..isn't very tolerate. Maybe the gay community will learn it before the black community will. They want your votes and that's about it:
The Democratic Party establishment's behavior is being called called "shameful" in the handling of North Carolina Senate candidate Jim Neal's recent disclosure that he is gay.
The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Independent Weekly reports:
"'Shameful' is how Pam Spaulding, a Durham activist, puts it. Spaulding's blog, Pam's House Blend, is one of the most read gay-advocacy Web sites in the country. 'The complete lack of institutional respect for Jim Neal's candidacy based on his orientation,' she says, 'shows the two-faced nature of the Democratic party.' They want gay votes, she says. But they don't want gay candidates. Spaulding points specifically to the national Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and its chair, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who for unknown reasons wouldn't return Neal's phone calls. 'The cause,' Neal said, 'is that I'm not Washington's choice. I'm not Chuck Schumer's choice.'"
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Once again, the party of tolerance...
Obama? Edwards? Are you paying attention??
I'm thinking you could use this:
Hotline On Call:
NPR's David Greene reports about what happens when real people find their stories folded into the candidates' campaign rhetoric. One single mother, a waitress at Maid-Rite, famous for its meat sandwiches, chatted with Hillary Clinton during a recent campaign stop about her struggles to make ends meet. Her story wound up in HRC's stump speech, Greene reports. The waitress, meanwhile, was left wondering why the former first lady didn't leave a tip.
From NPR:
I followed Clinton during a recent bus tour across Iowa, when she and her entourage pulled into a Maid-Rite, a greasy spoon famous for its loose-meat sandwich. Clinton settled into a red stool at the counter, ate a sandwich, chatted with her waitress and then was on her way.
The scene gave Clinton perfect fodder for her next few stump speeches. Turns out her waitress was a single, working mom — just the kind of voter Democrats are courting aggressively this year.
Clinton recalled the meeting for an audience up the road in Boone. "The woman waiting on us — it was her first day," she said, adding, "She was a little nervous. Single mom, raised two boys, works at a nursing home and always has a second job."
If she's elected president, Clinton promised, people like her waitress will have it better.
The way Clinton eased the waitress into her rhetoric is something repeated day after day, by all the campaigns. But in the process, people like the waitress don't always have their stories told.
"I wished I would have been asked first," the waitress, Anita Esterday, said of Clinton's decision to insert her in a speech, adding, "I wish she would have asked if she could talk about me later. I didn't like it when someone called me up and said Hillary Clinton is talking about you. It's like, what'd I do now? What's she saying?"
When I returned to the Maid-Rite a few weeks later, Esterday said the senator had caught her off guard. But once they got talking, she was honest with Clinton about her need to work two to three jobs.
"I've been doing it all my life. Why should it change now that I'm old?" Esterday said.
Esterday does not think Clinton got it. "I don't think she understood at all what I was saying," Esterday said, adding, "I mean, nobody got left a tip that day."
Clinton may have decided not to tip. She was also never given a bill — her meal was on the house. Still, Esterday said Clinton might have left her something: "Maybe they don't carry money, I don't know."
Welcome to world of the limo liberal my dear.
Now, could someone get a hold of Obama and Edwards and make a commercial about this. Now. I think Iowa Democrats would be very interested.
Update: The Clinton campaign is saying they did leave a tip for the staff, but no one seems to know where it went. Also on Drudge..this isn't the first time Hillary has stiffed a single mom.
Update 2: Fox news is reporting that the Clinton staff did leave a generous tip, but this ABC news story says "Brad Crawford, manager of Maid-Rite caught in the political mixer, who said the senator's staff did pay a tip but "it might have not been disbursed properly."
One story is saying that everyone was tipped, so why would the waitress say that no one did? Did the manager keep the tip???? Or.....perhaps he suddenly found it, if you know what I mean. Also, one story is saying the meal was on the house and the other story is saying that the staff paid for it. Whatever.
Not a big deal, to be sure, just curious.
Update 3: Geeze. I know this whole thing is stupid, but I just hear on the news that the manager is saying that the waitress was paid her tip. So was she lying? And why would she lie??? And what is she suppose to say now? She works 3 jobs, she needs this job. Is she going to contradict her employer?? Good grief. This is just so typical of the Clintons. Just obscure the facts and no one will ever know the real truth. Ugh.
Will Religious Endorsements Help?
That depends on who gets nominated.
Pat Robertson endorses Rudy (I still haven't figured that out). Brownback endorses McCain. Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich endorses Romney. Gary Bauer endorses Fred. Baptist leader Rich Scarborough endorses Huckabee.
As this WaPo article points out, the social conservatives are very divided this election. Many Christian conservatives are very upset with Robertson's endorsement of Rudy, not the least of which is the Family Research Council. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said that Robertson's support of Rudy reflects Robertson's belief that Rudy is the only one to beat Hillary, but like so many social cons, Richard Land says he will not vote for Rudy under any circumstances.
This is what I have been saying for a long time. It doesn't matter how stupid you may think it is that many won't vote for Rudy, even if it is against Hillary, there it is. It is a political reality. And this looks like the road we are going down. I just cannot tell you how frustrating it is to me.
I look at my religious friends and say "you cannot let Hillary win. That would be so much worse than voting for Rudy." I look at my Republican friends who are not so religious and say " Wake up and understand how many will not vote for this man and nominate someone they will vote for!"
And neither side is listening to me.
Geeze. It's just like my personal life.....;-)
This is the way I see it. If Rudy gets the nomination I don't think the religious endorsement of Robertson helps. Robertson has said too many crazy things over the last few years and he has lost respect from many Christians. If Romney gets the the nomination, then it does help to get religious endorsements because it shows social cons that his Mormonism should not be looked upon as a negative. If McCain or Fred get the nomination,the religious endorsements help because it helps assure Christians that they really do care about their concerns even if they themselves don't come across as very religious.
I said this last election to my non-religious Republican friends, and I will say it again. You can't win without us and we can't win without you.
Let's come together on this. Pick one. McCain, Romney, and Fred can get all our votes. But not Rudy. Just not Rudy.
What is that that I am feeling???
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A Hunger Strike At Columbia
All kinds of liberal mish mash here. Their Facebook here. So it looks like five students will forgo food until, among many other gobbly gook type things, they have an "an administration that is responsive to institutional racism, supports its students, and proactively works to create a climate in which nooses and swastikas are not the order of the day."
The order of the day?? What? Are there ropes all over campus and swastikas on every door? Good grief, is there anything worse than '60's type hippie wannabes? Too bad they weren't this upset when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to speak. Oh well.
via Gawker
Just something to think about....
From RedState: (emphasis mine)
1) McCain polls better against Clinton than any other Republican, including Rudy. Any electability argument for Rudy applies to McCain equally well and fewer social conservatives are likely to jump to a third party candidate if the pro-life McCain is at the top of the ticket.
2) McCain staunch support of the mission of our troops in Iraq has rekindled some love (and muted some of the hate) that conservatives have felt toward the Senator. McCain's early argument for a change in strategy means he was not a go-along-with-Bush supporter as much as someone looking for a way to win the War. McCain can claim, legitimately, that he proposes the "surge" long ago and the administration came around to the successful strategy far later.
3) McCain's heroic story still lends him unrivaled credibility on military affairs and unequaled respect among those who disagree with him on some issues.
4) As the Republican candidates all seem to be flawed in some respects, Republicans seem to be reevaluating McCain. Instead of comparing McCain to some mythical Second Coming of Reagan, voters are considering McCain in relation to Rudy or Romney and realizing that all have things to like and dislike.
5) Sen. McCain is increasingly and surprisingly likely to be a candidate that doesn't cause a chunk of Republican voters to run to a third party. Rudy and Huckabee are facing (perhaps non-credible) threats from large groups of voters who say they will vote Hillary or nobody if they are nominated. McCain may not be most Republicans first choice, but he is not most Republicans last choice either.
Band of Bloggers...
...will debut on the History Channel this Friday. I've been seeing the promos and I cannot wait to see it. In the promos a military blogger (not sure who), says if you want to know what's going on in Iraq read the milblogs. That is more than true.
Check the listings for more times at the link.
via Instapundit
Good News and Weird News.
The good news? My man McCain is moving on up.
The weird news? And it doesn't get any stranger than this. Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani.
Michael Yon calls into the Hugh Hewitt show
Transcript here. Here are some good parts:
HH: Tell us what the Iraqis are telling you about this lull or peace or improvement. What do they think is going on here, and how long will it last?
MY: I don’t believe this is a lull. I believe this is the real thing. I believe that we’ve seen lulls before, and I’ve always been very circumspect on taking a chance and saying hey, this is the real thing. But I’ve seen a change in the mood of the people, and it’s remarkable. And I believe if we can just continue to help them progress, and we’ve got a little bit more serious fighting to do up in Ninewa Province, and then in Kirkuk and Salahaddin Province, and also out in Diayala Province, those four provinces. Other than that, I think really, it’s a matter of pouring on the juice and helping them to get this country going again. I mean, they’re just finished with the war, as long as we can help get the monkey off their back in the form of al Qaeda, which is pretty much crushed at this point.
Read Hugh's post here. It is just delicious! He has video of the Democrats making predictions of our defeat in Iraq.
The irony here is that with the defeat of al Qaeda and all the good things happening in Iraq, we will finally have the opportunity to bring our boys home. Which is what we all want on all sides of the political spectrum.
The bad news for the Democrats is that we will bring them home in victory, not the defeat the Democrats predicted and based their political agenda on.
A Big French Hug
Who could have forseen this?
What would have been unthinkable a year ago--a two-day summit between the leaders of France and the United States--is now a political reality that promises to change the complex and troubled landscape of U.S.-European relations. Not only will Sarkozy meet with President Bush at the White House and Mount Vernon, but also he will address the U.S. Congress, a great honor and rare privilege, especially for the president of a formerly hostile power.
More:
Alongside his straight-talking foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, the new French president has become a key U.S. ally in efforts to halt the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran, delivering a barn-storming speech, in September at the U.N. General Assembly, condemning the stance of Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Most of the old tensions over the war in Iraq have largely dissipated, replaced by a newfound willingness to work together on an array of issues, from the Iranian nuclear crisis to genocide in Darfur. There is even talk in Paris of France rejoining the unified command structure of NATO in the next couple of years, a radical reversal in French thinking.
h/t BigDog
Hillary, let it go....
Why does Hillary not just move on from the disastrous answer regarding drivers license for illegals at the last debate? Why does she feel she must keep defending herself on what could easily have been downplayed?
Mickey Kaus thinks it could be one of two things:
It's the possibility that a) she panics in adversity--a point Levin emphasizes or b) she's too vain to let herself be perceived as having given a wrong answer, so she goes back to correct it even when that only compounds the damage. .
The answer would be "b," of course.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Say What???
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that her status as the Democratic presidential front-runner-not her gender-has led her male primary rivals to intensify their criticism of her.
"I don't think they're piling on because I'm a woman. I think they're piling on because I'm winning," Clinton told reporters after filing paperwork to appear on the New Hampshire primary ballot.
"I anticipate it's going to get even hotter, and if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm very much at home in the kitchen," she said.
Good grief. This woman hasn't seen a kitchen in 35 years.
Obama on SNL
Live from New York, it's...Obama!
This is the bit if you don't want to watch the video:
The opening sketch of Saturday's broadcast featured Poehler and Hammond, as the Clintons, hosting a Halloween party. Toward the end of the sketch a man walked in wearing an Obama mask — which he removed to reveal he was, indeed, Obama.
"I have nothing to hide," Obama said. "I enjoy being myself. I'm not going to change who I am just because it's Halloween."
No wonder this man will not win against Hillary. You have a forum like that and you can't make the writers give you better material than that??? I mean, come on!!! If Hillary and Bill win, they will keep SNL funny for the next 4 years.
Obama, for God's sake...Step. Up. Your. Game.
The Presidential Medal of Freedom Honors a Great Man
Cuban physician Oscar ElÃas Biscet and seven others will be awarded the presidential medal of freedom by George W. Bush in a White House ceremony today. But Dr. Biscet will not be there to accept his honor in person. Today, like most days for the better part of the past eight years, he is locked away in a dungeon on Fidel Castro's island paradise.
The Cuban cell where Dr. Biscet resides looks like the one above.
The Boston Globe has more:
A prolife Christian physician, Biscet first ran afoul of the Castro regime in the 1990s, when he investigated Cuban abortion techniques - Cuba has by far the highest abortion rates in the Western Hemisphere - and revealed that numerous infants had been killed after being delivered alive. In 1997, he began the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, which seeks “to establish in Cuba a state based on the rule of law” and “sustained upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” In 1999, he was given a three-year sentence for “disrespecting patriotic symbols.” To protest the regime’s repression, he had hung a Cuban flag upside down.
Jay Norlinger at NRO reminds us of why this is so significant:
In awarding this medal, President Bush — not for the first time — has shown huge brass ones. How many other presidents would have done this? I can’t think of any (save our boy, the 40th). And don’t hold your breath for a president in the future who will act this way.
As I said in a recent column, conservatives are down on President Bush, blaming him for everything under the sun, picking at him. Sure, he’s made mistakes. But he also has greatness in him. And this was a great act. In bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Oscar Biscet — an all-but-forgotten and all-but-helpless man in a Cuban dungeon — George Bush has done an incredibly large-hearted and important thing.
Do not think it’s merely symbolic: This award has rocketed through dissident circles, and nerved Cubans and their well-wishers everywhere.
Dr. Biscet's son has tribute to his father published in yesterday’s Boston Globe.
In a world of great suffering at least we can honor those who sacrifice so much for so many.
God bless Dr. Biscet.
via LST
Obama fights back...
On Hillary's energy policy.:
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA -- Clinton laid out proposals today she said would promote clean energy and create at least five million "green-collar" jobs. The wide-ranging speech was the first of a series she will deliver on the topic this week. In it, she talked about the problems caused by climate change and pollution like rising sea levels, water shortages and health problems and compared dealing with these issues to the great challenges of the last century. ("green-collared "jobs? oh puke)
Obama:
“You can’t bring about change on our energy policy if you change your position to suit the politics of a presidential campaign,” Obama Iowa communications director Josh Earnest said. “When she had the chance to lead, Senator Clinton voted multiple times against legislation to increase production of renewable fuels and to increase fuel efficiency standards. To stand up for rural America and break America's dependence on foreign oil, we need a leader who won't just tell people on the campaign trail what they want to hear, but one who will tell the American people what they need to hear like Senator Obama did when he called for increased fuel efficiency standards during a speech in front of automakers in Detroit.”
It's a start, but Obama better find his fangs soon.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Because He Was A Jew
After thinking about Daniel Pearl, the journalist from the WSJ that was beheaded by terrorists in 2002, I decided to go rent the movie based on his story, "A Mighty Heart."
It occurred to me while watching the film, and it was an excellent film, that the reason political type movies don't do well isn't because of Hollywood bias, as much as we would like to believe so, it is because they are too difficult for most people to understand.
This world's problems are too big. They are too vast and horrible. When I try to focus on terrorism across the world, across these years, I can't wrap my mind around it. And I am one of those few who are really interested in it. But the truth is that when I see films like this and I try to grasp such evil in the world, I just cry.
Most people don't want to go to the movies to cry. Most people don't want to go to movies to understand political or religious situations.
The movie tried to guide the viewer through the maze of reasons that Daniel Pearl was killed. It hinted at the reason being the way we treated our prisoners at Gitmo. It hinted that the reason was that the terrorists that held Daniel believed him to be a CIA operative. But the real reason Daniel Pearl was murdered is simple and it was addressed in the movie. It was at the beginning and the ending. And I am sure Daniel Pearl's widow had a lot to do with making sure that happened.
The reason Daniel Pearl was brutally murdered was because he was a Jew. Plain and simple.
I'm going to put this simply for you because the movie makes it much too complicated, which is one of the problems of these kinds of movies. The group that kidnapped Daniel called themselves "The National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty." But that was just a made up organization that no one had ever heard of before. The man convicted and sentenced to death in July of 2002 for the kidnapping and death of Daniel Pearl is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British national of Pakistani origin. (He is still alive, on appeal)
The movie briefly mentions al Qaeda, which is one of it's glaring errors. The truth of the matter is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was a member of the innermost circle of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. In 1994 he was operating terrorists training camps in Afghanistan and had earned the title of bin Laden's "special son." And then there is this last bit of information. U.S. authorities named Saeed Sheikh as a key figure in the funding of the 9/11 attacks.
Were you all aware of these things? Neither was I. Nor does the movie educate us on these very important matters.
Why is it important? Because as many splinter groups of Islamic fanatics there are, things always seem to funnel back to the monsters that attacked us on 9-11. And it occurred to me while watching this movie that as much as the Islamic fanatics hate America, there is one group they hate much more. The Jews.
At the beginning of the movie Daniel Pearl makes the mistake of admitting to one of the terrorist "clerics" he is interviewing, that he is Jewish. They don't mention the Jewish aspect again until the end. They do not show the beheading in the movie, which is understandable of course, but when you think about the gore and violence we see every day on the movie screen, why should we avoid it when seeing it will teach us a most important lesson about our enemy? I haven't seen the movie, but I'm sure in "Rendition" they show all the brutality of the U.S. interrogation, don't they? When the movie about Abu Ghraib is made, and it will be, I'm positive that every inhumane act will be put before us. Hollywood will be hoping to teach us to never let it happen again. Yet, Daniel's murder is censored completely from this movie.
At the end of the movie it shows Daniel on the video of his captors declaring himself a Jew. He talks about a street named after his Jewish grandfather. His wife had said that Daniel had not been a religious man, but in the end he embraced what he was, a Jew. And he died because of it.
Did you know that On April 16th 2007 Daniel was added to the Holocaust Memorial on Miami Beach as the first non-Holocaust victim? His father, Judea Pearl, said that he wanted to remind generations to come that "The forces of barbarity and evil are still active in our world. The Holocaust didn't finish in 1945."
So many things I didn't know about Daniel Pearl. So many things the movie, whether intentional or not, failed to say about this man.
This article in the WSJ has Tom Jennings, a longtime friend of Daniel's remembing this: "This was the man who wrote a song for my son days before his birth, encouraging him into the world. The song was called, 'The World Is Not a Bad Place."
But this world is a bad place. We, here in America, live our cushy lives and argue about stupid things, while the dark face of hatred simmers with ideas on how to kill us. Not because of war or land, but because of who we are. If we are Jewish. If we are Christians. If we are simply Americans. We are wished dead by our enemy.
The recent news of the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq should really be a cause of true celebration here, but we are all caught up in our own political agendas and Presidential campaigns to realize how significant it is.
Daniel Pearl's father is right. The holocaust didn't finish in 1945 and it's time we all faced it. The story of Daniel Pearl came and went. The movie came and went. No one seems to want to remember the truth about the death of this man. I want us to never forget Daniel Pearl.
Daniel wasn't a soldier, he was not in war, he was not a political prisoner. He was an innocent American citizen. Daniel Pearl's head was cut off by those who attacked us because he was a Jew.
More on Torture
BigDog also sent me this link:
Torture" is probably the most egregious of these cases. That's the explanation for the sneer quotes. Because, quite simply, in much of the debate over "torture", we're not talking about actual torture at all. We're talking about rough treatment, harshness, or coercion. "
"The American left has defined these upward until they mean the same thing as torture, all as a part of their efforts to undermine the War on Terror in general. The core of this stance is the assertion that a slap on the head, several days without sleep, or hearing Rage Against the Machine played at full volume is fully the equivalent of torture in the classic sense. (Well... maybe we should reconsider that last....)"
"Of course, it's no such thing. Torture is easily defined as physical assault carried out over a prolonged period against a victim under complete control and holding the possibility of permanent physical or psychic damage. Official legal terminology contains the proviso that torture consists of acts that "revolt the conscience" We can also add, by way of Dashiell Hammett, that such actions must have "threat of death behind them". If they contain these elements, they are torture. If not, they're something less. Not necessarily something justifiable or commendable, but not torture either. (Another method of judging these actions is to ask whether the activity would excite an individual like Mengele or Yezhov.) "
"The left has succeeded, through a relentless media campaign (is there any other kind?) in obscuring this distinction. According to the latest criteria, torture is anything unpleasant that occurs to a prisoner while in American custody. (Overseas it's different. It's very, very difficult -- almost impossible, in fact -- for any developing or left-of-center regime to commit torture, no matter what they do to their prisoners. Unless, as in the rendition uproar, the U.S. is somehow involved.)"
It's strange really, that sometimes I must defend what I don't believe in. BigDog sends me this link to allow me to see the distinction of what the left defines as torture and what the definition of torture really is. It is a compelling argument. I'm glad I don't make these decisions.
It just so happens that I got an e-mail the other day from a lefty commenter who berates me for somehow defending torture in an earlier post. I e-mail back and point out that whatever the U.S. is involved with, does it bother him more that our enemy "tortured" Daniel Pearl for example? Not a enemy combatant, not even a soldier, but an innocent American. Do you know what he wrote back? He said that that wasn't torture, that was murder. You can't compare the two.
Gee, do you think the moments (days? weeks?) leading up to beheading Daniel Pearl might have been torture for him? Do you think the moment he saw the blade coming for his throat might have been torture? Do you think that when he felt the cold steel against his skin IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TORTURE?????
For the life of me I can never understand why the left can find so much to be angry about with America, yet can seem to find no rage for the monsters that fight us.
UPDATE: Actually it's more of "past" date. I found this post I wrote in the archives (2005) on torture. Sometimes I even forget what we took down in Iraq. Sometimes it's good for us to remember.
A few thoughts...
I was watching TV these last few days and I just wanted to comment on these two unrelated things.
First, Duncan Hunter proposed giving the jobs of State Department officials who refuse to serve in Iraq to our wounded soldiers. (h/t to Bigdog for reminding me of this)
An excellent idea. I wish Bush had the nerve to do it.
The second thing I watched was Larry King's interview with Bill Cosby and his friend Alvin F. Poussaint who wrote the book, "Come On People; On The Path From Victim to Victors." Did any of you see it? I have written here many times how much I admire Cosby for speaking out about the problems in the black community, but he was practically incoherent in this interview. He would start to answer a question and then go rambling off on another subject that made no sense. He was wearing dark sunglasses the whole time too, which I found strange. I hope he's ok, but that was the most bizarre interview I have seen in a while.
How can we solve the political differences in Iraq?
I don't know. Maybe the same way we do here?
The suggestion is that American forces must keep fighting in Iraq until the Arabs and Kurds have put aside their differences, resolved their internal tensions, and started singing "kumbaya" in Arabic. But even the president's most ambitious aims involved only establishing a stable and peaceful democracy in Iraq--which is very different from resolving all tensions, as anyone who knows anything about democracy can tell you. For the United States, reconciliation should mean persuading the peoples of Iraq to address their problems and power struggles peacefully, through a political process rather than through violence, and to reject and oppose those who seek to use force to gain leverage in the political process. That is exactly what we are now in the midst of doing.
h/t BigDog
The anti-war far left protestors.
These pictures are a reminder of why the left has the reputation of being anti-American. Zombie should be given an award for shining a light into the darkness of liberalism. via RWN
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Fred Thompson on Abortion
He didn't have me at the beginning. He almost completely lost me in the middle. But the very last thing he said about his daughter, and it had nothing to do with law or federalism or anything else but reality, he got me.
I think I can be on board now with Fred.
via HotAir
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Ouch
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
Wow
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"
Geeze.
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
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.
More:
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
Geeze!!!
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.
Heh.
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
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.
More:
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
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:
Beijing:
• 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.
From...Gawker?!
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.
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.
Steve
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 Journal.com:
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?