender to fate. If we build things that are durable, that inform and amuse us, and that inspire others to do their best, we can expect a preponderance of good consequences.

So let's talk about this thing. It's called The Star Spangled Spanner because it was created by an Australian. Beautiful, isn't it? I'd buy it myself if the price were about $9000 lower. Everybody knows that incorporating elements of the American Flag makes everything more attractive. I like the solidity of the sculpture. It speaks about the strength of Americans--like we're giants among lesser people of the Earth. And it tells us about how we are willing to put that strength to work, building things so great, they astonish humanity. That works for me.



Just one problem. The artist is an anti-American Leftist. (Pardon the redundancy.) His demented intent was to boldly show America as the spanner thrown into the works of an otherwise "peaceful and prosperous World." Sadly for him, that's a wrench not a spanner, and it's been tossed into the diabolical machinations of the United Nations.

Maybe someone will spray paint this work of art with the tags of Bolton and Volker. That is the type of unintended consequence Lefties can always expect from the Last Best Hope of the World.

Veteran's Day

Here is a big "Thank You" to every person who has seen combat in defense of our great country.

And just as important, a "Thank You" to every service member who didn't see combat, but stood their watch on the wall nontheless.

If you know a vet, thank them today. If you don't know a vet, go down to the VA hospital or VFW and shake someone's hand. All of us today are living in the greatest country in the world thanks to the blood, sweat and tears of the men and women who wore the uniform years, decades, or centuries ago.

Digging Deep

Is this the face of Nicholas Copurnicus? Polish archaeologists and forensic artists think so.

Got envelopes?

Raining on the Democrats Election '05 Party....Again

Pew Research June 18, 2001

Bush Job Approval
50% - Approve
33% - Disapprove
17% - Undecided

2005 vs 2001 Election Results in VA and NJ:

Virginia
2005 Results:
Kaine (D) 51.74%
Kilgore (R) 46.01%
Potts (I) 2.17%

2001 Results:
Warner (D) 52.16%
Early (R) 47.03%
Redpath (L) 1.57%.

New Jersey
2005 Results:
Corzine (D) 54%
Forrester (R) 43%

2001 Results:
McGreevey (D) 56.2%
Schundler (R) 41.9%

Democrats - Reporting the news they want to hear, rather than the news as it is.

To Hell with the Democrats - It was worth it!

Gratitude from Kurdish Iraq.

Democrats consistently degrade the gift we gave the Iraqis and cry for the people who kill individuals like the ones seen in those commercials.

Shame. Democrats have none of it.

Andrea Mitchell - LIAR

NBC's Andrea Mapes....ooops...Mitchell was asked by host Alan Murray in an Oct. 3, 2003 interview (roughly about the same time Plame was posing for her "ironic" and "humorous" Vanity Fair photo shoot her husband swore she'd "chop her right arm off before partaking in because she "still worked at the CIA" and "had obligations to her employer") on CNBC's "Captial Report:

"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

Mitchell replied: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

But now that this lying Democrat sleaze bag press operative thinks her previous admission would soil the Democrat Media's case against Libby and Eeeeeeevil Bush, she's LYING HER ASS OFF in response to softball questions from Don Imus:

IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL: Well, that was out of context. (REFER TO THE QUESTION SHE WAS ASKED!)

IMUS: Oh, it was?

MITCHELL: It was out of context.

IMUS: Isn't that always the case?

MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know (love the stammering, Andrea) before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."

And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you. The fact is what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy that I was tasking my producers and my researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy.

I did not know. We only knew because of an article in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, and it was followed by Nicholas Kristof, that someone had known in that period.

IMUS: So you didn't say it was "widely known" that his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL: I - I - I (stammering again, Andrea) said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.

IMUS: Did you mention that Wilson or his wife worked at the CIA?

MITCHELL: Yes.

IMUS: Did you mention . . .

MITCHELL: It was in a long interview on CNBC.

IMUS: No, I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say that it was either widely known, not known, or whether it was speculated that his wife worked at the CIA.

MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote (we have the exact quote, Andrea, you lying Democrat bitch, but PLEASE LIE SOME MORE) - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But (BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT) I was talking about . . .

IMUS: OK, so you did say that. It took me a minute to get that out of you.

MITCHELL: No, (lying bitch) I was talking about after the Novak column. (no you weren't and neither was Alan Murray refering to AFTER the Novak column because, you brain dead lying Democrat BITCH, AFTER NOVAK's COLUMN EVERY FUCKING BODY KNEW IT! The question was about how widely known it was BEFORE Novak's column) And that was not clear. I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview. (Taking her cues from Joe Liar Wilson)

IMUS: When was the Novak column?

MITHCELL: The Novak column was on the 14th, July 12th or 14th of '03.

IMUS: So this was well after that?

MITCHELL: Well after that. That's why the confusion. (not it isn't) I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column and there was some confusion in that one interview. (no you weren't. Further proof, lying bitch? SURE! You referred to "those who were trying to figure out who the special envoy was". THAT Joe Liar Wilson was the special envoy WAS KNOWN LONG BEFORE NOVAK's COLUMN! So there is no fucking way you were referring to "after" the column. That is now 2 seperate frames of reference you provided in your initial statement that put the lie to your desperate attempt to rewrite history with Imus!!)

IMUS: Who'd you find it out from? Russert?

MITCHELL: I found it out from Novak.

IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying?

MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert doesn't lie. (Just like you, right liar?)

IMUS: Which would break little Wyatt Imus's heart, by the way.

MITCHELL: Well, which has not happened. But this is (unintelligible). We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view. And . . .

(OH!?! I've addressed EVERYTHING you said in the context you said it! You are a lying partisan sack of shit.)

IMUS: Bingo.

MITCHELL: Bingo.

Bingo! Busted, bitch.

Speaking of blunt force head trauma ...

No Drilling in ANWAR

And no new drilling along the coasts, either.

What is the one word that encapsulates incompetance, capitulation, and lack of a spine?

G O P!

Semper Fi

Today is the Marine Corps 230th Birthday.

That's two-hundred and thirty years of kicking ass and taking names. I'd say they have a pretty good track record, wouldn't you?

Proof that the Left still doesn't get it.

We all know about the SeeBS memos, right? Forgeries. PROVEN forgeries, and SeeBS still ran with them in a story.

Which resulted in them getting their asses handed to them on a silver platter, and deservedly so.

Mary Mapes, the lying jackal who came up with the story, has written a book and is making the TV circuit trying to push it on anyone with an IQ below room temperature.

I can't top Misha's fisking, so go thou now and peruse.

All I have to say is:

Ow.

Langley's systemic sloppiness--the flimsiness of cover is but the tip of the iceberg of incompetence--has repeatedly destroyed agent networks and provoked "flaps" with some of our closest allies. A serious CIA would never have allowed Mr. Wilson to go on such an odd, short "fact finding" mission. It never would have allowed Ms. Plame potentially to expose herself by recommending such an overt mission for her mate, not known for his subtlety and discretion. With a CIA where cover really mattered, Mr. Libby would not now be indicted. But that's not what we have in the real world. We have an American left that hates George W. Bush and his vice president so much that they have become willing dupes in a surreal operational stage-play. You have to give credit to Langley: Overseas it may be incompetent; but in Washington, it can still con many into giving it the respect and consideration it doesn't deserve.

I'll say it again: Ow.

Wondering if this guy is available for seminars

TREASURER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Peter Costello said radical Muslims would not be allowed to turn Australia into an Islamic state. Mr Costello said Muslims who wanted to live in a country governed by sharia law, which imposes strict limitations on freedoms, would be better off living elsewhere.



"If you are somebody who wants to live in an Islamic state governed by sharia law you are not going to be happy in Australia, because Australia is not an Islamic state, will never be an Islamic state and will never be governed by sharia law," Mr Costello said.

"We are a secular state under our constitution, our law is made by parliament elected in democratic elections.

"We do not derive our laws from religious instruction."

Mr Costello said anyone who was alienated by Australia's form of government, judicial system and civil rights and wanted something else "might be better advised to find the 'something else' somewhere else".

"There are Islamic states around the world that practise sharia law and if that's your object you may well be much more at home in such a country than trying to turn Australia into one of those countries, because it's not going to happen," he said.

I am so ashamed of myself

Election 2005 - Status Quo Maintained

With the exception of a couple of unreported Republican gains in Virginia.

To sum up: Incumbent party victories in two states [VA* and NJ] and one city [New York, NY]. A Republican state [OH] rejected Democratic initiatives. A Democratic state [CA] rejected Republican initiatives.

Don't let the Democratic spin doctors fool you. Election Day 2005 has nothing to tell us about where the electorate is going in the wake of Bush's terrible year.

I'll add the following to Mr. Podhertz analysis:

In Ohio, a Republican lead initiative won favor in addition to the Donk lead initiatives collective failure.

*VA Lt Gov - Vacated by now Gov Elect Kaine - Changed hands and went Republican as did VA House District 6.

So the VA Gov is still a D but there are 2 more Rs in the VA government than there were yesterday.

Today in Race Relations

Donovan McNabb's father says Terrell Owens' criticisms of his son sting because Owens is black.

"Within the last month, we've seen a man who is trying to accomplish something very difficult, to be an African-American quarterback at the top of his game, attacked by someone of his own race," McNabb said. "That's what really amazes me. It's like another black-on-black crime. Those are hurts that create scars that take a long time to heal."

Odd. I thought it was the interracial hate crimes that did the most damage.

Of course, this is the Philadelphia Daily News, so one accepts the authenticity of the quote at one's one peril.

Meanwhile:

The way Notre Dame went about replacing Tyrone Willingham had a greater affect on its minority hiring report card grade than its decision to fire the school's first black football coach.

The result: The Fighting Irish received a B from the Black Coaches Association.

"We look at the documented facts, and the firing is related to the overall picture," said Keith Harrison, who conducted the study for the BCA. "But the grade is what they earned."

Hey, who can argue with that?

FOXSports.com

It's all very strange to me.

Excerpting more:

Indiana State, which hired West in January, received a C. It was given an F for its search committee, a grade that Harrison said meant no minorities were included on the committee.

So it's important that impactful committees be skin-color-diverse, hunh?

Whatever, but look at the people who serve on the BCA Board of Directors.

Not very diverse.

Coup de grace, now:

Keith has repeatedly urged recruits to use the report card as a gauge for school choices, and said the BCA would consider future legal action against universities if there is not significant improvement in next year's report.

Say no more.

Read it and vomit

Because reading about the Democrat's duplicity and sheer naked lies, that's what you want to do.

Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.

What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Read the whole thing, especially the quotes of Democrat Party leaders:

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

"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."

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

"Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

"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."

Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that"

"without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again."

The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was"

"hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation."

So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that

"[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."

Norman Podhoretz then goes on to rip Joe "Liar" Wilson a new asshole. Really, read the whole thing.

Copy it, print it out, and leave it lying around your local college campus.

Print it out and leave it in your local coffee house.

Hell, print it out, put it on a shirt and wear it, because it NEEDS TO BE SAID! Over and over and over and over and over again! We cannot let the lies and smears of the Left continue, and we cannot let them continue to let them state their own drug-fueled fantasy as fact.

They've taken after Stalin in every way, down to the "re-education" of their supporters.

I feel better now

French Surrender Comes into Doubt

During late Tuesday through early Wednesday, youths torched 617 vehicles, down from 1,173 a night earlier, national police spokesman Patrick Hamon said. Incidents were reported in 116 towns, down from 226.

I think they're running out of cars. Or bottles. Or both.

Pouring gasoline on the fire

To this unnuanced American viewer, French occupation forces appear to be in a quagmire.

Science Succedes!

SECRET OF FEMALE HUMOR REVEALED !!!

I'm tired...

...and hence find very little worth taking the time to blog about. It's not like I usually crank out arduously-crafted and meticulously-honed posts routinely. I'm too tired to even surf and linkdump.

I have just this:

The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office announced today that it has charged a 14-year-old boy with murder in Saturday's fatal shooting of his friend.
.
.
.
Bellinger was allegedly showing a loaded handgun to Chestnut when the younger boy was shot in the head.

Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/08/2005

Murder, hunh?

What is "black"?

I was over at Cold Fury when I saw this:

Smart black students being accused of "acting too white" is an issue Triangle educators are debating at a youth and race conference this week.

Students say the stigma is keeping some of their peers from doing well in school.

Tenth grader Anais Guzman is on the honor roll. She says some of her peers see the achievement as acting too "white".

"They can get high grades but they don't want to because they'll be considered as acting white, so they put white people down,” Guzman said.

So let me get this straight - in order to be "black", you have to be a dumbshit. If you're smart or use your god-given brain, then you're not really "black".

"Some people might say some people are acting white, or acting black or different things like that so I see it often,” said tenth garder Vance Cherebin.

College freshman Erin Burns added, “Black students that are doing well in the classroom or hang out with white friends or have good grammar, talk properly or don't use slang, they get accused of being white a lot."

Mike has his comments on it, including this bit:

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with “pointing out the obvious.”

“There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names,” said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

“Party trumps race, especially on the national level,” she said. “If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It’s democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy.

So, if you're smart, you're not really "black". And if you're a conservative, you're not really "black".

Which means by their own standards, Democrats are dumbshits.

All joking aside, there have to be some White Power fuckheads just laughing their ass off. In all their twisted dreams of re-segregating this country, they couldn't do half as good a job as the Democrats themselves have done.

It's sickening, quite honestly. There truly IS a conspiracy to keep people poor and stupid..... and it's being run by the Democrats. Right now I don't have the words to explain just how foul and disgusting these attacks by blacks and Democrats are.

I really don't have the words.

A picture is worth a thousand words

So here are thousands upon thousands of eloquent statements regarding the whacked-out nutjobs of the Left.

When I call the Left communists, I ain't kidding.

I am SO glad I left Seattle.

Doesn't this just warm your heart? “Kill people and rape babies.” That’s what one 12th grade protester thought people in the military do.

The KVI producer asked one girl if the military couldn’t offer good opportunities for some students who want to enlist. This 18-year-old girl responded, “Well yea, if you want to kill people and rape babies!” Excuse me?!! If this girl thinks that all servicemen do is kill people, and if she thinks they actually rape babies, then her teachers and parents should be arrested and charged with educational neglect!

But remember, they "support the troops" and don't you dare say otherwise! DON'T YOU QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM!

Yeah, right.

More Seattle idiocy.

That's about all I can stomach today. Go check out the links for yourself and see if you're as disgusted as I am.

RFSP

Holy cow, THIS is a rant!

It's... it's.... it's a thing of Beauty!

I have questions

Did we really need to invent a more dangerous variation of Field Hockey?

Unequal opportunities spur riots

From our friends at the AP:

The violence has escalated from an outburst of anger in suburban Paris housing projects into a nationwide show of disdain for French authority from youths and minorities, most French-born children of Arab and black Africans angered by years of unequal opportunities.

French President Vows to Restore Order

"Unequal opportunities"

We've heard that before. The thing is, in France, it's actually accurate. Immigrants on public assistance in France must live where the government mandates. It's not like here in America where poor Mexicans in California can pack up, drive for a couple days, and be glad of hard work in New Orleans. In America, if you find Albany to be devoid of jobs, you can move to Tucson and try to find something there.

In France, you're trapped in a desitute neighborhood, confined to quarters, in essence. I think maybe I'd pick up a petrol bomb myself in such circumstances.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn adds:

"If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle."

The whole piece is worth reading.

I take positively no joy whatsoever at what is happening to France, as I know it will mestastasize into pan-European "unrest" in due time. I think that's bad for everyone.

At the same time, it's now clear that the Surrender Monkey assessment of France was all wrong - they declined to participate in Iraq NOT because they were cowardly but because they were doing big business there, and because what we are seeing now would have been ignited immediately had they help invade Iraq. I don't really blame them for either; what entralls me is how there are still Leftists in America who think Chirac's objections were steeped in adherence to international law or some other high-minded humanistic ideal.

Don't tell my dad....

...about this fuckwit. I don't want to be bailing my father out of jail any time soon. And if my dad found out about this day-old jizzstain, that's exactly what I'd be doing.

For more than a year, former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey has been telling anybody who will listen about the atrocities that he and other Marines committed in Iraq.

In scores of newspaper, magazine and broadcast stories, at a Canadian immigration hearing and in numerous speeches across the country, Massey has told how he and other Marines recklessly, sometimes intentionally, killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Among his claims:

Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.

Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.

A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.

Massey's claims have gained him celebrity. Last month, Massey's book, "Kill, Kill, Kill," was released in France. His allegations have been reported in nationwide publications such as Vanity Fair and USA Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports. Earlier this year, he joined the anti-war bus tour of Cindy Sheehan, and he's spoken at Cornell and Syracuse universities, among others.

News organizations worldwide published or broadcast Massey's claims without any corroboration and in most cases without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth.

He wasn't.

Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.

It just gets better and better.

In another story that Massey often tells, he and other Marines in his platoon fired upon a group of innocent demonstrators shortly after they arrived in Baghdad. Massey said that the demonstrators were protesting the Marines' presence, holding signs in English and Arabic.

The Marines heard a shot, Massey said, and in panic began firing into the demonstrators.

In some versions, the demonstrators were near a checkpoint. In other versions, they were outside a prison on a road about 200 meters away, or anywhere from 5 to 15 miles from Baghdad International Airport.

Massey told a version of the story before an immigration hearing in December in support of an American soldier trying to flee to Canada. Then, Massey said he and the Marines killed four of the demonstrators. In other interviews, he said the Marines shot at 10 demonstrators and killed all of them but one, whom he let crawl away.

In interviews with more than a dozen Marines and journalists who were in the military complex that morning, none can recall such an incident.

They say that during the first week to two weeks inside Baghdad, they never saw any protesters.

Ron Haviv, an independent photographer embedded with the unit, said he never saw any protesters or demonstrators, with or without signs.

"Basically, the only people who were on the streets in the first week were there to loot," said Haviv, who has covered conflicts across the globe, including the first Gulf War, Haiti, Yugoslavia and Russia.

Lt. Kevin Shea, the commander of Massey's platoon, recalls that on the morning after they arrived, about 20 Iraqis from a nearby community did approach the Marines to ask what was happening. Shea said that he had explained what the Marines were doing and that the Iraqis had gone back to their homes.

(emphasis mine)

Read the whole thing. My father, who retired from the Marine Corps after twenty-two years, would rip this gutless little fuckstick in half and then chew his bones to dust. This is the worst stereotypes of the Left coming alive in one person. A liar, a fraud. A backstabbing snake who discards the truth for his own gain. A worthless little cretin with make-believe stories attempting to bring down the men he served with. A spineless tool who hurled accusation after baseless accusation at the good men from his former unit, and if he managed to smear the US Marine Corps as bloodthirsty killers without souls, then it was so much the better for the Left!

He makes me sick. Dear God in heaven, if one of my former platoon mates made up shit like this, I'd hunt him down and make sure that nobody would ever see his slimy carcass again.

But I can't be surprised at the Left's attempts to besmirch and corrode the reputation of the US military. They've been doing it for years. And as Instapundit says: After Micah Wright, I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

I would give anything to be a fly on the wall when this pathetic slimeball meets up with the Marines he slandered and libeled.

City of Lights

Wake Up and Smell the Molotov Cocktails







This is what Jihad is to look like in the 21st century--not sword swishing horsemen galloping across desert sands, but hooded thugs with fire bombs and cell phones in the night.

How long can Chirac hold out, before surrendering? What will we do when the Jihadi capture French nuclear weapons? All of a sudden, keeping 100,000 US troops in Spain and Germany starts to make sense.

Silly me ...

Pirates Attack Cruise Ship



... I had never considered vacationing off the coast of Somalia. I blame the folks for making me do farm chores.