Saturday, November 03, 2007


As anyone who reads the blogs knows, things are going well in Iraq. This certainly hasn't always been the case, so it should be a cause for celebration, right? Well, for one thing the MSM isn't really reporting it to the extent they were when things were not going well (surprise!) but this TimesOnline article points out the obvious:

The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed....
All of these attitudes have become outdated. There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous.

You won't hear the Democratic candidates for President saying anything about our success in Iraq. Because unlike McCain who says that he "would rather lose an election than lose a war", the Democrats don't feel that way.

via Ace


You have to wonder what the mother will say when they are older to the twin she chose to die. "We tried to abort you.Sorry"


via Drudge

Trouble in Pakistan

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule and suspended the country's constitution.
Troops have been deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels have gone off air.

Whenever I hear about something like this, I think about how surreal that is to us in America. And anyone who doesn't have BDS, appreciates and understands the freedoms we hold dear.

via Ace


Torture. Let's get one thing straight from the beginning. I'm against it. You know all those movies where someone is trying to get something out of someone else and they are tied to a chair and they keep getting slapped around? I can't handle that. I'm a non-violent person. I could never spank my kids. I've never hit another person my whole life. I don't watch R rated movies for many reasons, but one is because of violence. Even on TV, I have to close my eyes at any type of violence.

With that being said, the CIA, FBI, and the military intelligence community isn't me. I believe that many interrogation techniques have been used for years and years and there has never been a peep about it from the left until a Republican came into office. Does America being in a war make a difference? Sure. One might argue that we need more serious techniques at war time . But if this is true then why does this ABC report show that "For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three al Qaeda figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director." (via Ace)

Three times. That's it. And now it is prohibited and hasn't been used since 2003. But people like Kennedy have to make a big show about it at the Mukasey hearings for political reasons. (Mukasey is the nominee for Attorney General) Because Mukasey dodged questions on waterboarding the Democrats now feel they can point to their vote of "no" as being a vote against "torture" The reality here is that our interrogators are going to get the necessary information from our enemies with techniques used forever and all this is just showboating. Excuse me if I don't take the Democrats indignation too seriously.

In doing some research on the language of torture that the United States has always used, I found an interesting tidbit. In 1994 Washington ratified the UN Convention Against Torture. But when President Clinton sent this UN Convention to Congress for ratification he included language drafted 6 yrs earlier by the Reagan administration. This language basically allowed sensory deprivation and self inflicted pain. This language is what led to the abuse we saw at Abu Ghraib. You don't hear the Democrats mentioning that bit of info do you? And where were their protests at the time? Oh, I know where they were. They were in the closet of political hypocrisy.

Now, if our interrogators sit an enemy combat in a chair and slap them, I won't like it. Should I protest that? Should I make a morally superior claim to be against slapping???

The movie "Rendition" is about an innocent man captured by our U.S. authorities and taken to a detention facility and tortured as a terrorist suspect.

I found a very fair review of "Rendition" here. The critic (by no means a conservative) makes some interesting points that give a sense for those who are for types of torture and why making a movie that only presents one side doesn't work:

But in a larger sense, Hood's approach glosses over a perhaps unlikely but fascinatingly ambiguous possibility — namely, that torture could actually generate real information that helps eliminate potential attacks.


Does the health and safety (not to mention civil liberties) of a single individual mean as much as those of hundreds or thousands of others, much less preserving the integrity of a political ideology? These are questions to which I don't know the answer, and hopefully will never face myself. But Rendition is exactly the kind of film that pundits target when they want to accuse Hollywood of a liberal bias.

Mind you, I hold no judgment for this approach, not the least of which because I am personally receptive to the sorts of ideas and themes the director is exploring. But in trying not to vilify any of the characters, and further, by categorically invalidating the possibility that torture can actually get results even within the confines of a dramatic film — Hood robs his story of some of its relevance.

Is waterboarding (for example) acceptable if it garners information that saves thousands of lives. This is the example we hear all the time for those for it. But the reality of these things are much more complicated and we all know that.

The bottom line is I don't want my government torturing anyone. But I also don't want my government giving money to fund abortions through family planning programs across the world like they did under Clinton. I don't want my government taking a large percentage of my income in taxes and wasting it on programs and projects that not only don't work, but take away the dignity of the person. I don't want my government doing a hundred other things I could list, but the government doesn't run by my standards. If it did, then pornography would be prohibited and abortion would illegal.

So we have to live with a government that doesn't always do what we wish. We have trust them in some cases to do things we wouldn't do. If there is one part of the government that I have respect for, it is the military. I guess you could say they have proven themselves.

So as much as I hate the thought of torture, I'll let those who deal with the evil that hates us, decide what is right and what is wrong. And I will live with it, just as I do a hundred other things I can't stand about our country.

What seems to be overlooked with Abu Ghraib and with the man that "Rendition" was about, is that we discovered the abuses. We discovered them and have now done what we need to do to make sure it doesn't happen again. The beauty of freedom is the ability to uncover that which is wrong and rectify it. Those guilty at Abu Ghraib have been punished. I think our operatives might think twice about grabbing anyone unless they are sure they are a terrorist now.

As I said before, our country not perfect, but it is wonderful most of the time. It is free. And freedom is what makes us wonderful despite our many flaws.

Friday, November 02, 2007

"Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Defeated"

Michael Yon:

“Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated,” according to Sheik Omar Jabouri, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party and a member of the widespread and influential Jabouri Tribe. Speaking through an interpreter at a 31 October meeting at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, Sheik Omar said that al Qaeda had been “defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically,” referring to how clear it has become that the terrorist group’s tactics have backfired. Operatives who could once disappear back into the crowd after committing an increasingly atrocious attack no longer find safe haven among the Iraqis who live in the southern part of Baghdad. They are being hunted down and killed. Or, if they are lucky, captured by Americans.

Anti-war and Anti-American films bomb

Maybe Hollywood will learn from this but I doubt it. Govindini Murty of Libertas (a forum for conservative thought on film) has an excellent article at the New York Daily News regarding the recent spate of anti war and anti American films. Here is a nice summary of the films I hope all of you will not see:

If Tokyo Rose were alive today, she wouldn't get jail time - she'd get a three-picture deal.

Throwing all caution and fiscal sanity to the winds, the Hollywood establishment is releasing a slate of anti-war films that do violence to the cause of American victory - and to the art form of film.

Art is best served by an open competition of ideas. When only the anti-war left is allowed to make films in Hollywood and pro-American voices are excluded, the result is movies that are ideologically rigid, morally shallow and creatively sterile. Is it any wonder that recent anti-war films like "Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah" have bombed at the box office?

Hollywood's enforced ideological conformity is obvious: "Elah," the Tommy Lee Jones vehicle now in theaters, and "Redacted," directed by Brian DePalma and set for release later this month, both depict American troops in Iraq as murderers and psychopaths. "Rendition," released last month, asserts that the American government allows innocent Muslim civilians to be tortured. "Lions for Lambs," featuring Robert Redford and Tom Cruise, depicts a venal Republican senator risking the lives of American troops in order to advance his political career. "Stop Loss," starring Ryan Phillippe, posits that the only noble American soldier is the one who refuses to serve.

Even the relatively tame "The Kingdom" concludes with a coda that draws a moral equivalency between American CIA agents and Saudi terrorists.

The article goes on to compare old Hollywood and how both liberal and conservative Hollywood types supported military efforts then. Pro-military films cannot even be made now despite efforts of many screenwriters.

What is hollywood afraid of? Let both sides be shown. Let the public decide.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Another Example....

..of why you can't trust a dang thing the media reports.

via Ace


Tim Russert asks one hard question of Hillary and now they want him shot.

The HillaryMachine is brutal man.

Watch your back Tim, lesser men than you have gone down.


The Berlin Wall Is Back

Actually it's "A new installation has gone up in Berlin adjacent to the Brandenburg Gate. "Vanished Berlin Wall" is an illuminated art piece by Korean Artist Eun Sook Lee that will be up until November 9, the anniversary of the wall's destruction. She said that she hopes, in addition to reminding German's of the wall that divided their nation and the world, it will also remind some of the political situation in Korea."

Pretty cool, huh?

via Towleroad

Rumors Fly

There is a buzz regarding some kind of juicy scandal that the MSM is holding onto. It could be a Bill Clinton affair (yawn) or it could be the ever present lesbian rumor about Hillary and her assistant. (which I don't believe for one second anyway)

It's so stupid. First of all, Democrats don't care what Bill or Hillary or anyone running for President does sexually. Cheating, gay or not, It doesn't matter to them. So it isn't going to hurt Hillary one bit. The media might enjoy the tabloid aspect of it, but it's something we on the right should just ignore. Nothing these people do in their personal life surprises me. I'm much more interested in things that involve their public life.

Like the rampant corruption in Chinese fundraising by the Clinton campaign. Matthew Margolis & Mark Noonan are filing an FEC Complaint against the Hillary Clinton for President Committee:

These stories revealed evidence of illegal immigrants and straw donors donating to Hillary's campaign, donors who felt pressured to give money for fear of retribution, and a significant number of poor donors who gave $1,000 or $2,300 to Hillary's campaign -- when they obviously weren't in the financial position to do so.

I think we need to show the American public the kind of person Hillary is in her public life and just leave her pathetic personal life alone.

What If We Had a Presidential Election and No Christians Came?

It is my highest hope that the polls are wrong and that the primaries will surprise everyone and no one who we think will win, will win.

But as things stand now, it looks like Hillary and Rudy will be the nominees. None of the competition on both sides seem to want to put on the gloves and go some real rounds with Hillary or Rudy.

I can count 10 churches close enough for me to walk to from my home. I can't imagine the count in the Houston area. Mega Churches around us have as many as 47,000 in weekly attendance at each Church. When we evacuated from Rita we drove through east Texas. We drove through miles and miles of trees and road, except for one thing. Churches. We drove for hours without seeing any restaurants. I joked to my mom that people in east Texas obviously do two things, cook at home and go to Church. This is but one state, but the south is the same.

What will all these church goers do if the candidates are Hillary and Rudy? There are all kinds of thought on the kind of people who will vote for each. I heard a man on TV say that he feels millions of Republican women will vote for Hillary and not tell their husbands (imagine!! Not telling your husband! *snort*) He believes they will vote for a woman because she is a woman. Then there are the people who say that Hillary will energize the Republican party and they will come out in droves and vote.

My feeling is that the same half that votes Democrat every Presidential election will do so, and the same half that votes Republican will do so.

The mushy middle, the 10% or so that actually elect our President, will probably lean toward Rudy, because Hillary is so unlikable. But where I think we lose is the conservative Christian vote. Conservative Christians don't see much difference in Hillary and Rudy when it comes to their values. So I am afraid they will stay home. They will believe that they are staying true to their values by not voting for a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-gun, pro- illegal immigration candidate. Which both Hillary and Rudy are.

Many in the Republican party ask Christians to look at the big picture. To think how much worse Hillary will be than Rudy. To think how much better Rudy is on the war on terror. But let's face it, the MSM has convinced most Americans that we don't have much to fear with the war on terror. Americans take our safety for granted once again. Christians aren't immune to this. Conservative Christians tend to see an even bigger picture, which specifically involves eternity. So all these things, even war, come and go, but our decisions and our actions go with us into eternity. This is why they will stay home, and this is why Hillary will win.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Bad News For Satan on Halloween

He lost.

h/t dave

Ralph Nader sues the Democratic Party

Nader's lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry's campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket.

The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.

"The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy."

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.

Squashing dissent. I'm never surprised by the hypocrisy of the Democratic party. Republicans, while as guilty of playing dirty politics as the Democrats, are a "what you see is what you get" kind of a party. We don't deny wanting to save the unborn, we don't deny wanting to lower taxes, we don't deny supporting a war against fanatics. We don't deny supporting big business (and small business). We don't deny wanting to secure the border and fix our immigration laws.

But the Democrats hide their agenda. All the top Presidential candidates say they are against gay marriage, but you and I both know they really are not. Hillary pretends to be for immigration reform when we all know she is an open border type person. The Democrats are for better education for children, yet fight against school choice for the poor. The Democrats say they are against the war, but do nothing to stop it.

You can look no further than the leaders for this type of hypocrisy. Gore is the king of environmentalism, but we all know that his house is an energy drain while George Bush built his house environmental friendly. George Bush also sent his kids to public school, while the Clinton's, who fight school choice for others, sent their child to a elite private school. The Clinton's daughter goes after the 6 figure paycheck while the Bush's daughters take jobs that help the world community. The Clinton's are suppose to be champions for the black community, but it was Bush who appointed more blacks to positions of power in his administration. The Clinton's claim to be a family of faith, but it is the Bush family that honors their marriage. It is the Cheney family that quietly gives millions to charity while the Gore's give comparitively little.

I could go on and on, but I think you catch my meaning. The Republicans are not all I wish my party could be, but they are better than the hypocrites of the Democratic party.

So good on Nader. Shine a light on the slime that buys votes in elections with cigarettes and bus rides. Shine a light on the slime that will do anything to win.

via Ace

Update: A commenter alerted me to this lawsuit as well. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida is suing his own party as well.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Tallahassee, Nelson accuses the Democratic National Committee and its chief, Howard Dean, of voter "disenfranchisement on a massive scale" for stripping Florida of its 210 delegates to the national convention next summer.

Final paragraph in the story:

"It is thus truly a monumental irony for the Democratic National Committee to replace its own commitment to assuring that every vote must be counted with a decree that no Florida Democrat's vote will count," according to the claims in the lawsuit."

Good Halloween Story.

A Wiccan high priest wins the lottery, vows to open a witch school.

Video shows what you would expect a warlock to look like.

via Fark


Bombing Iran?

This is an excellent overview of the problem of Iran. You will notice that it is from the U.K. publication of The Spectator:

The consequences for the Jews of a strike on Iran are therefore fearsome. But the alternative, a nuclear Iran, is worse -- not just for Israel but for the world, which from that time forth would be held hostage to nuclear blackmail by an Iran hell-bent on regional and global Islamic domination. This is not a choice between a good outcome and a bad outcome. This is a choice between a terrible outcome and a cataclysmic one. It is the choice between a rock and a very hard place; and those who now advise that there is no alternative but war with Iran do so with the heaviest of hearts.

I note that it is from the U.K because I was struck by the comments. Go and read through them. These people have an astonishing grip on the problem with Iran. The comments are as knowledgeable as the article.

Michael Yon at The New York Post!

October 28, 2007 -- This week, the U.S. announced that military deaths in Iraq had fallen dramatically, to the lowest levels since March 2006, a sign that the surge of troops is working. Officers say increased cooperation from Iraqi civilians - who are tired of the terrorism and violence - has helped stem attacks.


Many people in Hit directly attribute the resurrection of their city in large part to the courage of Iraqi Police General Ibrahim Hamid Jaza, who took an aggressive stand against the al Qaeda Iraq (AQI) terrorists who had brazenly made Anbar province a home base and slaughterhouse with their marketplace car bombs, beheadings and reputation for hiding bombs intended to kill parents in the corpses of dead children they'd gutted.
Between shooting people for using the Internet, watching television or other “moral transgressions" such as smoking in public, AQI's claim of fundamentalist piety proved to be a thin veneer, quickly eroded by blatant drug, alcohol and prostitute use. The people of Anbar rejected AQI, but AQI was still strong and well-armed, so rejection was only a first step.

The above doesn't even begin to describe the horror al Qaeda has wrought on these people. You have to go to the link and read some of the stories. This is pure evil. The people are fighting back:

From Anbar, I traveled back to Baghdad then to Diyala, where al Qaeda had announced to the world it would base its caliphate in the provincial capital Baqubah. I was embedded with soldiers who formed the spear point of the largest offensive operation since the invasion of Iraq, and I watched as people from all walks of life came forward to share information that saved the lives of American and Iraq soldiers and cleared the streets of the al Qaeda operatives.

From pointing out where IED's can be discovered or where the torture houses of a Qaeda are, the locals are finally giving us the help we need.

Like most Americans, I am frustrated with the slow progress. We should all be praying every day for the peace over there that we all so desperately want.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007


Just wow.

Walk a Mile in His Shoes Continued...

You might recall my post on Donnie McClurkin, the black gospel star who has claimed to have been redeemed from his homosexuality and is headlining a tour for Barack Obama in South Carolina. The gays were not happy about it. Donnie got a lot of flack and Obama asked a gay minister on the tour to make up for it.

Well, you have to admire someone not willing to back down to political correctness. And after what McClurkin has been through, it doesn't surprise me. Here is what he said to the crowd:

"I'm going to say something that's going to get me in trouble...They accuse me of being anti-gay and a bigot. We don't believe in discrimination. We don't believe in hatred, and if you do you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the whole premise of God. That's the whole premise of Christ is love, love, love. But there is a side of Christ that deals in judgment, and all sin is against God...Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings. When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality."

via Towleroad

I want to add to this. Because this isn't about being anti-gay or hating gays. This is about a man who feels he has been delivered from homosexual feelings. You are free to not believe him. You are free to believe that he is fooling himself. But he has every right to claim what his experience is. He has every right to say what Christianity teaches and it is not homophobic to say so. He is not a hater. He is not a bigot. He speaks from his own experience.

I grow tired of the gay activists who insist that you are either for gay marriage and accepting of all gay lifestyles or you are a gay bigot. It's no longer about allowing people to live their life as they wish, it's about forcing you and me to condone it.

I've had many gay friends in my life. They live their life and I live mine. I do things they don't like, they do things I don't like. That is life. I don't insist that they agree with me on everything. Why should they insist I agree with them?

We all live and work with people we disagree with. Does that make us haters? Of course not. It's all about common courtesy and respect. As long as we give each other that, then we can live with each other's differences.

Primary Fun

The closer we get to the primaries the more exciting it's getting to be. I think it's going to be the wildest ride yet. On the Democratic side you have this going on:

"I want to see if John Edwards will say to Hillary Clinton in front of everyone: 'You're not electable, and you know it, and you're going to hurt people down the ballot.' It's time to stop whispering. It's getting to be midnight." -- Democratic strategist Donna Brazille, quoted by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

John Edwards will not be going down without a fight. We will have to see if Obama has it in him to stand against the Hillary machine.

Even though I think Edwards and Obama would be more difficult to beat in the general election, I would still want one of them to get the nomination. It seems obvious that people like Donna Brazille don't think Hillary can be elected, but I certainly do.

A new University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll has Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential race with 29%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama at 27%, John Edwards at 20% and Gov. Bill Richardson at 7%.

That is close. If Obama and Edwards can somehow pull Iowa off, then it will be an exciting thing to watch indeed. I think I would enjoy watching Hillary lose the nomination as much as most of you would enjoy watching your team win the superbowl.

Meanwhile Romney is doing quiet well in Iowa with 36%, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 13%, Mike Huckabee at 13%, Fred Thompson at 11% and Sen. John McCain way back at 6%.

My rebound man Romney is going to make this race exciting too. Giuliani is going to come out fighting and that will be interesting to see. And McCain ain't no featherweight either. The gloves will be off soon.

via Political Wire

Speaking of McCain. Jerry Zandstra, formerly of Sam Brownback's campaign has a piece at Redstate on why he is endorsing McCain. One reason? The same I have stated over and over:

Pragmatically, two recent polls (Fox News and News/Opinion Dynamic Poll) show that Sen. McCain is best positioned to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in the general election. Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney are 12 points behind Hillary.

Read the whole thing for a good overview of McCain.

Monday, October 29, 2007

China and Hillary.

Why are Chinese dishwashers and waiters from the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton's campaign? According to this LA Times article, of the few that could be found for comment, they said that their local association leaders told them to do so.

Why would they do that?

I think the reason can be found here.

Long before the Hsu scandal, the Clintons were well known in Chinese fundraising. As this Investor Business Daily article points out, President Bill Clinton engaged the Chinese in what he called a "strategic partnership." How? By inviting them into our defense labs and dismantling export controls. The following took place on Clinton's watch:


• Managed to steal secrets to every nuclear warhead deployed in the U.S. arsenal.
• Deployed for the first time an entire force of CSS-4 ICBMs that target the continental U.S., from L.A. to New York and everything in between.
• Declared the U.S. enemy No. 1 in its military writings.
• Bought Russian destroyers armed with missiles designed to kill U.S. carriers.
• Built up its missile batteries across the Taiwan Strait.
• Infiltrated the CIA and FBI with spies.

The Chinese espionage that occurred on Clinton's watch was unprecedented, and analysts still don't know how deep Chinese moles penetrated our security complex.

As the article also points out, Hillary Clinton's autobiography, "Living History," is the most popular foreign political memoir in Chinese history.

It seems clear to me that the Chinese would like Hillary to be President. Her husband's legacy would seem to be why. They expect more of the same.

Hillary Clinton is dangerous for America in more ways than I can count, but this danger is probably the greatest of all. American interests will never be the most important to Hillary. Only Hillary Clinton's interests will be.

h/t BigDog

What Leftwing Bias in News has brought us.

During the Reagan years conservative's frustration over bias news coverage was teeth gritting. Reagan learned to bypass the media and speak directly to the people, but most politicians don't have the savvy Reagan had. But it wasn't just politics. The media drove all of us who are conservative nearly batty with their spin and nonobjective reporting in the 80's and the 90's.

Rush Limbaugh was our lone source for the "other side" to any story. Which is why Rush became the phenomenon that he is now.

With the onset of cable news we found Fox News. Fox promised us "fair and balanced." We on the right were thrilled to have both sides of the story represented. The opinion shows are decidely to the right and that was nice too, since we had had to listen to network news pretend to be unbiased, and in reality be completely biased to the left.

But what I see now is beginning to bother me. It bothers me that Fox News has become exclusively leaning to the right and CNN has become exclusively leaning to the left. I fear we will become completely divided in our news. With half the country hearing the left spin and half hearing the right spin.

The network news still is biased against conservatism, but with the new media and cable and radio we are better able to offer the other side as well.

What we need, and what we should expect from reporters, journalists, and news organizations are the facts and the truth. If there are two sides, then show those two sides. Every single time.

It seems to me that journalistic integrity is a thing of the past. Reporters are more interested in putting their own personal agendas forward than just reporting the story.

The difference in Fox News is that with people like Hannity or O'Reilly, you know where they are coming from. They make it clear what their political leanings are. You can take their shows for what they are, their opinions from a more conservative view. Dan Rather is the poster boy for what drove us all crazy. Newsmen/women hiding who they are. He, like the other network anchors, pretended (and pretend) to be unbiased, when in reality they were/are putting their own leftwing spin on the news.

People were sick of it, which is why Fox News is so popular.

But we are divided enough as a nation. We don't need our news to be.

What can be done about it? You tell me.

Google Terror.


Hi-rez satellite imagery used to be used exclusively for good, noble purposes, like raining down high-quality American bombs on worthy targets and showing Saddam Hussein's trailers of doom to the U.N. But now, thanks to the anti-American weirdos at Google, anyone can access these sensitive images for whatever foul purpose they can conceive. And Palestinian terrorists the Al Aqsa martyrs'Brigade are reportedly using Google Earth tot target a beleaguered Israeli city with crude rockets.

According to the Post, these violent militants rely on Google Earth to pinpoint locations for attacks with more reliable accuracy than offered by mere maps. While the majority of their rockets have "fallen harmlessly into fields because they lack guidance systems," Google is directly responsible for the successful, fatal attacks.

As is Nabor, king of the sea.

"Jaabari, also known as Abu Walid, claimed his men are using sea salt to lengthen the distance that Qassams travel.
"It's a secret process," he said, "but we're very excited by the results."

Google is reportedly well aware of their terror-enabling program's terror enabling uses, yet they've done absolutely nothing to stop it. As we went to press, even more proof surfaced of the blood on Google's hands:

*Terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden reportedly bragged to friends that a "Google" search for "what should I destroy" inspired him to do 9/11.

*Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr allegedly uses "Gmail" to tell his militia which neighborhoods to cleanse of Sunnis.

*Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho reportedly hid his deadly plans from school officials by making his "kill everyone" Google Calendar event "private."

As soon as you turn Safe Search off Google Image Search is like 20% furry porn.

President Ford thought Bill Clinton a Sex Addict.

Wow. What a revelation.

Gen. Petraeus spokesman smacks down Glen Greenwald.

And a lovely smackdown it is. Speaking for himself and not Petraeus, Col. Steven A. Boylan sent this e-mail to Greenwald. Here are the good parts:

The issues of accuracy, context, and proper characterization is something that perhaps you could do a little research and would assume you are aware of as a trained lawyer.

I do enjoy reading your diatribes as they provide comic relief here in Iraq. The amount of pure fiction is incredible. Since a great deal of this post is just opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinions, I will not address those even though they are shall we say -- based on few if any facts. That does surprise me with your training as a lawyer, but we will leave those jokes to another day. . . .

You are either too lazy to do the research on the topics to gain the facts, or you are providing purposeful misinformation -- much like a propagandist. . . .

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a little actual research on your part would have shown that [Cheney P.R. aide Steve Schmidt] is actually not here, but that would contradict your conspiracy theory. . . . .

I am curious as to when you think the media relations or operations changed here in Iraq. I in fact do know exactly the day and time that it changed and want to see if you are even in the same ballpark as reality. . . .
For the third matter concerning the Beauchamp investigation and the documents that were leaked -- it is very unfortunate that they were -- but the documents are not secret or classified. So, there is your third major error in fact. Good thing you are not a journalist.

As for working in secret with only certain media is laughable. The wide swatch of media engagements is by far the most diverse it could be. But you might not think it that way since we chose not to do an interview with you. You are not a journalist nor do you have any journalistic ethical standards as we found out from the last time I engaged with you.

As we quickly found out, you published our email conversation without asking, without permission -- just another case in point to illustrate your lack of standards and ethics. You may recall that a 30-minute interview was conducted with the program that you claim to be a contributor. So instead of doing the interview with you, we went with the real talent, Alan Colmes. . . .

I invite you to come see for yourself and go anywhere in Iraq you want, go see what our forces are doing, go see what the other coalition forces are doing, go hang out with the reporters outside the International Zone since that is where they live and work and see for yourself what ground truth is so that you can be better informed. But that would take something you probably don't have.


Steven A. Boylan
Colonel, US Army
Public Affairs Officer

*(empahsis and via from Weasel Zippers)

Greenwald is such a snake. I never refer to him here, but this was just too sweet.

Update: Some are saying that Boylan is refuting that he sent this e-mail, but I can't find any evidence of that. But look here for all the evidence of how Greenwald misleads his readers on a regular basis.

Gee, I don't know Joe.

From Review

Hollywood now proposes that in a new live-action movie based on the G.I. Joe toy line, Joe's -- well, "G.I." -- identity needs to be replaced by membership in an "international force based in Brussels." The IGN Entertainment news site reports Paramount is considering replacing our "real American hero" with "Action Man," member of an "international operations team."

Paramount will simply turn Joe's name into an acronym.

The show biz newspaper Variety reports: "G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer."

Good grief. Is there no end to anti-Americanism in this country? And who is the enemy here? THE SCOTTISH???? What? Are we afraid they will spread plaid to world?

At the link you will find what Paul Harvey might refer to as "the rest of the story." It seems that G.I. Joe was fashioned after a real hero. He was a Marine Corps colonel named Mitchell Paige. A Medal of Honor winner. You can read how he got that award at the link as well.

But there was this important detail:

"When the Hasbro Toy Co. called some years back, asking permission to put the retired colonel's face on some kid's doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.

But they weren't. That's his mug, on the little Marine they call "G.I. Joe." At least, it has been up till now.

Mitchell Paige's only condition? That G.I. Joe must always remain a United States Marine."

via RWN

Gateway Pundit Caught!

"Iranian Hardliners Single Out "Warmonger Neocon Blogs Pajamas Media and Gateway Pundit"

Hmmm...why does this wording seem familiar?