Saturday, June 18, 2005
Friday, June 17, 2005
Leave it to Ann Coulter to remind us of the obvious. Read the whole thing. It's good. Here is an excerpt:
"There are thousands of Muslim extremists literally dying to slaughter Americans, and only three proven ways to stop them: (1) Kill them (the recommended method), (2) capture them and keep them locked up, or (3) convince them that their cause is lost. Guantanamo is useless for No. 1, but really pulls ahead on No. 2 and No. 3 (i.e. a "purpose")."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:58 PM
This is certainly interesting stuff from al-Qaeda's #2 man.
CAIRO (AP) — "al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader released a new video, broadcast on Al-Jazeera television Friday, in which he disparaged the U.S. concept of reform in the Middle East and said armed jihad is the only way to bring change in the Arab world.
The message by Ayman al-Zawahri, — his first video since February — appeared to be an attempt by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to co-opt the rising wave of reform movements in the Middle East.
"The removal of the Crusader and Jewish invaders won't occur by peaceful demonstrations," he said in a brief clip shown on the pan-Arab network. "Reform and expelling the invaders from the countries of Islam won't happen except through fighting for God's sake."
He outlined what he called a true program for reform — based on the rule of Islamic law, the end of U.S. and Western domination, and the freedom of the Muslim nation to run its own affairs."
Let's see. Weren't the Muslims pretty much running their own affairs until Mr. al- Zawahri and his gang of monsters decided to bring the fight to US??? Wasn't it al-Qaeda that planned it's big death fest on New York and Washington D.C??? Hey Zawahri! Maybe if you didn't want us "Crusaders and Jews" bothering you maybe you SHOULDN'T HAVE ATTACKED US!!!
The monster continues:
"Al-Zawahri urged them "not to forsake their jihad, not to lay down their arms ... and not to be dragged into the game of secular elections under a secular constitution."
Yeah, don't be dragged into freedom people! Because things bad could happen. Like women not being treated like dogs, like being able to decide which religion you might want to follow, like freedom to think for yourself. It would only be a matter of time before you would be educating yourself about the rest of the world and deciding which laws are archaic and barbaric. You might even start to have good diplomatic relations with the U.S. We might start to understand each other. We simply cannot have that!
It would be CRAZY!! Freedom is dangerous!!
If those Crusaders and Jews have their way you won't have someone like me as your leader. Because never forget! Islamic rule RULES!!!
Think about it. You'd miss the sawing off of heads on TV. You'd miss the shooting of children in the back.
Damn those infidels!!!! They would screw up everything!!!
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:52 PM
Sen. Durbin has revised and extended his idiotic remarks.
This is what he read on the Senate floor on Tues:
"Among the descriptions, the report noted one case in which a detainee was held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another in which a prisoner was held in heat passing 100 degrees, one in which prisoners were left in isolation so long they fouled themselves and one where a prisoner was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music."
And this is what he said about it:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.
This is his revised (I bet) and extended remarks later:
"If this indeed occurred, it does not represent American values. It does not represent what our country stands for, it is not the sort of conduct we would ever condone ... and that is the point I was making. Now, sadly, we have a situation here where some in the right-wing media have said that I have been insulting men and women in uniform. Nothing could be further from truth."
Gee, how could "rightwing media" have made that mistake? I mean, when you compare what "Americans have to done to prisoners" to "what must have been done by Nazis." It kind of leads one to believe YOU WERE COMPARING THEM!
Fox News goes on to say:
"Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he had inquired as to whether the FBI's descriptions are true.
"I was trained as a lawyer, many years as a prosecutor dealt with the bureau, have the highest respect. But I do not accept at face value everything they put down on paper until I make certain it can be corroborated and substantiated.
"And for you to come to the floor with just that fragment of a report and then unleash the words 'the Nazis,' unleash the word 'gulag,' unleash 'Pol Pot,' I don't know how many remember that chapter, it seems to me that was a grievous error in judgment and leaves open to the press of the world to take those three extraordinary chapters in world history and try to intertwine it with what has taken place, allegedly, at Guantanamo," Warner said."
This was no error in judgment. It was a well thought out talking point. It was hoped to be taken up by the international press. Because it is more important to people like Durbin, for America to look bad to the world so that Democrats can get back into power, than it its to uphold our values and stand strong in this war.
And that is just the damn truth.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:03 AM
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:00 AM
Sometimes the robbery goes the right way. Got this from RWN. via ShreveportTimes.com
"An armed robber brandishing a revolver and some tough talk entered Blalock's Beauty College demanding money Tuesday afternoon.
He left crying, bleeding and under arrest, after Dianne Mitchell, her students and employees attacked the suspect, beating him into submission.
Mitchell tripped the robber as he tried to leave and cried aloud "get that sucker" as the group of about 20, nearly all women, some wielding curling irons, bludgeoned him until police arrived.
"You can tell the world don't mess with the women here," said the 53-year-old who manages the Shreveport beauty school in the 5400 block of Mansfield Road.
Jared Gipson, 24, of Shreveport was charged with armed robbery, Shreveport police said. He will be booked into the City Jail once he is released from the hospital.
"He received several lacerations to the head and was taken to LSU Hospital in Shreveport," spokeswoman Kacee Hargrave said. "Nobody else was seriously injured besides the suspect."
About 3 p.m., the workers and students sat around the beauty salon, recounting their tale, like warriors after a great battle.
A little before noon the students and workers were cleaning up when the robber walked up quietly behind Mitchell and said, "This is a holdup," she recalled.
"I thought it was someone just playing, but then I saw that big old gun. He said 'get down big momma.'"
The robber, a tall, thin man wearing a handkerchief over his face and a skull cap, barked out orders to the other people in the school to get down on the floor, Mitchell said.
As the group complied, some of the women began to cry. The robber didn't react kindly, telling one of the women she would "be the first to go," Mitchell said.
After collecting any money the people had on them, the robber pushed one of the employees, Abram Bishop, into the back of the room.
"I thought 'Oh my God, he's going to shoot him,'" Mitchell said.
But instead the robber ran toward the front door to escape.
That's when Mitchell raised her leg.
It was enough to trip the robber, who dropped the gun and tumbled into a wall.
Bishop jumped on the man's back, driving him into the ground. Seizing the opportunity, Mitchell rallied her students.
"We moved some furniture after that," she yelped with joy as she retold the tale.
Arming themselves with curling irons, chairs, a wooden table leg and clenched fists, the women attacked.
Blood and urine splattered from the victim; stains adorned the white paints worn by many of the beauty school students.
Crying in pain, the robber tried to crawl away from the students, Mitchell said.
"I grabbed his legs and wouldn't let him go. I pulled him back. He wasn't going to get up out of here and tell everyone he robbed us. When he came in here, he knocked down a beehive and sent the bees flying all over.
...The gun, police learned later, was not loaded. But there was no remorse from the students.
"He got what he deserved," Renae Collier, 26, said. Collier's engagement ring was broken at some point during the melee."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:54 AM
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:52 PM
Tech Central Station has a excellent article explaining the change. Here is an excerpt:
"The original idea behind liberalism -- freeing the individual from being suffocated by traditional institutions -- has fallen to a distant third amongst liberal priorities. Defending the sovereignty of other states and strengthening supranational institutions take priority over protecting the lives and rights of individuals. The supposed enemy of liberalism, President George W. Bush, gives liberal ideals a higher place in his international decision making than most liberals do. (As Beinart notes, President Bill Clinton did undertake a war in Kosovo, "without U.N. backing…in response to internal events in a sovereign country", in contravention of Wilsonian principles, but this never evolved into a liberal doctrine that could be applied to future situations.)
As long as liberals cling to the belief that advancing liberal ends and defending the absolute power of indigenous governments are one an the same, deference to government authority will force liberals to retreat from violent conflicts -- like state sponsored campaigns of terrorism -- that do not involve conventional interstate warfare. The result is the liberal movement that exists today, a movement disengaged from foreign affairs because it is unwilling to confront the conflicting nature of its priorities."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 5:39 PM
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:01 AM
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
IraqiNow, a milblog, gives his take on the recent press news from the front. It's straightforward and honest. Which is why I like the milblogs. His last line in this post says it all:
"If the idiots in the press corps are still writing stories like this, and their editors are still running them, it shows beyond doubt that they don't understand a damn thing."
Read the rest.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:09 PM
I suppose I have to weigh in on the Schavio autopsy report even though I find it profoundly depressing. But since the left seem to be gloating around the blogopsphere, I have to say something.
"Jon Thogmartin , the Pinellas-Pasco medical examiner, told reporters that the 41-year-old Schiavo would not have lived after her feeding tube was removed even if she had been fed or given liquids by mouth.
"Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters."via Fox News.
Really? So her parents could have taken her home and given her the comfort and love and water that they wished to, and she would have died a natural death with dignity surrounded by those who loved her the most? You know, the exact thing all the pro-life people wanted.
I never cared what the arguments were over the amount of brain activity, nor did I listen to any gossip about her husband. What I advocated from the beginning is that her parents be allowed to take her home and take care of her until her natural death. It may have taken a bit longer, but as the medical examiner said, she would have died soon anyway.
Then we (not to mention her parents) would have been spared the gruesome 2 weeks she slowly died of thirst.
This was a human being. Her parents wanted to care for her. We forced them to watch her die of thirst.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 5:01 PM
The latest homicide bomber kills at least 24 including children. This was not collateral damage. No smart bombs are used here. These monsters target their own women and children. They have no sense of conscience.
It's really important that we understand that.
This site-Iraq Body Count, clearly a left leaning one, says (referring to civilian deaths) that there were "up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003." Let's just take that number at face value for arguments sake. They also say, "On the 2nd anniversary of the Coalition invasion of Iraq, media-reported civilian deaths are approaching 20,000." It goes on to explain the figure banded about by leftwing bloggers:
"The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths."
Keep in mind that of the over of 7000 deaths that occurred during the invasion there is no doubt that our military did everything humanly possible to prevent civilian casualties. Even at the expense of their own lives.
So the over 14,000 deaths that have occurred since then, we can safely say that almost all of them were actually murdered by insurgents. This is a distinction that I have yet to see someone using ANY of the number of deaths use. It's an important distinction. Throwing around the number of civilian deaths as if it is our soldiers doing the killing is reprehensible to me and done far too often on the blogs. It is an insult to our soldiers and to our country.
We need to understand something. As awful as anything we may do in war, we do our best to abide by the rules of engagement and those who don't are punished. We aren't perfect, but we sure as hell don't saw innocent people's heads off on video for the world to see. We don't strap bombs to ourselves and drive into a group of children taking candy from soldiers.
So when I hear the number of Iraq civilian deaths being used again without making the distinction of WHO is doing the killing, I will call them on it and I expect you to do the same.
*crossposted at UPC
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 2:14 AM
It is White Trash Wednesday!! It's a redneck wedding cake!
Cranky NeoconDangerous Logic
Fistful of Fortnights
It Is What It Is
Mean Ol' Meany
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Riehl World View
Six Meat Buffet
The Ebb & Flow Institute
The Jawa Report
The Nose On Your Face
THE STEEL DEAL
Vince Aut Morire
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 1:38 AM
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
How do you think the founding fathers would decide on the hot button issues of today?
I don't think they would be capable of deciding. They would be so shocked and appalled at the way we have taken the freedoms that they fought so hard for and twisted them to fit our own desires, they would cry out in anger.
They would be sickened that we care more about what we want than what is best for our society, especially the most vulnerable, our children. They would find so little honor, so little respect for the great nation they provided.
Perhaps their own words from long ago can speak to us now:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? -Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781
Jefferson could not have been more prophetic with this statement on the Judiciary:At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823
George Washington's words on foreign affairs (see U.N) could be spoken with equal passion today:
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.-George Washington, Farewell address, Sept. 19th, 1796
Benjamin Franklin could very well be speaking to our welfare state here:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
And John Adams could be reminding us of what we have lost:
A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general.- John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:30 AM
As we continue thumbing through this month's Vanity Fair, we come to an article on the Michael Jackson trial where a reporter who was in the courtroom the entire time chronicles the overwhelming evidence of Jackson's guilt. But let's skip that one, shall we?
Then we have "The Power of Rove." Karl Rove does fascinate me. He never seems to want to seek the limelight himself. A recent PBS film on Rove was titled "The Architect." It seems Rove is seen as a mastermind that fills liberals with dread. The well known expression of the Rove "mind meld" is never mentioned though. Political skill is a gift, I think. It's about instinct. Bill Clinton has it and so does Rove.
Rove's past is painful. Soon after his parents break up he discovers that his father is not really his biological father. Then his mother commits suicide. Tough, tough things to overcome. Rove does not talk about it either. But he will talk about President Bush, whom he met when Bush was 27 yrs old. Rove says he was struck by the "huge amounts of charisma, swagger, cowboy boots, flight jacket, wonderful smile, just charisma -you know, wow." Rove says Bush drove a "purple Gremlin with Levi interior." An interesting tidbit considering how that sort of dilutes Bush's rich boy image.
Rove is known for his dirty tricks. He once handed out free food and drink invitations to the local homeless for an opponent's campaign event. He is best known for his direct mail success in creating the first real Republican data base of supporters in Texas. In 1977 when Rove arrives, Texas is all Democrat. Rove becomes the go to man if you are a Republican. I guess you could say he changed it all for us here. I never knew that before. God bless him!
In politics, it's all about image. Rove seems to know how to create an image. He seems to know how to fly below the radar as well. And, lucky for Bush, he seems utterly devoted to him.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:30 AM
Monday, June 13, 2005
"SOCIETY: Samir al-Saboon, the Sunni head of Iraq's National Security Agency, has recently shared the results of latest opinion research in Iraq, taken in May:
Recent polling data shows that fully two-thirds of Iraqis believe their country is headed in the right direction, Saboon said. While a poll in January showed only 11 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq shared that view, that percentage has since grown to 40, he said..." via Chrenkoff
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:17 PM
The next page we turn to in Vanity Fair is an excerpt for "The Truth About Hillary..." by Edward Klein. Drudge has the most tabloid like excerpt from the book saying that Bill raped Hillary and that is how Chelsea was conceived.
Being that Klein is the former foreign editor of Newsweek former editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine, it would be hard to paint him as a part of the rightwing conspiracy, as Drudge points out. But conspirator or not, this crosses the line of decency and pretty much makes it look like a Kitty Kelly book to me. Even if it were true, bringing someone's child into it is just plain wrong.
The excerpt in VF focuses on Patrick and Liz Moynihan's dislike for Hillary and the her obession with power. There are two telling moments in this article. One is when Hillary first gathered her supporters in Manhattan regarding her Senate race. One woman asked, "How are you going to handle Monica Lewinsky?" Hillary replied, "I decided that, because of Kosovo, for the good of the country I needed to stand by the president of the United States, the commander in chief, during perilous times."
Not that she loved him, not that what happens between a man and his wife is private, she didn't even refer to him as a man, just "president of the United States." I find that sad. I don't think anyone disputes that this marriage is bizarre.
The other telling moment is when Hillary visited the Moynihan's home when deciding to run for the Senate and wanted to discuss how to get there. Hillary mentions that she is interested in what the couple have to say on health care because she had a bill that would protect the teaching hospitals and Liz Moynihan interrupts Hillary saying, "Hillary! That's Pat's bill." Hillary replies, "Oh, did he have one, too!"
The article continues:
"Hillary wasn't an elected official, and yet, according to the insider, she was talking as though she had introduced her own bill. And she was looking right at Liz Moynihan and comparing herself to Pat Moynihan, who had one of the most distinguished records in the history of the U.S. Senate." Pat Moynihan gets so disgusted at this point he excuses himself and leaves the room and doesn't return.
I think this part illusrates the massive ego that Hillary possesses.
I wondered why Vanity Fair would put such a hit piece on Hillary in their magazine, but now, after reading the Drudge report, I have to ask myself that if they were going to print something, why not use the excerpt with the juicest gossip???? That is their style after all.
I have to wonder if they knew that the rape story would be too much and the Moynihan story would resonate with New Yorkers who loved him so much. In other words, they wanted to hurt Hillary as bad as possible without using a seemingly outlandish story.
I can only imagine that they don't feel Hillary can win the general election and they want to put a stop to her before the nomination process.
Nothing else makes sense.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:18 AM
Sunday, June 12, 2005
I have another issue of Vanity Fair to share. Everyone who reads this blog regularly knows my love/hate relationship with this magazine. I love the in depth articles on politicians, the wealthy, and the infamous. But I hate the liberal elite slant and the anti-bush and anti-war rants of the editor. But I will admit he allows other point of views in.
This month is especially juicy though. Flip through with me. This is the first installment. The rest will follow tomorrow.
Christopher Hitchens has a fascinating article on Iran's brutish theocracy. Recently a 16 yr old girl was caught having had sex with a man. Usually this is punished by a hundred lashes, but the rebellious girl tore off her hijab (headscarf) and the judge decided she would hang for that and she did. From a crane for all to see.
It is something we cannot even imagine here. And that was but one example of many describing the sick backward mentality that prevails in the Middle East. Some might keep Iran in mind when they go throwing the word "theocracy" around.
Anyway, Hitchens met with Hossein Khomeini (the grandson of Ayatollah) Hossein tells how he is spending a great deal of time in Iraq. He is a strong supporter of the U.S. intervention. He favors the removal of the the regime established by his grandfather. He wants a complete separation of religion and state. He praises President Bush and says, "Only the Free World, led by America, can bring democracy to Iran."
Hitchens quotes a Muslim woman who although devout, tires of the brutal mullahs and wishes them to be overthrown. She says,"Do you think that the West could here and remove the rulers but only stay for a week and leave?"
A telling statement that reflects the belief of those who wish America to step in to save them, but sees us as too hedonistic too stay.
Hitchens is a brit and an atheist liberal, but has strongly supported this war because of what he sees as the danger of Islamic fundalmentalism. He does not paint a rosy picture of any near change in Iran, but there is a faint glimmer of hope that this democracy idea could spread and perhaps women could be treated as more than cattle and the U.S. would not always be referred to as "infidels."
The article is long and amazing, with so many things I wish I could touch upon, but I came away with this thought:
This far away region called the Middle East, that we never cared about or thought we could ever change with it's sadistic rules and backward thinking, might, just might, stand a chance of slaying the dragon of oppression and torture.
This dragon finally spewed his fire of death on us and now.......
We fight this dragon.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:26 PM
When I was growing up we had a beach house in Gulf Shores, Alabama. It was long before the condos and the golf resorts were built. The house was old and musty with a screened in back porch and I loved it so.
In those early teen years when one gets introspective and broody, I would walk down to the beach at night and lay on the sand. Looking up at the sky, I would raise my hand and touch each star.
The sound of the ocean immediately calms me even today. The smell of the salt air takes me back to when I had no worries and no one to worry about.
My heart yearns for the ocean. I use to say that I would travel to as many beaches on this earth as I could. And I have made quite a few, but there are still sands my toes have yet to feel.
Those nights laying on the sand, feeling the breath of the ocean in my hair, and hearing the symphony of the waves, I would dream about the vast unknown that was to be my life. I would ask God his opinion and I could hear him whisper back in the music of the water.
Even today, I think there is nothing more beautiful than the ocean at night. The moonlight sparkles across the rolling waves and the stars glitter in the heavens. It is there I feel the closest to what the beginning of this earth must have been like. It is there I find it hard to understand how anyone could imagine that this gift of nature was not given by one who loves us so much that He would create such a thing of beauty and life for us to enjoy.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:02 PM
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:14 PM
Victor Davis Hanson gives us an EXCELLENT history lesson. In addition, having been one who has never believed the population explosion myth, Hanson hits the nail on the head with this:
"The old idea of a “population bomb” of too many people and too few resources has been turned upside down: The key is not how many people reside in a country but rather what those people do. A billion under a Marxist regime leads to terrible human waste and starvation; a billion in a market economy is actually advantageous — as seemingly endlessly active minds and arms flood the world with cheap consumer goods and rebuild a decaying infrastructure from the ground up."
But that is just a small snippet of an excellent article on how anti-Americanism will soon end. Read the whole thing.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 3:41 PM