Write Wing Warriors

Reactivating in Honor of 9/11

2006-09-11T23:01:00.000-05:00

This blog has been inactive way too long... It has been my own wussiness. I have been actively avoiding politics because I didnt want the stress... but now on the 5 year anniversary of 9/11... It is finally time for me to quit hiding from my responsibilities, however small.

Let us all remember, that for at least one day, perhaps a week or month, Americans forgot their political, racial and all other differences and came together as ONE people, not only in support of each other in grief and sorrow, but also in determination to fight our common enemy.

I, for one, believe that we will, unfortunately, once again, face a crisis that will bring that resolve to the forefront... because even though we Americans get wrapped up in our political differences and bickering, our enemy does not. Our enemy is united and resoved in its determination to destroy us. So I say and will continue to say... Remembering 9/11 is not enough... We Must NEVER forget, not ever.

Therefore, I am making a commitment to myself to quit hiding from the stress of political contentiousness and stop refusing to use my God given talents. As a start, I am putting, on this blog, the words from our president, the same one that held us together through those horrible days five years ago:

Five years ago, this date _ September the 11th _ was seared into America/s memory. Nineteen men attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history. They murdered people of all colors, creeds, and nationalities _ and made war upon the entire free world. Since that day, America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war unlike any we have fought before.

Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe. On this solemn night, I have asked for some of your time to discuss the nature of the threat still before us, what we are doing to protect our nation ... and the building of a more hopeful Middle East that holds the key to peace for America and the world.

We also honor those who toil day and night to keep our homeland safe _ and we are giving them the tools they need to protect our people. We have created the Department of Homeland Security. We have torn down the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence from sharing information ... we have tightened security at our airports, seaports, and borders ... and we have created new programs to monitor enemy bank records and phone calls. Thanks to the hard work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, we have broken up terrorist cells in our midst and saved American lives.

Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil _ but they have not been idle. Al-Qaida and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States. They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens _ and we are determined to stop them. We will continue to give the men and women who protect us every resource and legal authority they need to do their jobs.

In the first days after the 9/11 attacks, I promised to use every element of national power to fight the terrorists wherever we find them. One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom. The terrorists fear freedom as much as they do our firepower. They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the election lever, of girls enrolling in school or families worshipping God in their own traditions.

They know that given a choice, people will choose freedom over their extremist ideology. So their answer is to deny people this choice by raging against the forces of freedom and moderation. This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization. We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations. And we are fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom, and tolerance, and personal dignity.

We are now in the early hours of this struggle between tyranny and freedom. Amid the violence, some question whether the people of the Middle East want their freedom _ and whether the forces of moderation can prevail. For 60 years, these doubts guided our policies in the Middle East. And then, on a bright September morning, it became clear that the calm we saw in the Middle East was only a mirage. Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither.

So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.
With our help, the people of the Middle East are now stepping forward to claim their freedom. From Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut, there are brave men and women risking their lives each day for the same freedoms that we enjoy.

And they have one question for us: Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia? By standing with democratic leaders and reformers, by giving voice to the hopes of decent men and women, we are offering a path away from radicalism. And we are enlisting the most powerful force for peace and moderation in the Middle East: the desire of millions to be free.

Across the broader Middle East, the extremists are fighting to prevent such a future. Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it _ sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle. When Franklin Roosevelt vowed to defeat two enemies across two oceans, he could not have foreseen D-Day and Iwo Jima _ but he would not have been surprised at the outcome.

When Harry Truman promised American support for free peoples resisting Soviet aggression, he could not have foreseen the rise of the Berlin Wall _ but he would not have been surprised to see it brought down. Throughout our history, America has seen liberty challenged _ and every time, we have seen liberty triumph with sacrifice and determination.

At the start of this young century, America looks to the day when the people of the Middle East leave the desert of despotism for the fertile gardens of liberty _ and resume their rightful place in a world of peace and prosperity.

We look to the day when the nations of that region recognize that their greatest resource is not the oil in the ground _ but the talent and creativity of their people. We look to the day when moms and dads throughout the Middle East see a future of hope and opportunity for their children. And when that good day comes, the clouds of war will part the appeal of radicalism will decline ... and we will leave our children with a better and safer world.

On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Our nation has endured trials _ and we face a difficult road ahead. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country. And we must put aside our differences, and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies we will protect our people ... and we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.

Earlier this year, I traveled to the United States Military Academy. I was there to deliver the commencement address to the first class to arrive at West Point after the attacks of September the 11th. That day I met a proud mom named RoseEllen Dowdell. She was there to watch her son Patrick accept his commission in the finest Army the world has ever known. A few weeks earlier, RoseEllen had watched her other son, James, graduate from the Fire Academy in New York City.

On both these days, her thoughts turned to someone who was not there to share the moment: her husband, Kevin Dowdell. Kevin was one of the 343 firefighters who rushed to the burning towers of the World Trade Center on September the 11th _ and never came home. His sons lost their father that day _ but not the passion for service he instilled in them. Here is what RoseEllen says about her boys, "As a mother, I cross my fingers and pray all the time for their safety _ but as worried as I am, I am also proud _ and I know their dad would be too."

Our nation is blessed to have young Americans like these _ and we will need them. Dangerous enemies have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. They are not the first to try _ and their fate will be the same as those who tried before _

9/11 showed us why. The attacks were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did _ but not in the way the terrorists intended. Americans united in prayer ... came to the aid of neighbors in need ... and resolved that our enemies would not have the last word. The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength. And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose _ and faith in a loving God who made us to be free.

Thank you, and may God bless you.

JACTA EST

2005-10-23T12:38:00.001-05:00

To cheer or not to cheer,
That is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the main to suffer
Slings and arrows of trashing the Richland clan
And raise up arms in hailing well placed hits of White Sox wallops,
Or lie, to lull these erstwhile future Houston kin
Thus end the shocks before they come
While Bayou City lays its seige to Lakeside Town.
Tis consumation devoutly to be wished.
To lie, perchance to sleep
While battles rage on bloodless diamond,
For in that sleep all strife may die
Till Astros shuffle off to Houston town.
It gives me pause while choice eludes,
Forestalls calamity to come
Should Loriland do raise her wrath to shake the gods
From their Houstonian peaks.
For who would not bear the cracks,
Both wise and ill, the scorns of feasts to come,
Proud Randolph's contumely,
Whilst vengeful Universe, biding time till hurling 'pon
My bowed head bolts envied by Hephestus' forge
But that the dread of storm
After last pitch doth pass the plate called home,
The undiscovered country from whose exile
This 'lorn traveller, would-be Texan,
Evermore shall be exiled, puzzling the Fates
That spun and measured, then quick cut,
His Yea to Guillen's flag unfurled, the Sox of White,
And not the Bayou Terrors laying siege
To walls of land they call Chitown.
Tis conscience or mayhaps the fool,
This ego that makes us cowards, one and all,
And thus this Chitown fool
Doth gird his feckless loins in such wise guise
For love of Loriland, his Queen,
Forswearing fealty to Sox of White.
These enterprises of great pith and moment
This Series men call World.
A traitor to my Liege Lord Guillen,
Blessed still, yes, fortunate,
Nay willfully I scorn the fate
That doth bestow 'pon kings their state
For none can claim where I do stand,
For I lay claim, nay boast my fate,
Most happy slave to Loriland.

2005-10-22T18:01:00.000-05:00

GO ASTROS!

Wash the Socks!

BUSH HATES MIDGETS

2005-09-10T09:42:00.000-05:00

Most of Chris Rock's comments, on last nights fund-raising concert, were designed to inspire support for the hurricane victims despite any public perception that some of the victims were in part responsible for their plight, his opening remark was a sarcastic dig at the Blame Bush crowd and had me in tears with laughter.

See the video here at POLITICAL TEEN:

BLAME BUSH POLITICS BLIND THE DEMWITS TO REALITY

2005-09-05T06:33:00.000-05:00

The Blame Bush policy of the liberal-left-DNC is certainly not new, we have been witnessing it ad nauseum since he first became president. However, the idiocy of this mania has never been more evident than in the aftermath of Katrina. Other idiotic mind-sets have become painfully exposed during this tragedy as well, but we will deal with those in a different post.

But for this post, let me once again state my favorite quote and siggy... "You have a right to your own opinions, you DO NOT have a right to your own facts."

The following is an interesting accounting of the onset of Katrina by a Brenden Loy as it happened:

July 8, 2005: Brendan Loy on Hurricane Dennis: "A direct hit on New Orleans by a major hurricane would, as we've discussed before, be very, very, very bad. Like 100,000 deaths bad. Like the complete destruction of an entire city bad."

August 25-26, 2005: Katrina hits South Florida.

August 26, 2005, 5:23 p.m.: Meteorologist Jeff Masters: "Threat threat of a strike on New Orleans by Katrina as a major hurricane has grown... It would be no surprise if later advisories shift the forecast track even further west and put Katrina over New Orleans."

August 26, 2005, 11:25 a.m.: Masters: "I'm surprised they haven't ordered an evacuation of the city yet. While the odds of a catastrophic hit that would completely flood the city of New Orleans are probably 10%, that is way too high in my opinion to justify leaving the people in the city. If I lived in the city, I would evacuate NOW! There is a very good reason that the Coroner's office in New Orleans keeps 10,000 body bags on hand. ... New Orleans needs a full 72 hours to evacuate, and landfall is already less than 72 hours away."

August 26, 2005, 1:57 p.m.: Brendan Loy: "At the risk of being alarmist, we could be 3-4 days away from an unprecedented cataclysm that could kill as many as 100,000 people in New Orleans.

August 26, 2005, 9:44 p.m.: Governor declares state of emergency.

August 26, 2005, 11:22 p.m.: Loy: "[I]f I lived in New Orleans, I would definitely leave at this point. Tonight. Barring a major change in forecast, I expect the evacuation orders to come tomorrow." The order would not come for another 24 hours.

August 27, 2005, afternoon: Mayor Nagin says "this is not a test," "batten down the hatches" Â but evacuation is still voluntary.

August 27, 2005, 7:34 p.m. Loy: "I can't emphasize enough what a bad decision I think it is for New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to delay the mandatory evacuation until tomorrow morning... Will Ray Nagin go down in history as the mayor who fiddled while New Orleans drowned? Could be."

August 27, 2005, evening: Governor Blanco interrupts Mayor Nagin at dinner Update [2005-9-2 18:54:36 byMachiavellil]: after President Bush appeals for a mandatory evacuation of the city, telling him to call the National Hurricane Center. He subsequently orders a mandatory evacuation for Sunday, 24 hours before landfall.

August 27, 2005, 9:16 p.m.: Masters: "New Orleans finally got serious and ordered an evacuation, but far too late. There is no way everyone will be able to get out of the city in time..." He places New Orleans' chances of being destroyed at 20 percent.

August 28, 2005, 4:31 p.m.: Loy says it may be too late for those who waited for the Mayor's order to evacuate.

August 28, 2005, 4:13 p.m. CDT: National Weather Service dispatch: "MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS... PERHAPS LONGER... AT LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE... WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS."

August 29, 2005: Hurricane Katrina makes landfall.

August 30, 2005: New Orleans levees fail, flooding the city.

What did mean something is that the Mayor could have ordered a mandatory evacuation 36 hours before one actually took effect. The Governor could have mobilized the National Guard to go house-to-house, Gaza-like, and forcibly gotten people out. People too helpless to get out? No transportation? What about this? This was not a storm one could ride out in the bedroom closet ; staying behind, even in the remote chance of a "worst-case scenario" meant certain-death, not just the dazed look upon awakening to see one's home destroyed. All the studies predicted this, and the government entities charged with disaster preparedness should have known. Did they think they could skate by like any other city?

Criticizing Nagin and Blanco for their failure to recognize the uniqueness of the threat could be seen as hindsight; what came next is unforgivable dismissing the lawlessness sweeping the city as secondary. As we have since discovered in a near-perfect validation the "broken windows" theory, first you had the "victimless" looting of plasma TVs and jewelry. And next you have rape and murder and snipers picking off evacuees. And the best the Governor can do is pout.
Had New Orleans been placed under Louisiana National Guard control on Saturday and Sunday, when the city was dry, thousands would not have died.

Had a leader with half the stones of Rudy Giuliani been there instead of this dim pair of Chamberlains, hundreds, maybe thousands would not have died. Had the Mayor listened to bloggers and evacuated, yes, bloggers! hundreds, maybe thousands would not have died.

Had a "shoot to kill" order for looting been announced prominently early on and a couple of egregious violators been made an example of it would have gone a long way toward eradicating this anarchy.

And by the way, should a few unwelcome guests dismiss this as a raving anti-Democrat rant, let me just state that Louisiana would be in much better hands with Senator Landrieu in charge. She's at least shown courage and resilience in her public statements. A couple of times she's mentioned her brother, the Lieutenant Governor, saving people using a boat in New Orleans and its suburbs. I'm this close to suggesting Governor Blanco step aside.

Strength, courage, and more than a little ruthlessness is what Louisiana needs now. My namesake is rolling in his grave

Let me add a few of my own recollections:

On Saturday, August 27: President Bush declares the Gulf Coast a federal disaster area in anticipation of the onslaught of Katrina. Certain talking heads made statements, implying criticism that the President was overstepping his bounds, considering that the locals must request federal assistance.

"Such early deployment of relief is unusual in disaster-aid work. But damage projections had been so severe - and New Orleans deemed so vulnerable in its dependence on a network of levees, canals, and pumps to keep dry - that President Bush on Saturday went ahead and declared an emergency in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, allowing the Federal Emergency Management Agency to mobilize ahead of the storm."

"I want the folks there on our Gulf Coast to know that the federal government is prepared to help you when the storm passes," Bush said during a speech in Arizona, urging people to "pray for the health and the safety of all our citizens."

More than 5,000 National Guard troops were activated in four states to assist with recovery operations along the Gulf Coast.

Sunday, August 27: NEW ORLEANS (AP) In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin. Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, the city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.

The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.

SO WHAT HAPPENED? Could these buses unused by the Mayor of New Orleans before Katrina hit be a clue?

HURRICANE OF HATRED

2005-09-05T04:52:00.000-05:00

The pithy, pertinent phrase, Hurricane of Hatred, was not coined by me (although I wish it had been.) I saw it first on PATRICK RUFFINI who said he got it from STEPHEN SPRUIELL, but it is well worth adoption since it so accurately describes what is going on in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

As Patrick Ruffini puts it: While center-right blogs have pretty much given over their entire sites to Hurricane relief, an unremitting torrent of venom has today been unleashed on the left. Outrageous examples have been spotlighted here and there (RFK Jr.), but it's bigger than that now: From last night to tonight, Blame-Bush-for-Katrina has moved from the fringes to the heart of the Democratic Party, including at the DNC.

FROM A WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING

Reporter: Regarding the president's zero tolerance for insurance fraud, looting, price gouging. Does he make any allowance for people who have yet to receive aid who are taking things like water or food or shoes to walk among the debris?

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan: I think you heard from the president earlier today about his zero tolerance. We understand the need for food and water and supplies of that nature. That's why we have a massive effort underway to continue getting food and water and ice to those who are in need. There are ways for them to get that help. Looting is not the way for them to do it

The DNC RESPONSE to Scott McClellan's statement: This isn't about criticizing the relief efforts. There are thousands of people working as hard as they can to get those people the help they need. It's about the gall of Scott McClellan and others to blame the victims for trying to survive. It's just disgusting. Atrios has more.

The DNC also refers readers to ATRIOS who has this to say: Bush to Victims: Just Die

One does not need to look hard to find examples of liberal blowhard blather ; POLITBURO DIKTAT gives a great rundown comparing what the bloggers on the left are posting compared to those on the right.
HIGHLIGHTS OF HATRED
(I am not going to link these because I don't want to give them extra traffic, but you easily look them up if you wish to see it for yourself)

BRAD BLOG: I contemplated the idea of turning it into a crusade: No-one in the blue states (where the money is) should give one dime of aid to the victims of this hurricane, which devastated Bush-friendly regions. Why did I flirt with such a callous attitude? Because it should be obvious to all that this tragedy was not just an act of God. Dubya and his deity conspired to transform mere disaster into an unprecedented mega-catastrophe.

Wonkette: We're naming it Lake George, cause it's his fault.
Kos: George Bush - The Disaster President
Atrios: Bush to Victims - Just Die
Tas (at ISOU): Bush is to Blame
Patridiots: Bush is most amazingly stupid, head in the sand, dumbass
Steve Gilliard: Condi Rice Shops for Shoes - next to photo of N.O. baby
Dembloggers: A President that is not ready
Liberal Oasis: Take Responsibility, Mr. Bush
TBogg: Bush Vacation Death Count
Randi Rhodes says that Bush wants to use Katrina to kill Democrats.
Green Party member JÃrgen Trittin blames the disaster on our failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocols.

The list goes on and on, but you can find a sampling at CHRENKOFF

Aside from BLAMING BUSH, you will find many great examples of the hatred liberals have for the Red States in general and the Southern Red States specifically. (As a matter of personal principle and preference, I am not linking to demwits except for certain exceptions)

BLUNDERFORD AT BLOGCRITICS: You 60 million losers who voted for this loser open YOUR wallets. This president declared war on the poor long ago, and while some of us cared enough to vote for someone who gave a damn, you buried your heads in the sand, babbled about abortion and family values, and voted for the doofus.

And now you want to act all high and mighty and come asking me for a buck or two to help these poor people? Sorry, Charlie. Take an extra buck or two out of the fund you set aside to buy seventeen Support Our Troops magnets to stick all over your car to show how patriotic you are. You want disaster relief? Impeach George W. Bush.

Joseph Cannon at BradBlog: ...they voted for Bush. These ninnies obviously wanted these policies, and they deserve to live with the consequences of their votes. A large part of me still believes that many of these W-worshipping numbskulls deserve to suffer and to die. They brought it on themselves. Let them look to Jayzuss for aid: It's time they stopped leeching off the more productive blue staters...

SUSPENDING HIGHER GROUND: On September 11, 2001, The Vacationing and un-elected President of this country was tooling around on his holiday and even making time to fit in a little PR in Florida too.

Democratic National Committee blog attacks Condoleezza Rice for shopping while the people of New Orleans are suffering. Another post criticizes White House spokesman Scott McClellan for categorically denouncing looting.

Rev. Jesse Jackson accused the Bush administration on Friday of not acting faster to rescue New Orleans' beleaguered flood victims because they were largely black, poor and Democrat. Of course the reverend also wants to see the President publically blame God for the disaster: "When he tours the Gulf region today, I hope he will stand on a pile of rubble. And he will look up to the heavens and say to God, "You're responsible for this. And soon you will hear from us.
"What we're looking at is an extraordinarily slow response, from someone who prides themselves in their overwhelming Christian response. The Christian thing to do? To feed the hungry. To clothe the naked. To liberate the captive. To get these displaced persons to some sense of normalcy as quickly as possible. And that requires real national leadership. We're not looking Qaieda. God is responsible for this."

Leading House Democrat Charlie Rangel, said Bush should have recognized the flood danger to New Orleans. "I assume the president's going to say he got bad intelligence," Rangel said sarcastically.

While the left is stooping low to exploit this tragedy, Sidney Blumenthal is positively hugging the ground, if not actually wallowing in the gutter. What the hell do condom shortages in Uganda have to do with homeless people in New Orleans? If you worship at the altar of Bush hatred, you already know the answer.

BUT WAIT: Dudes, don't forget he lied about WMD, he went to war for oil, and he stole the election! Twice!!

AmIaPunditNow may have the best thing to say:

HELP FOR KATRINA SUFFERERS

2005-09-01T07:48:00.000-05:00

Houston and other Texas cities have opened their border and hearts to those left homeless by Katrina. I will try to restrict my ranting to my rant post and avoid expounding on it here.

Donations await those being transferred from the hell of the Superdome to the haven of the Astrodome. I figure some won't be anymore grateful than the reporters that are already making irksome remarks- but then charity isn't done for gratitude. Having done to others as I would have wished done unto me, as a Houstonian, I don't appreciate New Orleans gangbangers coming here and setting up their temporary territories inside my dome, as it appears they are doing according to certain news reports. In spite of the gun fire at the Astrodome, complaints are still being raised , even encouraged by certain MSM agitating reporters ,that access to the Astrodome is being restricted to those coming from the Superdome, in some attempt to control the influx of thugs, hopefully.

The state of Texas has set up a special refugee phone line (dial 211) for those currently in motels or finding their way to Texas on their own. All the refugee centers and redcross locations and other headquarters set up to help them find help will be listed on a recording

There is a drive for food, water, clothing, money, bedding, toys and other activities specifically for the Dome refugees. SBC has set up a bank of some 200 phones for their use. There is a move to set up television. The football stadium, as well as some of the theater and other venues around town, are offering free attendance for the refugees. There will be a free medical clinic. Even as the press was grousing about them having to continue camping out on a 20 yard line, albeit air-conditioned, nurseries for the children are being set up as well as cots and other amenities to improve their comfort, such as hot showers, cafeteria style kitchen, special accommodations for the elderly and frail.

I hear the cruise lines are considering offering their vessels to evacuate people from New Orleans. I admire them even considering it, because I don't think I would be charitable enough to risk having gangs of looters running loose on my luxury ships. And since I did bring it up, although I didn't intend to here... let me point out again that widescale looting and shooting and whining in general is NOT going on in Mississippi or Alabama. New Orleans never has been like the rest of the south in many regards... their rampant disregard for common decency being one of them.

The Southern Baptist Disaster Ministeries has sent out semi-trucks that are outfitted as kitchens and are dishing up food for folks in Mississippi. I have not heard of them in New Orleans and don't know if that is because they aren't letting anyone in yet or if the news just doesn't want to show them because they are going for the refugees- suffering -and -not -getting- relief angle.

There are many blogs and sites with listings for the various charities which are helping in this disaster, I will list those rather than relist all the charities.

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=18473

http://instapundit.com/archives/025235.php

CRAIGSLIST for New Orleans has listings for help and temporary housing (some free or greatly reduced) all over the US for those homeless. Be sure to refresh the page in case of updates.

Bloggers are joining together in a fundraising effort. http://truthlaidbear.com/katrinarelief.php

There is a website http://www.gulfcoastnews.com/ that is giving good information and is also establishing an online list for those seeking family. They are also requesting assistance with server capacity to maintain the list since their resources are low at the moment. They also need help from people to get and post names of those in shelters and otherwise without power or access to the net.

Michele Malkin is providing much information on the charity drives and pertinent, pithy commentary as well.

Pointe Coupee Parish - The Pointe Coupee Relief Fund account has been set up at Guaranty Bank to purchase medicine and special needs supplies for the evacuees in the parish. The account number is 08-1563-2. (225) 638-3192 and (225) 978-8367.

People with boats - The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries wants potential volunteers offering to use their personal watercraft to call the department before going to the rescue area. They must be able to transport and operate their boats, have provisions for three days including fuel, food, water and bedding and be able-bodied and capable of lifting 100 pounds. The telephone numbers are 225-765-2706 or 1-800-256-2749, ext. 0. Those lines will be answered from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., weekdays.

Telephone numbers - Patty Rives, coordinator of community outreach for the Baton Rouge Crisis Intervention Center, said residents can call 211 from telephone land lines to get information on shelters or to volunteer. From cell phones, calls should be made to (800) 749-2673. That line will be manned from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily.

Women's Hope Center - The Women's Hope Center in Denham Springs needs diapers, wipes, formula, baby food, juice, car seats, baby bedding, new baby bottles, baby clothing. Anything a mother and baby/toddler can use. Drop off at 222 Veteran's Blvd. Suite C off Range Ave. today, Friday and Tuesday from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Call (225) 665-0214 or (225) 665-0246. Monetary donations can be mailed to: P.O. Box 1240, Walker, La. 70785.

Ascension Parish - Ascension Credit Union, 2430 S. Burnside Ave., Gonzales, is accepting donations for Hurricane Katrina victims at the Lamar-Dixon Expo Center. Monetary contributions also can be made to Operation Good Neighbor, United Community Bank, Account No. 1500651, P.O. Box 1565, Gonzales, La., 70707. A donation information line will be activated Friday. The number will be (225) 647-GIVE. Those wanting to volunteer should call 211. Blankets, pillows, toiletries, clothing, baby diapers, toys, bottles and other necessities also are needed. Call (225) 621-2800 or visit trey@ascensioncu.org.

Lafourche Parish - Kajuns for Katrina, spearheaded by state Rep. Karen St. Germain, D-Pierre Part, and the Pierre Part Knights of Columbus Council 5352, is preparing meals and collecting truckloads of relief items for New Orleans area refugees sheltered at Nicholls State University in Thibodaux.

Residents may drop off clothing and bedding at Pierre Part Middle School, hygiene items and nonperishable food products at Toos Seafood and Steak House and monetary donations made to the Kajuns for Katrina fund at any Hibernia National Bank branch. (985) 252-0100.

Registered nurses - Baton Rouge General Medical Center needs registered nurses. These are paid nursing assignments. (225) 381-6464 or visit www.brnurse.com or www.brgeneral.org.
United Blood Services - Donors who are at least 17 years old can donate blood from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday at the Baton Rouge center, 8234 One Calais, off Essen Lane near I-10, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. today through Saturday at the Mall of Louisiana and from noon to 6 p.m. Sunday at the mall. Bring photo identification. (225) 769-7233.

LifeShare Blood Centers - Donors who are at least 17 years old can donate blood from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday at the Baton Rouge General Medical Center Mid City, 3600 Florida Blvd. and from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the General's Bluebonnet campus, 8585 Picardy Ave. (225) 383-7728. There are also centers in Alexandria, Bossier City, Monroe, Shreveport, Lake Charles and Beaumont, Texas.

Baton Rouge Area Foundation - Tax deductible donations to the Hurricane Katrina Displaced Residents Fund and the Hurricane Katrina New Orleans Recovery Fund are being accepted online at www.brac.org. Donations by check should be made out to the Baton Rouge Area Foundation and mailed or delivered to 402 N. Fourth St., Baton Rouge, La., 70802. (225) 387-6126.

Operation Blessing - Tax deductible contributions can be made to Operation Blessing�s Disaster Relief Fund by calling 1 (800) 730-2537. This organization is a Salvation Army partner. Credit card donations can be made by visiting www.ob.org

Volunteers at LSU - Health-care volunteers are needed at the Baton Rouge campus. Shoes and mens clothing also are needed. New Orleans area evacuees are expected to be at the Pete Maravich Assembly Center and the Carl Maddox Field House for several days.

HOUSTON CALLS FOR DONATIONS COMING UP SOON

KATRINA RANT

2005-09-01T07:36:00.000-05:00

THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL FOR MANY MSM REPORTERS: I am furious at some of the reporters on network news who are using a great deal of their airtime to criticise the federal government and President Bush. One reporter on CNN, Miles something, I think, was interviewing the governor of Mississippi. He was asking the governor if he was upset at the inadequate response of the feds. The governor (whom I have taken a great liking to from his interviews since Monday) said that he was not in the least upset and did not think the response was inadequate or slow. He was explaining how the troops and resources had to be positioned outside the threat areas in order to keep from being blown away by the hurricane and that they are mobilizing now as quickly as they can.

The journalist proceeded to argue with the governor to the point that he was talking over the governor's remarks. The governor then responded rather testily that if the reporter wanted an argument he wasn't going to oblige. If he was interested in what the governor thought he would be glad to share it, but he wasn't going to agree because the MSM nincompoop was wrong (I think he bit his tongue about here to keep from saying the reporter was full of it.)

THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL NEXT TO THE REPORTERS FOR THE WHINERS THEY ARE INTERVIEWING: While all the police, firemen, national and coast guard men are out there risking their lives to save the people that were too STUPID to evacuate in front of a Category 5 Hurricane, the biggest, most damaging, if not the most powerful storm in US history, the survivors stand there in front of the camera complaining, loudly and bitterly,that no one took the time to tell them where to go...

MEMO to all the IDIOTS: Everyone from the governor down to your Parish dogcatcher DID tell you where to go! They BEGGED you to get the hell outta Dodge. On Saturday the Louisiana governor begged on TV (I heard her) and I QUOTE (loosely) "Get your family and pets and haul ass OUT of Louisiana if you can or into designated shelters if you can't!" You thought you were smarter than they were... well guess what... you were STUPID! So SUCK IT UP and suffer. Many of the guys and gals putting their lives on the line right now to save you and your fellow cretins lost everything too!

Some people are just TOO STUPID TO LIVE! There I've said it, and I'm NOT SORRY! (Left Wingers who mock creationism take note: this is GODLESS DARWINISM at work, survival of the fittest.)
THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL FOR LOOTERS AND ALL THE THUGS THEY ARE CURRENTLY SHIPPING INTO HOUSTON: I would like to point out once again that you are NOT seeing this wide-scale looting and disrespect for law and order in Mississsippi!

I will be adding more rants when I must, to keep from exploding.

BLOGGER'S BLOCK

2005-08-17T07:21:00.000-05:00

I have been avoiding posting to the blog for several days now. I was attributing my 'Blogger's Block' to a form of mental exhaustion or burn-out I call 'Writer's Fatigue.' I also thought it might perhaps be an early onset of the 'Dog Days Syndrome' that occurs when a Houstonian's brain gets over-cooked from the seemingly never-ending, oppressive heat and humidity we endure during the months of August and September.

If you think I am exaggerating, just take a look at the weather forecast for Houston during August and September. It never changes, unless there is a tropical disturbance or hurricane in the gulf... "hot, humid and 20-30% chance of afternoon thundershowers."

However, when I finally forced myself to get proactive about getting something posted, I realized that my real problem could be better described as the 'Cindy Sheehan Syndrome.' I have been so reluctant to make a post concerning the grieving anti-war mother, and yet I could not force myself to just bypass the subject. Therefore, I am going to state my observations, without too much elaboration in the hopes that it will be enough to cure my Blogger's Block.

1. I found Cindy Sheehan's statement asking President Bush if he had encouraged his daughters to join the military comparable to and about as credible as something that Michael Moore might say. My question to Mrs. Sheehan would be... When and in what way did President Bush personally encourage your son to sign up for the military?

2. My second question to Mrs. Sheehan would be: What or who changed from the time you did meet with President Bush and you found him sincere and caring to the time you decided to become a 'cause celebre' of the anti-war, anti-Bush movement?

3. My third question: Considering that this is an all-volunteer military, one can assume that your son chose from his own free-will to join, and also assuming that he quite likely felt he was serving his country along side his brothers-in-arms... how do you think he would feel about you trashing his service and sacrifice and the service and sacrifice made by his fellow soldiers?

UPDATE: I went and read Cindy Sheehan's own words... I take back all my original resistance and sympathy... this is NO grieving mother... this a mother that is using the dead corpse of her American hero son as fodder for media attention and to serve her own warped anti-America agenda. If you have any doubts about this... go read her own words: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/convention05/sheehan_transcript.htm

DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA CONTINUES

2005-08-11T13:38:00.000-05:00

LA SHAWN BARBER'S CORNER has some good points concerning the decision by the Denver Fire Department to "dumb" down their entrance requirements:
"Rather than shifting upward and expanding the pool of qualified black
applicants (as affirmative action was originally conceived) with the requisite
cognitive ability and skills, they'll shift downward to make the test passable
for black applicants, specifically. The first thing whites do when making these
decisions is appeal to the lowest element. And this is offensive to no black
person but me?

I'm not making this up. Instead hiring people with no criminal records
and smart enough to pass a firefighters test, they'll hire people with police
records and not smart enough to pass the firefighters test. My indignation
against this garbage is only one of many reasons black liberals take issue
with me. Their attitudes are most idiotic and illogical."

All I can tell La Shawn, THAT's WHAT I'VE BEEN SHOUTING since the 80s. Years ago, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle on the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America with her book and popularized the phrase, although I am almost certain she was not the one that coined it since that was a report by the National Commission On Excellence In Education by the title of the Dumbing Down of America. A number of others have written about the DDD of America. One of my favorite commentaries came from a 2004 article by NEAL BOORTZ:
"I've come to the reluctant but inescapable conclusion that about 50%
of the adults in this country are simply too ignorant and functionally
incompetent to be living in a free society. They have enthusiastically
abandoned their sovereignty to the lure of the welfare state. They are, in
fact, afraid to be free. They have no working concept of the responsibilities of
individuals who would live free of government tyranny or mob rule. Their
ignorance renders them incapable of coping with the responsibilities of
liberty. These are people who cannot exist at anything other than a basic
level without someone else stepping forward to take care of them. They're
adult children. They need to and deserve to live in a dictatorship,
hopefully, for their sake, benevolent.

The real problem here is that the rest of us are constantly suffering
encroachments on our own freedoms to provide for the survival of the
ignorant. ... "

Back in the early 90s, my employer at the time, Tax Research of Houston and Harris County began a series of studies on this subject. One of our researchers coined the phrase, Academic Abuse to describe what was being done to our children by the academic community under the guise of higher order of learning. Although some states, including Texas under then Governor Bush, have made strides toward combating Academic Abuse, it is so entrenched in the mindset of our educators that it has been fought and undermined every step of the way.

As has been pointed out by La Shawn it has moved out of our public education, institutions of higher learning and is infecting the workplace. The cost of this "dumbing down" has been devastating to our minorities but also to our country until even our survival as a great nation is jeopardized.

The Dumbing Down of America is just one more reason that liberalism must not only be contained, but eliminated, as a political force.

A THINKING LIB ASKS A THOUGHTFUL QUESTION

2005-08-11T12:20:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite thinking liberals (a rare and endangered species) asks another thoughtful question in his Slate article, "Losing the Iraq War; Can the left really want us to?"

"How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?"

TOP TEN LIST: TV

2005-08-08T19:56:00.000-05:00

One of my vices: I love TOP TEN lists... Considering how often it is done, I must suppose that I am not the only one. Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine asked recently for your Top Ten TV shows (with a nod to the less obvious choices)

I don't know that most of the posters followed his request. I didn't completely, but I will here. First the list as I posted it...
========================
So hard to narrow down all the different types to one all-time list when you consider the comedies, varieties and shoot-em up westerns you loved as a kid. But we shall do our best...

1. Touched By An Angel
2. Star Trek TNG
3. Bob Newhart (either)
4. X-Files
5. Quantum Leap
6. Law & Order
7. Prisoner
8. Addams Family
9. Avengers
10. All my favorite serial type shows: Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Alfred Hitchcock, Tales From the Crypt. (I included Fantasy Island here although it did not really fit.)

PLUS an Honorable mention for 2 shortlived shows that would have become all time greats if they had been handled better: Adventures of Briscoe County Jr and American Gothic.

Second Honorable Mention to my favorite variety shows which are not among my top ten choices would be Laugh In, Carol Burnet and the oh so corny fun, Hee Haw.

Third Honorable Mention to the ONLY reality/competition show on any of my watch lists: Nashville Star.

STRESSED OUT SIGGIES

2005-08-06T21:10:00.000-05:00

Ever have one of those days? Ever have one of those lives?

Others seem to feel like that too... I picked up from ONE FOR THE ROAD...

1. Okay, okay! I take it back. Unscrew you.
2. You say I'm a bitch like it's a bad thing.
3. Well this day was a total waste of makeup.
4. Don't bother me, I'm living happily ever after.
5. Do I look like a people person?
6. This isn't an office. It's hell with fluorescent lighting.
7. I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.
8. Therapy is expensive. Popping bubble wrap is cheap. You choose.
9. Why don't you try practicing random acts of intelligence and senselessacts of self-control?
10. Sarcasm is just one more service I offer.
11. Do they ever shut up on your planet?
12. I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.
13. Stress is what you have when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't gone to sleep yet.
14. Back off!! You're standing on my aura.
15. I work 45 hours a week to be this poor.
16. Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.
17. Wait...I'm trying to imagine you with a personality.
18. Chaos, panic and disorder...my work here is done.
19. Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.
20. You look like shit. Is that the style now?
21. Earth is full. Go home.
22. Aw, did I step on your poor little itty bitty ego?
23. I'm not tense, just terribly, terribly alert.
24. A hard-on doesn't count as personal growth.
25. If assholes could fly, this place would be an airport.
26. Look in my eyes...do you see one ounce of gives-a-shit.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

I was contemplating the meaning of life, reality, balance, harmony and the universe... then decided, what the heck do I need to know that for?

There is a fine line between the sane and the insane. I walk that line. Come walk with me.
Welcome to my life; where insanity runs amok, the mindless create havoc, the feeble speak strongly and yet, against all odds, we continue to press on...

Some days I laugh, some I cry, other days I just prefer to cackle manically

This life is a test. It is only a test. Had this been an actual life, you would have received further instructions as to what to do and where to go.

98% of the population is asleep. The other 2% of us are staring around in complete amazement, abject terror, or both.

Ever had Deja Fu: That feeling that somehow, somewhere, you've been kicked in the head like this before.

Everyone seems to think I'm psychotic.. except for my friends deep inside the earth.

I'm really not crazy; I'm just a sane person trapped in the body of a lunatic.

Couldn't go to work today. My voices told me to stay home and clean the guns.

Please grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to know where to hide the bodies of the idiots I had to kill today.

I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem.

Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either.. Just leave me the hell alone.

DISCLAIMER: ALL opinions from WordWizard tonight are solely those of some 12-year-old hacker who has cracked my password and are not those of myself, my employer or any other litigable organization with which WWW is connected.

KARL ROVE KERFUFFLE

2005-07-15T02:11:00.000-05:00

1. Talking "off-record" to the press is not a smart thing to do for any Republican in general and as a member of George W's administration in particular.
The reason being that it has been blatantly obvious that the Democrats and it's propaganda section (the MSM) will use any means, fair or foul, to discredit George W (i.e. Dan Rather and the forged documents.)

2. Karl Rove will undoubtedly offer up his resignation again (for the third or fourth time) but W should refuse it again (assuming, as it appears, that Rove did not break laws or behave unethically... since Republicans actually do care about ethics,) and, because it does not matter one way or the other. Does anyone really think W or the Republicans will get any kudos (or brownie points) for Rove's resignation? W and his administration will be trashed no matter what it does so why cave and give the Demwits what they want.

3. Republicans are WAY too concerned with what the Democrats say and the MSM prints... who cares???? They are NEVER going to give the Republicans or the Right any slack so quit reacting to it or even worrying about it.

4. Republicans should NEVER take the advice of Democrats. When Democrats tell Republicans what to do, Republicans should immediately do the opposite and 99.9% of the time they will do the right thing. The biggest hindrance to the Republican Party's political dominance of in this country has been their tendency to compromise with Democrats, (perfect examples would be Justice O'Connor and the 'read my lips' defeat of Daddy Bush's second term.)

LIBERALISM 101: A Look At An Endangered Subspecies: The Thinking Liberal

2005-07-10T16:26:00.000-05:00

Christopher Hitchens proves that 'thinking liberal' is not an oxymoron after all... but you'd best take notes... he is a rare and endangered species.

In his article, Pluck vs. defeatism after the bombs, he comments on the man-in-the-street interviews depicting the "vox populi encounters (that) disclosed an identical, almost camera-ready, ability to emulate the stoic forebears" and an email he received from a friend: "He recounted the almost pedantic willingness of citizens to make way and say "after you" as the doors finally opened and as emergency staff made an appearance on the platforms. As anyone who regularly uses Edgware Road station, or anyone who goes to soccer matches, can attest, Londoners don't normally behave this politely, so again I assume that there is a subliminal script that so to speak "kicks in" when things get nasty."

To wit Hitchens recounts a brief historic tidbit describing how the "sturdy phlegmatic Londoner" stereotype wasn't altogether true. Upon which he comments: (At least) "There were no serious demands for capitulation. But last Thursday the blood wasn't dry on the wall of the British Medical Association in Bloomsbury, with the lower stairway covered in body parts, before the call for surrender was being raised."

He then unleashes upon the lunatic left: "First out of the trap was George Galloway, the renegade Member of Parliament who has been Saddam Hussein's chief propagandist in Britain. Within hours of the atrocities, he had diagnosed their cause, or causes. These included the presence of British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, the photographs from Abu Ghraib, and the state of affairs at Guantanamo. This can only mean that Galloway knows what was in the minds of the bombers, and knows that it was these subjects (and not, say, the Wahhabi hatred of unveiled women, or their fury at the liberation of East Timor) that had actually motivated the attacks. If he really knows that much about the killers, he should be asked to make a full disclosure of his sources to Scotland Yard. If he doesn't know, he should at least have waited until the blood was dry before opening his ugly mouth. Scant chance of the latter."

... In 2001 there was an enemy to hit back at, and some business to conclude with the Taliban. Since then, there has been unfinished business with Saddam Hussein and his notorious fedayeen. But from now on, we must increasingly confront the fact that the war within Islam is also a war within Europe. It's highly probable that the assassins of 7 July are British born, as were several Taliban fighters in the first round in Afghanistan. And the mirror image also exists. Many Muslims take the side of civilization and many European fascists and Communists are sympathetic to jihad."

These are not the bright, clear lines that many people fondly imagine to be heritable from a heroic past. But the nature of the enemy is somewhat similar. Like the fascists that they are, the murderers boast that they love death more than we love life. They imagine that this yell of unreason is intimidating and impressive. We shall undoubtedly go forward and put these grave matters to the proof but, meanwhile: Death to them and Long Live London!"

MORE FROM HITCHENS INTERVIEW ON SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY JULY 7:

SCARBOROUGH: You know, obviously, a man that you or I have little respect for, George Galloway, a member of Parliament and also a frequent critic of the British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, had this to say about the attacks. We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorism attacks in Britain. Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.

HITCHENS: Well, he got a very good rebuke from the Labor defense minister today. And I hope The Daily Mirror will publish what I think of him tomorrow. I mean, according to him, it's not the perpetrators who are responsible. They didn't kill anybody. The murderer is Tony Blair. I mean, that's all you have to believe, really, morally to agree with a man like him. Well, you should additionally believe that the root cause of terrorism is the resistance to it.

I suppose the simplest reply would be to say that the first three British people killed fighting in Afghanistan, the first three citizens, were, I'm sorry to have to tell you, fighting for the Taliban. So, this movement of jihadist forces, some of them homegrown, was operating in and out of Britain long before there were any British soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq. But I think that takes care of the logic, don't you?

SCARBOROUGH: Christopher Hitchens, earlier today, you had Hillary Clinton, senator for New York, coming out and actually criticizing George Bush, criticizing our government, saying that we're just not spending enough money on counterterrorism. Take a listen to what she had to say.

CLINTON VIDEO CLIP: But the fact is, the president's budget calls for a $50 million cut in what we appropriated last year. Last year, although Chuck and I wanted more money and the Senate unanimously passed a bill for $570 million, we got $150 million out of the Congress."

SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Hitchens, is Senator Clinton correct?

HITCHENS: "I have no idea. My presumption would be that she's just fooling with the numbers. But that's just because I don't like her and can't stand the sight of her. It's not a matter of money. I mean, I used to not say this, because I didn't want to give anyone even the idea. I didn't want to even feel that I was... That's if it could be stopped with extra expenditure, there would be nothing to worry about. We are vulnerable precisely because we live in an open society. Surely, that's the root problem, to begin with. You can't spend your way out of that."

(HAT TIP to RedState.org)

HOW ABOUT THAT BOYS AND GIRLS... A LIBERAL WHO OPENLY ADMITS HE CAN'T STAND HILLARY AND TOPS IT OFF BY SAYING YOU CAN'T ALWAYS SOLVE A PROBLEM BY THROWING MORE MONEY AT IT!

ANOTHER NOT TO MISS RANT BY HITCHENS:

In another interview the next day with Ron Reagan, Hitchens tips over yet another Sacared Cow... I like RadioBlogger's description of the exchange: "Christopher Hitchens from Vanity Fair was involved in a complete verbal undressing of Ron Reagan (on Connected). Reagan, like all the other feel first, hate Bush second, think last lefties, is so intent on re-writing history to make the case that the war in Iraq was illegitimate, got boxed around the ears by Hitchens."

RonReagan: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?

ChristopherHitchens: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there.

If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean.
Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?

RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?

RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.

CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?

RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.

CH: How can you know so little about...

RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

CH: Absolutely nonsense.

RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?

CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

RR: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose that's how, Christopher.

CH: Well, then they were wrong, weren't they?

RR: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.

CH: Well, I'm not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didn't know of any actual operational connection...

RR: That's right. No substantive operational connection.

CH: ...which was the Iraqi Baath Party and...excuse me...and Al Qaeda. A direct operational connection. Now, that's because they don't know. They don't say there isn't one. They say they couldn't find one. But I just gave you a number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.

As a liberal, Christopher Hitchens is on the opposite side of most issues from Write Wing Warriors, however, he definitely understands the War on Terror and does not follow the mandates of the Liberal Manifesto, if indeed he even has a copy.

NH & NJ... DEM DERE FIGHTIN WORDS

2005-07-08T14:01:00.000-05:00

FROM: OPINION JOURNAL'S-POLITICAL DIARY -- by Christian Knoebel

"The State of Delaware has seized upon this obscure body of law (costal zone management) to launch a NIMBY war against economic development plans on neighboring New Jersey's side of the Delaware River.

The tiff began when oil giant BP proposed building a $500 million natural gas terminal in Logan Township, which sits on the Jersey side of the river. Delaware, citing terrorism and pollution, immediately asserted what it called its right to block the building of a necessary pier that would jut out in the river. Delaware's lawyers pointed to a 17th century pact between Mr. Penn and Lord Baltimore, which set Delaware's territorial boundary up against New Jersey's shoreline. That ancient pact has long been a bone of contention -- so much so that, in 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court not only upheld the peculiar border but reportedly enjoined citizens of either state from ever bringing the issue back before the Court.

So instead of litigating, New Jersey and Delaware at first mulled other ways of pursuing their disagreement. Delaware officials threatened to mobilize the National Guard if New Jersey proceeds with its plan to invade Delaware by building the pier.

New Jersey's acting governor, Democrat Richard Codey, wasn't worried. "I'm sure we'd kick their ass," he said, adding that the state could defend itself with the U.S.S. New Jersey, a mothballed dreadnought now berthed on the Camden waterfront, whose 16-inch guns last saw action during the ill-fated U.S. intervention in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

OK, Dover, Del. is beyond the range of the New Jersey's guns (though not the cruise missiles it once carried!). New Jersey Assemblyman John Burzichelli has proposed instead a boycott of one of Delaware's biggest industries, its credit card issuers, and also pulling state pension money out of Delaware-registered corporations and other assets.

Costal zone management laws, which aim to improve water quality and protect fisheries, are often used to restrict growth or send development projects into bureaucratic purgatory. Delaware is pushing NIMBY to a new level by trying to block development in another state.

As much as the Supreme Court once hoped to be rid of the issue forever, the Justices very likely will be hearing from both parties in coming weeks -- unless, of course, the Supremes want to be responsible for a new civil war along the Delaware."

LONDON MAY HAVE BEEN BURNING BUT IT WASN'T WITH FEAR

2005-07-08T12:33:00.000-05:00

Opinion Journal
by TUNKU VARADARAJAN
Friday, July 8, 2005

"An assertion was made yesterday on the Web site of an al Qaeda affiliate claiming responsibility for the terrorist bombings in London: "Britain is now burning with fear."

This is not true; and it cannot ever be true, because it is alien to the British character to "burn." And even if ardor were not so damned un-British, "fear" would never make for kindling in Britannia. Some nations are too stoical, too suspicious of disarray, to panic or wilt in the face of hostility.

It really is considered unseemly to complain, or to feel sorry for oneself, among Britons: This aversion to self-pity is bad for the terrorists, who thrive on attention and the sowing of chaos. They won't get much satisfaction in Britain. Londoners will not retreat into their shells, and they are unlikely to do as the Spaniards did and draw out the tragedy with a lot of public recrimination, or to capitulate in any way.

The secret of British composure is that Britons really do feel proud of their civilization. On the whole, they apologize for very little, which is as it should be. Their message to terrorists is always likely to be straight and robust: "How dare you! I'm British!" "

MUST READ WSJ EDITORIAL

2005-07-08T12:23:00.000-05:00

'Close Guantanamo'?
Our politics fiddles while London burns.
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, July 8, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

In cities everywhere men and women board buses daily for work or school, and you don't need a U.N. declaration on human rights to understand that part of the deal is that no one blows up the bus. You don't blow up the office building. You don't blow up the train. It's too easy. It is the most cowardly cheap shot one can imagine. But they keep doing it.

So maybe for starters, we don't want to close Guantanamo.

... What happened yesterday in London was an attack on the modern world by pre-modernists. Tony Blair said, "Our values will outlive theirs." Maybe. Ours might not, though, if against theirs of wanton murder, our answer is "close Guantanamo." But there is a better example of the fundamental inability of our politics to sustain seriousness against such a threat: the Bolton nomination to the U.N.

If the U.S. Senate wanted to send a signal of resolve and seriousness to whoever bombed London, Democrats would join with Republicans their first day back to dispatch proven anti-terror warrior John Bolton straight to the U.N. They won't. They'll keep playing political fiddles while London burns.

The standard response to all this is that if George Bush and Tony Blair hadn't done Iraq, we'd all be as one in the war on terror. The standard response before September 11, was that if we weren't so close to terror-beset Israel, none of this would ever happen. For 30 years, the standard response to this terror has gotten many of us killed.

TODAY WE ARE ALL BRIT

2005-07-07T10:56:00.000-05:00

Editorial in The Australian: “Just as the world united behind New York on September 11, 2001, this morning we are all Londoners.”

London Mayor Ken Livingstone: “Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.”

Australian Labor Party leader Kim Beazley: “This is an attack on our family.”

Australian Prime Minister John Howard: “I express my horror and disgust at this cowardly attack on innocent people. These sorts of attacks will not alter the determination of free countries to do the right thing. It's important that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our British allies at a time such as this.”

Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern: "This is terrorism and violence perpetrated against ordinary people. It's just a black mark on society, a devastating blow against people. This is a huge emergency. A terrible, sad day."

US President George W. Bush: “The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taking place in London and what's taking place here [at G8 summit] is incredibly vivid to me."

"On the one hand you've got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and to help rid the world of the pandemic of Aids. They're working on ways to have a clean environment and on the other hand you have people killing innocent people. The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty and those who kill. The war on terror goes on!”

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso: "It's absurd, those criminal attacks against innocent people that have nothing to do with the problems that are raised by the terrorists. This criminal act [is] not only against Britain, against the British people but against all civilised people in the world that do not tolerate these kind of crimes. All of us from President Chirac to the president of China expressed sympathy to Tony Blair and Britain. There is a strong consensus on the need to defend our values."

Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende: "Terrorism is an evil that threatens all the countries in Europe. Vigorous cooperation in the European Union and worldwide is crucial in order to meet this evil head on."

Russian President Vladimir Putin: “What happened today demonstrates yet again that we are doing too little to unite our efforts in the most effective way in the battle against terrorism. The response to these inhumane crimes wherever they take place - be it London, New York, Moscow or other countries - should be absolute condemnation. All civilised countries should unite in the fight against international terrorism.”

Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of New York on 11 September 2001: "My heart goes out to the people who were affected by this, it reminds me so much of 11 September. I feel very sorry for them and I offer all the support and help and assistance that we can give. I was right near Liverpool [Street] Station when the first bomb went off and was notified of it and it was just to me very eerie to be right there again when one of these attacks takes place. These are dastardly cowardly acts and the best way to react to them is to stand up to them and do everything we can to support the people that were affected by it, but not to let these terrorists affect our way of life."

Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan: "This terrorist act is shocking and despicable. It is aimed at killing innocent civilians, and I condemn it in the strongest terms. The Afghan people send their sympathies to the people of Britain. Afghans have suffered at the hand of terrorists for many years and understand the pain and suffering that terrorism causes. My thoughts are with the families of the victims and those injured."

Spanish PM Jose Luis Zapatero: "Spain has suffered the scourge of terrorism for decades and on 11 March last year it was the victim of the most horrific attack recorded until then in Europe. For that reason, we, the Spanish people, well understand the suffering that today the British people are undergoing. We share their pain intensely, just as they and so many other peoples of the world did with us on other occasions."

Tim Brown, an Australian working in London: “I am so angry these bastards have struck to disrupt a gathering of leaders which offers so much hope to so many. Once the buses and tubes are running again we all intend to use them.”

London-based Australian tourist Trent Mongan, who’d been in Bali during the 2002 bombings, on Network Seven: “We’ve got to bind together to beat these bastards.”

London-based Europhobia: “I tell you what, if this is an “Islamic” terrorist attack, they’re doing a piss-poor job. The pubs are all packed out, people sipping their pints happily, all a tad pissed off, but basically fine with it. Nice one, Al Quaeda - you profess to be from a teetotal religion, and you’ve given the pub trade a massive mid-week boost.”

Andrew Sullivan, who forgets the Australians: “How dumb are these fascists to take on the Brits and the Americans?”

Hamas deputy chief Moussa Abu Marzouk: “Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected.”

Khaled al-Maeena, editor of Arab News: “Whoever did it, whether al-Qaeda or the animal liberation front, they are animals.”

Silent Running: “Where is Gorgeous Georgie Galloway, MP for Tikrit South, and champion of the oppressed Muslim masses? What will be the first words to pass his odious,lying lips in response to this atrocity? Inquiring minds want to know.”

MP for Tikrit South George Galloway: “We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings."

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: These terrorists attacked without warning on 11 September 2001. They have attacked in Madrid, in Jakarta, in Morocco. This is a worldwide war against ideals. There is no separate peace to be made with terrorism. They are after our way of life and we have to deal with them. There is no other way other than with strength.

HAT TIPS: Tim Blair and Peace Journal.
===============================
UPDATE 1

"It was with deep sorrow that we heard the news of the bombings in London, and of the civilian casualties," Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi prime minister, said in a message to Mr. Blair. "This terrorist action that has no connection to any religion or any humanitarian values."

"I'd like to send my deep condolences to you and through you to the British people generally, and to the victims' families especially," Dr. Jaafari said. "All countries that experience terrorism must work together to defeat it and create a peaceful world."

The Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, offered his own condolences to Britain, and echoed Dr. Jaafari's sentiments. "Terrorism is an international plague, and all nations should fight it together, because if we don't it will spread even further than it already has," he said.

UPDATE 2: NEWS EDITORIALS

"The idea that al-Qaeda was no threat until we created it does not stand the slightest scrutiny of events in the 1990s -- from the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and, of course, the September 11 atrocity a year later. And no one seriously thinks that only America was in their sights. The ideology of Islamism doesn't stop at the superpower's borders; its ambitions sweep through Europe; indeed that is where it is breeding so many of its jihadists" -- London Times columnist Gerard Baker.

SPECTATOR Editorial comment: Friday 8 July
"Yesterday's disgusting attack on London will naturally beseized upon by politicians of all hues to advance their various agendas. Opponents of the war in Iraq have lost no time in blaming Tony Blair and British engagement for the bombs that hit London and killed dozen and injured many hundreds. They have a point. As the Butler report revealed, the Government was explicitly warned before the Iraq war that our involvement would exacerbate the risk of terrorism in this country. But that does not for one moment mean that if Britain had not been involved in Iraq, then London would have been safe. It bears repeating that more British people died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre than in yesterday's brutal outrages, and it must never be forgotten that 9/11 preceded the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, as did the series of vicious Islamicist bombings in Paris in the 1990s..."
FULL TEXT AT http://www.spectator.co.uk/

WHAT JUSTICE NOMINEE WOULD ANNOY LIBERALS THE MOST?

2005-07-01T18:29:00.000-05:00

If the bloodbath must come, then lets get on with it! --Ronald Reagan

WHAT CHOICE WOULD DRIVE LIBERALS BONKERS was the question tossed around by WWW over coffee this morning. Then, low and behold, we found it being discussed over at Lone Star Times (a Texas oriented blog that has national appeal, produced by Dan Patrick, one of my favorite radio talk show hosts of all time.)

Let's throw this question out to all my loyal readers (1)...

What nominee (viable or fantasy) do you think would most annoy liberals?

Some of the suggestions thus far:

John Ashcroft
Robert Bork
Dick Cheney
Zell Miller
John Bolton
Tom Delay

BUT the winner so far.... IMNSHO

ANN COULTER

She even has some pretty impressive legal credentials.

- Graduated with honors from the Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
- Clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
- Practiced law in private practice in New York City.
- Worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan.
- Litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
- Named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

BOOMS WITH A VIEW

2005-07-01T18:12:00.000-05:00

KEWL, Big H made number one in the Top Ten BOOMS WITH A VIEW list by Realty Times.

1) Houston - Power of Freedom Festival -- Houston cuts loose. Look to the skystage for planes, parachutists and unique aerial entertainment, followed by Sky Freedom, Houston's largest Fourth of July fireworks display.

The evening's headliners are Clint Black and LeAnn Rimes. Fireworks are launched at 9:30pm along Buffalo Bayou west of Sabine Bridge. Military exhibits, a crafts market, beer garden, sand volleyball court and a kids' zone with rides and games add to the fun

The rest of the top ten choices for great Independence Day Celebrations were:

2. Washington DC

3. New Orleans

4. New York City

5. Charlotte

6. Philadelphia

7. San Deigo

8. Boston

9. Raleigh

10. Seattle

OTHER HOUSTON CELEBRATIONS

Sam Houston Race Park
The northwest Houston racetrack will host special two-day festivities on Sunday, July 3 and Monday, July 4. Post time for live Quarter Horse racing on Sunday and Monday is 5:00 p.m. The exciting and patriotic fireworks extravaganza, presented by Miller Lite, Citgo, Joe Myers Ford Mazda Kia and Saturn, will begin following live racing over the Infield. The Infield offers a fabulous view of the colorful show over the lake and families are welcome to lounge on the grassy area which also features a playground, concession stands and mutuel clerks for wagering on the ten live Quarter Horse races.

There will also be a band in the infield, Urbana, and one on the Bud Light stage, Lone Star Ramblers, playing throughout the night. Children's activities will include a giant slide, two moonwalks, face painters, pony rides, inflatable obstacle course, rock wall and inflatable basketball hoops. Sam Houston Race Park’s Winner’s Circle Restaurant will present a special Independence Day Buffet. Each table has a prime view of each of the live Quarter Horse races and a private television set.

MILLER OUTDOOR THEATRE
The Houston Symphony provides one of the city’s oldest holiday traditions with its Star Spangled Salute, a rousing program of patriotic music. The finale of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture complete with cannon blasts, signals the start of a lavish fireworks display over Hermann Park on July 4, and it’s free. Web sites: www.milleroutdoortheatre.com or www.houstonsymphony.org.

Six Flags AstroWorld Independence Day Celebration
All-American activities, patriotic music, rides, slides and entertainment. The fireworks display takes place at Six Flags SplashTown this year. For information visit www.sixflags.com.

AND the one that the Write Wing Warriors will be attending this year...

Independence Day Fireworks Spectacular over Clear Lake on July 4 delivers dazzling views to those on shore, on the water or at lakeside restaurants. Beginning at 9:15, fireworks will be shot from a barge in Clear Lake delivering dazzling views to those on shore or on the water. For even more spectacular views over the water, you can line up on the Kemah Boardwalk for its annual fireworks display shot from a barge in Galveston Bay beginning at 9:30.

Other things we may do this weekend: Armand Bayou Nature Center , 8500 Bay Area Blvd; Kemah Boardwalk; Space Center Houston; San Jacinto Battleground Monument

WAR 101: INTRODUCTION

2005-07-01T11:54:00.000-05:00

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stewart Mill

DEFINITIONS

WAR ON TERROR: All Americans need to understand that the the first World Trade Center bombing was an early warning signalling the intentions of Al Queda to wage war on Americans. Since that warning wasn’t properly heeded, the terrorists staged other successful attacks until, ultimately, on 9-11-2001 the clarion call rang throughout the canyons of Manhattan and we finally began fighting the war declared by the terrorists.

We are now waging a war against the Aggressors that attacked us. It will be fought on many battlefronts, against many enemies. It is NOT the War on Afghanistan... nor is it the War on Iraq. It won't be the War on Iran or North Korea... it is a WAR ON TERROR! It will require determination, endurance and unity if we are going to be victorious.

Now, for those who cannot understand the difference between revolutionaries (such as our Minutemen) and terrorists... namely one Brian Williams, anchorman with NBC (plus most other liberals)

"Many Americans woke up to a curious story this morning: several of the former Iran Hostages have decided there is a strong resemblance between Iran's new president and one of their captors more than 25 years ago. The White House and most official branches of government are ducking any substantive comment on this story, and photo analysis is going on at this and other news organizations. It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I'll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England." SEE STORY.

Let us explain:

GUERILLA FIGHTERS: Patriots who liberated this country used guerilla tactics some of the time (much to the dismay of the more coventional, marching-on-parade-ground British Army.) Guerilla fighters (aka Minutemen, Freedom Fighters, Revolutionary Army, Resistance, etc) violate some of the rules of war -- they may not have military uniforms. They strike quickly, kill a few soldiers, and attempt to melt away into the woods or perhaps disappear into the civilian population.

This does not make them terrorists or comparable to terrorists. Because, unlike actual terrorists, guerilla fighters strike legitimate military targets (enemy soldiers, enemy bases or enemy's political control structure.) They DO NOT strike civilian targets or intentionally kill civilians, their goal is to defeat the enemy's military.

Any war can have angry or undisciplined soldiers (conventional or otherwise) who commit atrocities and kill civilians or prisioners. These soldiers are criminals and could be characterized as "terrorists." But these have been aberrations in US wars, and the culprits are usually brought to justice.

TERRORISTS: Guerilla Fighters are terrorists if their primary goal is to shock and terrorize a civilian population into acquiescence and appeasement. Terrorists may switch between legitimate targets (our troops and Iraqi recruits) and non-military targets (civilians and hotels.) There are no switch hitters in the terrorism business... if they deliberately and intentionally advocate, enable or physically attack specific civilian targets with the purpose of killing said civilians then they are terrorists, no matter how much they like to pretend otherwise.

LOST LIBERTY HOTEL

2005-07-01T10:56:00.000-05:00

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.

"Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

More details

On 23 June 2005, Supreme Court justices Stevens Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy decided, in the "Kelo et al. v. City Of New London et al." that local governments may seize property from one property holder and transfer it to a private citizen or firm, if the new use would "promote economic development".Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.( http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/... )

On 28 June 2005, Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media contacted Mr. Chip Meany, Code Enforcement Officer, of Weare, New Hampshire (where Justice Souter owns a home) and proposed that the town of Weare transfer Justice Souter's home to Mr. Darrow, so that Mr. Darrow might knock down Mr. Souter's home and build a hotel and museum to lost liberty on the site.( http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostlibert... )

PLEDGE TO STAY AT LOST LIBERTY
By signing this pledge, you agree to pay for lodging in the "Lost Liberty Hotel", once it is built at 34 Cilley Hill Road, Weare, NH.It is expected that during one's week of residency in the hotel in Weare, lodgers will contribute significantly to the local economy - not just staying in the hotel, but shopping, buying gas, eating at local restaurants, etc.

This pledge is important, as it will help to demonstrate(a) the large public demand for lodging in a hotel built on what is currently Justice Souter's property(b) the large economic benefit to the citizens of Weare that will occur once the hotel is built.

HE SAYS - HE SAYS

2005-07-01T10:25:00.000-05:00

Howard Dean on Softball with Chris

DEAN: Chris, I think the Downing Street Memos and other pieces of evidence, including the 9/11 Commission, have indicated that the administration was not truthful to the American people about how we got to Iraq. I think that's a fact. The administration would like it not to be a fact but it is a fact. It has been confirmed by many mainstream organizations, including a commission lead by a Republican and a Democrat. A well respected Republican and Democrat.

TONY BLAIR

AP LONDON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday the "Downing Street memos" paint a distorted picture, and he insisted that the Iraq war was not predetermined by the United States.

"People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken," he said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press.

Blair added he was "a bit astonished" at the intensive U.S. media coverage about the leaked memos, which actually were leaked minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials at his Downing Street office.

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?

WRITE WINGERS DISAGREE ON FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT

2005-07-01T09:36:00.000-05:00

Here is my take on anyone desecrating the American flag: if you stomp on it, spit on it–or burn the American flag, you are not deserving of being protected by the many men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day. And you are degrading the lives of those who died in combat, protecting Americans, and innocent civilians in other countries.

If the stompers and flame happy ant-flag protestors view their actions as "freedom of expression" rights–well, they have a real problem other than just hating war or the symbolism associated with the American flag. Most view the reprehensible act as nothing short of "offensive" behavior.

No, I don’t worship the flag, but I have a deep sense of pride and respect whenever I see "Old Glory" waving in the wind, because it represents freedom for deserving and "undeserving" Americans, along with adulation for the bravery executed by our fallen soldiers, who were anything but selfish or cowardly.

When former President Clinton was involved in desecrating the American flag in Russia, he was showing our enemies what he thought of America. This is definitely not the way to show respect for one’s country. It was during this period that antiwar protestors set the stage for the immense disrespect now saturating our country, with the same destructive mentality, that was displayed in the 60's era.

A constitutional amendment to protect the flag is being considered for a vote in the house scheduled sometime this week. While this move is admirable–it shows an alarming trend–pointing out how far removed from civility some people actually are. When the leaders of a country have to pass and enact fundamental laws in order to preserve traditions that are hundreds of years old–the problem is much more deep-rooted than most initially thought. If you ask me: with 81% in favor of the flag protection amendment, this is one of the times lawmakers had better be prepared for a political fallout if they oppose the amendment. I must commend the five Democrats –especially Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska who are supporting the amendment. But it doesn’t say much for the majority of the Democrats who are in opposition of the amendment . . . right?

To even imply that the flag protection enactment would "infringe" on the "freedom of expression" is totally ridiculous! To point out how ridiculous: some might look at murdering someone as an expression of freedom . . . right as well.

Kaye Grogan

THE FRAME GAME

2005-07-01T08:50:00.000-05:00

One of the Demwit gurus (a Berkeley linguist and author of "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate,") George (Go Jump in a) Lakoff has been dispensing some framing tips to the Democrats recently.
========================
"For a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues. The poll numbers showed that Bush's approval rating was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq War, that support for Bush on his handling of 911 and terrorism was lower, but still pretty high."

Lakoff has just said that a political goal of the Democratic Party is to turn the American people against the war the country is now fighting. Perhaps the Dems will now demand that Lakoff desist from questioning their patriotism. *

---James Taranto (WSJ-Best of the Web)
=========================

I think I LIKE this Lakoff... what could be better than for the Demwits to frame their values and put them right up there on wall in plain sight for everyone to see... they they would at least have to quit pretending that were not hoping for an American loss in Iraq...

Oops! MY BAD... forgot who I was talking about for a moment. These are the people who would swear the sky was purple if George W said it was blue... then scream to high heaven, demanding Karl Rove's resignation for lying because he said that the left thought the sky was purple.

==========================
* They (liberals) have to hope Iraq fails because for it to succeed means that the liberal approach will forever be rendered meaningless and impotent. Their lack of initiative that led directly to one of the worst tragedy’s in American history and was the catalyst for the spreading of democracy through the Middle East generated by the War on Terror, specifically in Iraq, will be forever intrinsically tied to success through pre-emptive action.

--Lee P Butler, Vice Chairman of the Richmond County Republican Party where he resides with his wife and three children and has been published in several outlets including The Richmond County Daily Journal, OpinionEditorials.com, The North Carolina Conservative, The Lasting Joy, and is the owner/publisher of leepbutler.com.

LEADER OF THE BANDS

2005-06-30T19:27:00.000-05:00

Which one would you choose???? Dean or Mehlman. Maybe this video will help you decide.

Ken Mehlman and Howard Dean are both very busy running the nation’s political parties. As such, they don’t often have time to sit down together and talk out their differences. We thought it was high time they did just that. This civil, political discussion is brought to you by Townhall.com, Trey Jackson, and IMAO. Enjoy!

Which One Would You Choose?

WHAT BIAS?

2005-06-30T18:25:00.000-05:00

First two paragraphs from a human interest story by Reuters newswire service:

World's oldest person celebrates 115th birthday

A Dutch woman who swears by a daily helping of herring for a healthy life celebrated her 115th birthday on Wednesday as the oldest living person on record.

Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.

And WHAT did this Dutch woman have to do with Battle of Wounded Knee, you might ask? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

James Taranto ( WSJ-Best of the Web ) makes this point: The swipe at America seems especially gratuitous given that 1890 actually was a big year in the history of the Netherlands: the year Queen Wilhelmina , age 10, ascended to the Dutch throne.

TIGHTIE WHITIE FIGHTIE

2005-06-30T15:46:00.000-05:00

The Big Bad Butcher of Baghdad is upset over having his picture on the front page of the Sun in nothing but his briefs. Sun says... so sue us!

Saddam says he might sue the Sun for violating
the Geneva Convention and his human rights.

The Sun says that if he does they will sue Saddam for libel.

June 30th Frontpage of the Sun:

As Saddam instructs his briefs to sue Sun over those pants,

WE SAY...

YOU AND WHOSE ARMY

(OOPS, YOU HAVEN'T GOT ONE)

THE SUN

OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS AT WORK

2005-06-30T14:57:00.000-05:00

Colorado U Professor Ward Churchill Suggests 'Fragging'
Military Officers Has More Impact Than Conscientious Objecting

CHURCHILL VIDEO

Ward Churchill is at it again, but this time he is advocating that soldiers kill their superiors. Blogger and First Amendment Law Professor Eugene Volokh goes on O’Reilly to defend Churchill’s comments. Sadly, Churchill does have the right to say this and get away with it (legally that is).

Denver Post reports Churchill's non-retraction of his remarks: Reached at his home in Boulder County on Wednesday night, Churchill said the comments were made merely to spark discussion and not to take a position on fragging, which is the killing or injuring of an officer in combat by a subordinate.

“I neither advocated nor suggested to anyone, anything,” Churchill said. “I asked them to think about where they stood on things.”

Churchill has been accused of plagiarism, academic fraud and misrepresenting his Native American heritage. He is under investigation by the school's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.

All you never wanted to know about Ward Churchill can be found in an essay at BaboonsAreScaredOfUs and extensively at PirateBallerina.

MY TOP 20 "GO 2 DAILY" BLOGS

2005-06-29T17:01:00.000-05:00

Here is my current TOP 20 GO TO DAILY Blogs... but not necessarily in order of preference since it depends on what is on my mind that day.

1. Right Wing News

2. Ankle -Biting Pundits

3. Hugh Hewitt

4. Captain's Quarters

5. Constitution Death Pool

6. The Shape of Days

7. GOP Bloggers

8. Powerline

9. Roger Simon

10. Instapundit

11. BuzzMachine

12. IMAO

13. Townhall-Blog

14. Boortz

15. Lone Star Times

16. LittleGreenFootballs

17. MediaBlog

18. RightNation

19. BlogsforBush

20. AlamoNation

If you can't stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business...

2005-06-29T13:17:00.000-05:00

Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons

I find the desecration of our flag very offensive! It ignites angry and hostile feelings in me to see Old Glory go up in flames. While I am burning with moral indignation, the amendment I would really like to see passed is one that allows us to set fire to the punks that burn our flag. But, I expect cooler heads to prevail in Congress... why I would expect that is symptomatic of a childish optimism I can't seem to outgrow.

The courts have already desecrated our Constitution horribly in the name of 'not offending anyone' (except white Christian males of course) and we don't need Congress adding their own damage. We can detest and protest (as long and loud as we please) about how our Constitutional liberties and freedoms are used and abused by flag-burners, protestors at soldiers funerals, and their ilk... but to remove or limit any of those freedoms only puts another win in the Anti-American column.

We have already headed down a slippery slope by allowing the left to manipulate and deform our Constitution, through the courts, in order to achieve their social agenda. Those on the right do not need to do the same, albeit, openly with an amendment instead of using sleight of hand tactics such as changing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to Separation of Church and State.

I like what MARK STEYN has to say on the issue in the Chicago Sun Times: (emphasis are mine)

"... complaints of ''desecration'' of the Quran by US guards at Guantanamo [That] alone is a perfectly good reason to object to a law forbidding the "desecration" of the flag. For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It's always useful to know what people really believe..."

"One of the big lessons of these last four years is that many, many beneficiaries of Western civilization loathe that civilization -- and the media are generally inclined to blur the extent of that loathing. At last year's Democratic Convention, when the Oscar-winning crockumentarian Michael Moore was given the seat of honor in the presidential box next to Jimmy Carter, I wonder how many TV viewers knew that the terrorist ''insurgents'' -- the guys who kidnap and murder aid workers, hack the heads off foreigners, load downs syndrome youths up with explosives and send them off to detonate in shopping markets -- are regarded by Moore as Iraq's Minutemen. I wonder how many viewers knew that on Sept. 11 itself Moore's only gripe was that the terrorists had targeted New York and Washington instead of Texas or Mississippi"

"One thing I've learned in the last four years is that it's very difficult to talk honestly about the issues that confront us. A brave and outspoken journalist, Oriana Fallaci, is currently being prosecuted for ''vilification of religion,'' which is a crime in Italy; a Christian pastor has been ordered by an Australian court to apologize for his comments on Islam. In the European Union, ''xenophobia'' is against the law. A flag-burning amendment is the American equivalent of the rest of the West's ever more coercive constraints on free expression."

"Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It's not. It gets burned because it's strong. I'm a Canadian and one day, during the Kosovo war, I switched on the TV and there were some fellows jumping up and down in Belgrade burning the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. Big deal, seen it a million times. But then to my astonishment, some of those excitable Serbs produced a Maple Leaf from somewhere and started torching that. Don't ask me why... I've never been so proud to be Canadian in years. I turned the sound up to see if they were yelling ''Death to the Little Satan!'' But you can't have everything."

"It's the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open."

TEXT OF KARL ROVE'S REMARKS

2005-06-28T20:32:00.000-05:00

There was far more to Karl Rove's remarks than just the reference to liberals reaction to 9/11...

June 22, 2005
Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Remarks to the New York Conservative Party

Thank you very much, Michael, for your kind introduction — and for all you have done over the years to advance the conservative cause in this great state and throughout our land. You are a forceful and articulate champion of conservatism — and all of us are grateful for your energy and commitment to a great cause.

I honored to receive the Charles Edison Memorial Award, particularly in light of your previous honorees, including Representative Jack Kemp, Senator Zell Miller, and above all, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. That is better company than I deserve to be in — but I’ll take what I can get.

It’s a pleasure to be among so many friends and fellow conservatives — and it’s a privilege to speak to the Conservative Party of New York. You provide much of the energy and activism and hard work that has brought us to a moment when conservatism is the dominant political creed in America — and when we are making progress on so many important issues.

Think for a moment how much has been achieved by conservatives in the last 40 years. The conservative movement has gone from a small, principled opposition to a broad, inclusive movement that is self-assured, optimistic, forward-leaning, and dominant.

Four decades ago conservatism was relegated to the political wilderness — and today conservatism is the guiding philosophy in the White House, the Senate, the House, and in governorships and state legislatures throughout America.

More importantly, we have seen the great rise of a great cause. Conservatives have achieved a tremendous amount in the past decades — but there is more, much more, that remains to be done. This afternoon I will devote my remarks to the President’s victory in November; the ideas that will continue to work in our favor; and the state of contemporary liberalism.

The political realignment in America is moving ahead; here are some of the reasons I believe this is happening.
To you, the Presidential election probably seems like it took place a long time ago; I know that’s certainly how it seems to me. But it was a key election in the history of our country — and there are important things we can learn from it.
Recall that in 2004, we faced a united opposition which outspent our side by over $40 million in a time of controversial war and a recovering, but not recovered economy.

The 2004 election was a steep political mountain to climb, but the President scaled it — and he did so with energy, passion, decency, and an unwavering commitment to principle. What is significant about November’s victory is not simply that the President won, but how he won.

In the 2004 election, President Bush placed all his chips on the table. There was no trimming on issues, no “campaign conversion,” no backing away from Social Security and tax code reform. The President persistently made the case for an “ownership society”; championed a culture of life; defended the institution of marriage; stood with the people of Iraq in their passage to liberty; remained committed to spreading democracy in the Middle East; and continued to aggressively wage and win the war on global terrorism.

President Bush showed himself as he is. He wanted a referendum on what he has accomplished — and most importantly, on what he hopes to achieve.

The victory itself was significant. President Bush received more votes than any other candidate in American history. He’s the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He increased his popular vote total by 11.6 million votes since 2000 — more than four-and-a-half times President Clinton’s increase from 1992 to 1996. President Bush improved his percentage in all but three states. He improved his vote in 87 percent of all counties and carried more than 80 percent of the counties — and he won in 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties and George W. Bush is also the first President since FDR to be re-elected while his party gained seats in the House and Senate — and the first Republican President since 1924 to get re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities. And he won with a higher percentage than any Democratic Presidential candidate has received since 1964.

President Bush achieved what almost none of his critics thought he would. Once again, they misunderestimated what you and he could do.

And now, moving forward, here’s why we will defy expectations again. It’s because of the ideas we hold.
A quarter-century ago, a Senator from this state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote this: “of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas.” It was true then; and it remains true today. We are the party of ideas — and as Richard Weaver wrote, “ideas have consequences.” With that in mind, here are some of the ideas I believe will lead to the further realignment of American politics.

We are seizing the Mantle of Idealism. As all of you know, President Bush is making a powerful case for spreading human liberty and defending human dignity. This was once largely the preserve of liberalism — but Ronald Reagan changed all that. It was President Reagan, you’ll recall, who said the policy of the United States was not simply to contain Soviet Communism, but to transcend it. And we would, he argued, was because of the power of liberty.

President Bush has built on those beliefs — and he is committed to something no past President has ever attempted: spreading liberty to the broader Middle East. President Bush’s eventual goal is the triumph of freedom and the end of tyranny in our world. This vision, which will require the concentrated work of generations, is consistent with the deep idealism of the American people — and it is an idealism whose importance is being confirmed by history and events.

During the last four decades we have witnessed the most spectacular growth of liberty in history. More nations are free today than ever before. Consider that in a four month period — from the end of 2004 to early 2005 — we saw elections take place in Afghanistan, the Ukraine, among the Palestinians, and in Iraq. In the span of 113 days, more than 100 million people, living on two continents, have cast free votes in nations that had never known democracy. More than half of these voters are people of the Muslim faith who live in the broader Middle East. And since those elections we have seen what scholars refer to as “The Arab Spring” in Lebanon and Egypt and elsewhere. We are seeing unprecedented progress when it comes to spreading liberty in the Middle East.

This confidence in the power of liberty is anchored in the words of the Declaration of Independence; the arguments of President Lincoln; and the policies of President Reagan and President Bush. In his second Inaugural Address, President Bush stated it well:

“Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.”

Second, our movement’s growth has made us Agents of Reform. Edmund Burke, one of the most important figures in the history of conservatism, was known as an advocate of reform. He understood the essence of conservatism is applying timeless principles to changing circumstances, which is one of the keys to political success.

President Bush has pointed out that many of our most fundamental systems — the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, legal systems, public education, worker training among them — were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. He is committed to reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. As the President has said, to give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools. We will build an ownership society by expanding the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, and preparing Americans for the challenges of life in a free society. We are putting government on the side of reform and progress, modernization and greater freedom, more personal choice and greater prosperity. The great goal of modern-day conservatism is to make our society more prosperous and more just.

Third, we are defending Time-Honored Values. Conservatives have long known that political liberty depends on a healthy social and moral order. And so the President is committed to strengthening society’s key institutions — families, schools, communities, and protecting those mediating structures so important to our freedom, like our churches, neighborhood and private groups - the institutions that inculcate virtues, shape character, and provide the young with moral education.

That is why President Bush supports welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. That is why he has supported adoption and responsible fatherhood initiatives. That is why he is building a culture of life and upholding the dignity of the human person — and seeks a world in which every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. And that is why he has provided unprecedented support for religious charities that provide a safety net of mercy and compassion.

It is why President Bush supports the protection of traditional marriage against activist judges; why he signed legislation that insists on testing, high standards, and accountability in our schools; and why he he has fostered a culture of service and citizenship.

President Bush supports these things because he believes they will lead to a society that is more compassionate and decent, stronger and better. We are attempting to spread liberty abroad — and we must show that we are worthy of liberty at home.

Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:
“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance. Liberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”

These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.

There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes — though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.”

I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.
Moderation and restraint is not what I felt — and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will — and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did.

Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot — three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Let me end where I began. Forty years ago, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a proud liberal, won the Presidency in a landslide. His party held 68 Senate seats; 295 House seats; and 33 governorships.

In 2004 George W. Bush, a proud conservative, won the Presidency for the second time, receiving the most votes in American history. His party has now won seven of the last 10 Presidential elections. Republicans hold 55 Senate seats; 232 House seats; and 28 governorships.

These facts underscore how much progress has been made in four decades. It has been a remarkable rise. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party — in this case, the Democrat Party — when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good.

We need to learn from our successes — and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens.

At one time the conservative movement was largely a reactionary political party — and there was a sense of pessimism even among many of its ardent champions. You’ll recall that Whittaker Chambers, who gave up his affiliation with Communism to join the West in its struggle for freedom, said he believed he was joining the losing side.

For decades, liberals were setting the agenda, the pace of change, and the visionary goals. Conservatives were simply reacting to them. But times change, often for the better — and this President and today’s conservative movement are shaping history, not trying to stop it. Together we are articulating a compelling vision of a better world — and I am grateful to all of you who are making that better world a reality.

Thank you very much for your attention, for your support of this President, and above all, for your devotion to this country.

HOME OF THE BRAVE SEIZED BY EMINENT DOMAIN

2005-06-27T01:13:00.000-05:00

Stealing from the poor to give to the rich policy makes great strides with latest Supreme Court Ruling...

WHAT, Don't you believe me???? You don't really believe that the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs New London will result in the government confiscating mansions or land belonging to Fortune 500 companies to build low income housing and parks do you?

HOW AWFUL that those nasty Conservatives would trash the Constitution just to help out their rich developer buddies... Public use now means ANY USE by whoever has the right government contacts and the money to build something that will bring in more tax dollars than your rinky-dink little home or farm or mom-pop business.

Or as Jeff Jacoby puts it: "In effect, the majority in Kelo v. New London held that the words “public use” in the Fifth Amendment -- “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation” -- can mean wholly private use, so long as the government expects it to yield some incidental public benefit -- more tax revenue, new jobs, “maybe even aesthetic pleasure,” as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Would your town’s tax base grow if your home were bulldozed and replaced with a parking garage? If so, it may not be your home for long."

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," the dissenters warn. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

In a separate dissent, Thomas made the same point: "These losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities . . . the least politically powerful." Fifty years of eminent domain statistics drive home the fact that families uprooted by eminent domain tend to be non-white and/or non-wealthy. No wonder urban renewal came to known bitterly as "Negro removal."

"It isn't the high and mighty on whom avaricious governments and developers prey. Justices John Paul Stevens, Steven Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy are responsible for this execrable decision, which shreds what little was left of the principle that a man's home is his castle. But they'll never have to live with its consequences."

BUT WAIT ONE COTTON PICKIN MINUTE... It was Conservative Justices that were AGAINST this government land grab?????

Our forefathers fought and died to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. And one of the most basic liberties they secured for us in the Constitution was the right of the individual to possess their own little kingdom instead of merely occupying space at the Crowns pleasure and discretion.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Steven Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy have put asunder that blessing of liberty our forefathers secured for us. I'm surprised they didn't hold off until next week for an Independence Day gift.

It makes me sick to think about how hard the Democrats (aided and abetted by John McCain) are working to make sure we have many more days like this by bullying weak-kneed Republicans into giving us even more liberal or quasi-moderate justices.

Read Jeff Jacoby, and get to know Pasquale Cristofaro. He is one of the New London homeowners condemned to lose their homes by those five justices so developers could build privately- owned offices, upscale condos, and a waterfront hotel.

I sometimes think I might end up like Pasquale's wife and die with a broken heart from losing my beloved Home of the Brave.

SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!

2005-06-26T20:46:00.000-05:00

Bush May Condemn and Seize Supreme Court
by Scott Ott

(2005-06-24) -- A day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize private property to promote economic development, President George Bush said he may soon move to seize the high court under "the executive branch's power of eminent domain."

The 5-4 court decision broadens the reasons for which properties can be taken under the Fifth Amendment beyond the traditional 'public use' (such as schools and highways) to include 'public purposes' such as...

increasing tax income to a municipality,
returning a favor to a wealthy developer who supported your city council campaign,
improving the view of the waterfront from the Mayor's house, or
getting rid of grumpy old people who have lived in their homes long enough.

"In the spirit of the new government takeover of American homes and businesses," said President George Bush, "We may have to seize the moment to condemn some aging, faded and blighted elements of the Supreme Court. Then we can replace them with something that will serve public purposes."

=======================
I think this is a GREAT move... lets take a CUE from the ~~looney~~ loyal opposition and start a PETITION supporting the use of eminent domain over the Supreme Court

IT'S CRYING TIME AGAIN...

2005-06-26T17:40:00.000-05:00

It can't come as any surprise to pajama word warriors, liberal slayers and other astute conservatives that the liberals are going berserk following the Durbin Debacle.

The outrage over Karl Rove's comments and demands for his ousting was only to be expected. I have found a number of highly entertaining commentary by some of my favorite bloggers. Following, is a list of a few of my favorites:

Good point by Erik at REDSTATE.ORG: "Rove did not say Democrat. Rove said "liberal." Rove did not say progressive. Rove said liberal. Yet, all the folks who call themselves progressive and Democrat have jumped out to attack him. John Kerry even said Rove challenged the patriotism of "every American" and "For Karl Rove to equate Democratic policy on terror to indictments or therapy or to suggest that the Democratic response to 9/11 was weak is disgraceful." Hmmmm . . . considering Rove never mentioned Democrats, it is quite funny how the Dems are beating the hell out of him for saying what he said. I guess they just might be admitting they are the liberal party."

Good piece of advice for Democrats from JAY REDING.COM: "...if the democrats don't want to be accused of being weak on defense, perhaps they should stop being weak on defense for a change."

As usual, CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS spells it out in no uncertain terms with examples of why Karl Rove only told the truth: "What we have here, in this demand for a retraction after a season of personal attacks from Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party is pusillanimity at its most hypocritical. Talk about dishing it out and not being able to take it! That the party of Harry Truman has descended to this jaw-dropping level of political cowardice and sheer crybaby status boggles the mind."

BLOGS FOR BUSH details WHY ROVE WAS RIGHT. They also have a good post on WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ROVE: "it takes a great deal of guts to be a member of a Party which has chipped away at post-9/11 national unity and then complain that someone calling you on it is eroding national unity...national unity, Senator, would be Democrats not lying about why we went in to liberate Iraq; national unity would be Democrats not giving honored place to a fascist-apologist like Michael Moore; national unity would be Democrats condemning in no uncertain terms the likes of George Soros and MoveOn."

HUGH HEWITT refers to RNCs Ken Mehlman's comment, followed by a long list of how liberals truly did respond to 9/11 and the War on Terrorism: "It's outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbins libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Roves statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments. - RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman

ANKLE-BITING PUNDITS gives 6 reasons why the Democrats have made a huge strategic blunder in attacking Karl Rove.
============================
OH MY!! So much to read so little time!

UPDATE: Add to your list of how Liberals responded to 9/11 and the War on Terror one John Kerry: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror"

DURBINS APOLOGY

2005-06-21T21:07:00.000-05:00

With teary eyes and trembling voice Durbin apologises...

I am not one that will trumpet semantics for the purpose of continuing to dump on someone... but the one thing that still jumps out at me... Especially considering his other attempts to downplay his words and actions is that he still DID NOT say his words were wrong... he still apologized for those who took him wrong and were hurt by his unfortunate choice of words.

He was NOT misunderstood... he said what he did, and I personally feel he should still be forced to say he was WRONG, not just taken wrong. Maybe he really did not mean to demean those that suffered and died at the hands of the gulags and pol pot or Nazi death camps... but he DID demean them... perhaps in his heart of hearts he truly did not mean to demean our soldiers... but he DID, and he did it just to make disparaging remarks about our president... fine... that is what a Democrat is suppose to do, I suppose... but if he crosses the line-- he needs to say so and apology without ANY qualifiers... anything less has little value as far as I am concerned.

A different report of his apology:

Sen. Dick Durbin went to the Senate floor late Tuesday to offer his apologies to anyone who may have been offended by his comparison of treatment of detainees at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia's Pol Pot.

"More than most people, a senator lives by his words ... occasionally words fail us, occasionally we will fail words," Durbin, D-Ill., said. "I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.

"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line to them I extend my heartfelt apology," Durbin said, choking on his words.
Durbin said in the course of his remarks on June 14, he raised "legitimate concerns" about U.S. policy toward prisoners and whether their treatment makes America safer.

Durbin read from an FBI report that included descriptions of one case at Gitmo in which a detainee was held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another in which a prisoner was held in heat passing 100 degrees, one in which prisoners were left in isolation so long they fouled themselves and one where a prisoner was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160275,00.html

I have not yet listened to his remarks, perhaps they will convince me of his sincerity... even his earlier apology was full of recriminations against Republicans trying to use his political remarks for their own partisan purposes. Does he really NOW feel remorse?

I called Senator Dick Durbin's office this morning at (202) 224-2152 and, after being on hold for a while, laid out the reasons why I think Durbin should resign from the Senate. His staffer told me that as of this morning, he is standing by his statement comparing American soldiers to the Nazis, the Communists and the Khmer Rouge. There was one caveat, however: the staffer told me that Durbin never actually said "American soldiers," and that there are also contract interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. I asked whether Durbin was trying to claim that everything bad about Gitmo was the fault of civilians, and the army has nothing to do with it. She backtracked quickly and denied that this was Durbin's theory--it would, of course, be an absurd claim since the military runs Guantanamo Bay and sets the policies there. Her evasion shows, though, how deeply dishonest Durbin's position is-- Powerline

Also from Powerline... who tend to be thinking along my lines: Senator Dick Durbin characterizes his incessant imputation of heinous misconduct to the American military as "a very poor choice of words": "Sen. Durbin apologizes for Gitmo remarks." Does he retract his comparison of our soldiers to mass murdering Nazis and Communists? The answer, the Minneapolis Star Tribune will be happy to know, is "no."

From: http://anklebitingpundits.com/index.php
More on this later when there's more time to write, but at first glance, Dick Durbin's "apology" is far too equivocal, and in my opinion, too late. Instead of just saying "I'm sorry, I screwed up and what I said was wrong", this is what we get:

Quote:
"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
Why the equivocation? Does he still not believe his words crossed the line, or just that he made a "poor choice of words"? And why did it take so long for him to do this, especially in light of him turned down prior chances to do so in the past week. What's changed in that time period?. Wonder if had anything to do with the poll numbers showing Americans favor what's going on Gitmo.

But to me, in the end, what is just as shameful was the week long silence from Democrats refusing to condemn the remarks or call on him to apologize. Not until today did a fellow Democrat, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, have the decency to call Durbin on the carpet. And excuse me for wondering whether Durbin turned on the water works with crocodile tears and said "Sorry", because Daley is from Chicago, and is an extremely powerful person Durbin needs politically in Illinois.

BTW concerning that FBI memo: One knowledgeable official familiar with the memo cited by Durbin as well as other memos said the FBI agent made no such allegation and that the memo described only someone chained to the floor. Anything beyond that is simply an interpretation, or artistic license taken over what the FBI memo actually said.

So after a week of horrendously negative press to which Durbin has repeatedly responded by declaring that he did NOT regret his words and it was just Republicans beating up on him... a prominent Democrat leader with tremendous political clout, Mayor Daley, publicly calls Senator Durbin's words outrageous and now he is suddenly repentant... but still only because his unfortunate choice of words did not reflect what he really meant (the original meaning of which he has been defending all week) ...

Nothing more is going to happen to Durbin, the teary eyes guarantee that, and so I will let it go as a dead horse... but do I believe him or forgive him? Not in a heartbeat... and if any of you do, you are even more gullible than Charlie Brown.

ILLINOIS CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION UNOFFICIAL POLL

2005-06-21T17:11:00.000-05:00

Illinois Congression Delegation opinions on Senator Durbins comments:

"Illinois Congressional Delegation"

QUESTION: Do you think Senator Durbin should apologize?

Here are the results:

Sen. Durbin-D 202-224-2152 Will not answer phone.*
Sen. Obama-D 202-224-2854 NO OPINION

HOUSE OF CONGRESS

Bobby Rush-D 202-224-6500 -No opinion
Jessie Jackson-D 202-225-0773 -No opinion
Daniel Lipinski-D 202-225-5701 -No opinion
Luis Gutierrez-D 202-225-8203 -No opinion
Rahm Emmanuel 202-225-4061 -No opinion
Henry Hyde-R 202-225-4561 -No opinion
Danny Davis-D 202-225-5006 -No opinion
Melisa Bean-D 202-225-3711 -No opinion
Janice Schakowsky-D 202-225-2111 -No opinion
Mark Kirk-R 202-225-4835 -No opinion
Jerry Weller-R 202-225-3635 -No opinion
Jerry Costello-D 202-225-5661 -No opinion
Judy Biggert-R 202-225-3515 -No opinion
Dennis Hastert-R 202-225-2976 -No opinion
Timothy Johnson-R 202-225-2371 -No opinion
David Manzullo-R 202-225-5676 -No opinion
Lane Evans-D 202-225-5905 -No opinion
Ray Lahood-R 202-225-6201 -No opinion
John Shimkus-R 202-225-5271 -No opinion

NO OPINION= 21 NO ANSWER= 0

* Those who did get through were told he had nothing to say beyond his published statement.

MINORITY LEADER REID SEES DURBINS COMMENTS UNIMPORTANT

2005-06-21T16:52:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times reports that Majority Leader Bill Frist, in a letter to Minority Leader Harry Reid, demanded a "formal apology" from Durbin yesterday, and Senate Democrats responded by attacking Republicans:

*** QUOTE ***
Reid spokesman Jim Manley called the Frist letter "pathetic." "Republicans don't have an agenda, so they are trying however they can to pull attention away from the real problems facing the country," Mr. Manley said. "It is interesting to note that reporters got the letter before we did, as far as I can tell."

. . . Asked about the reaction to Mr. Durbin's comments and his apology, Mr. Reid said he was through talking about the controversy. "The American people have really had it up to here with what the president is doing and not doing and what the Republican-led Congress is doing," Mr. Reid said, pointing to a copy of theNew York Times in his hands that had a front-page story about the falling poll numbers of President Bush.

"The statements made by Senator Durbin speak for themselves. I stand by the statement he made,"he said. "We are not going to discuss this any more." Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, refused to address the ADL criticism of Mr. Durbin,saying only that Republicans "will do anything for a diversion." Pressed to give his opinion of the matter, Mr. Schumer turned his back on reporters and ignored the questions.

*** END QUOTE ***

Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Jewish World War II veteran, did reject the Nazi analogy. In any case, it strikes us that an apology is insufficient at this point. As in the case of Trent Lott, Durbin has shown that he doesn't regret what he said, and indeed appears oblivious to what's wrong with it. Just as Republicans forced Lott out of his leadership role to show thatthey rejected the things he said, the Dems should do the same to Durbin.

SURPRISE ON THE DURBAN ISSUE

2005-06-21T16:49:00.000-05:00

CHICAGO MAYOR DALEY BREAKS RANK WITH DEMOCRATS AND DOES WHAT IS RIGHT

AP Report: Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says Senator Dick Durbin should apologize for comments comparingAmerican interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis. Daley says Durbin--a fellow Democrat--is a good friend. But he says it's wrong to evokecomparisons to the horrors of the Holocaust or the millions of people killed in Russia underStalin or in Cambodia under Pol Pot. And Daley says it's a disgrace to accuse military men and women of such conduct.

HIATUS IS OVER

2005-06-21T16:14:00.000-05:00

It is hard to get caught up... I have been involved in some important family issues and keep putting off blogging regularly, but the recent outrages of the Demwits makes it impossible for me to continue being silent... there is much warrioring to do.

We will resume regular blogging in response, reaction and recognition of Turbin (he's a) Dick Durban since half the writing team of Write Wing Warriors hails from Chicago. When you have been off as long as we have, though, the dilemma is where to start?

Since most everyone interested in the issue has seen the news articles, I will first share what the different bloggers have posted that touched me. See the next couple or three posts.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ARMY

2005-06-14T21:54:00.000-05:00

=======
A BRIEFING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD ON JUNE 14, 2005

"In the years leading up to September 11th, the United States dealt with terrorism primarily as a law enforcement issue. Terrorists who had already killed Americans were investigated, they were arrested, and then they were put on trial, and then they were punished. When terrorists committed an act of war against our country on September 11th, killing 3,000 people, the United States and our allies responded by using military force against al Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan. In this new era, it became clear that prosecuting terrorists after they strike was an inadequate approach, particularly given the lethal threats posed by violent extremists.

During the operations since September 11th, the military has apprehended thousands of enemy combatants, and several hundred were determined to be particularly dangerous and valuable from an intelligence perspective. There was no existing set of procedures or facilities to detain these enemies in Afghanistan or elsewhere. After extensive discussions with his senior advisers, the president decided that they were not entitled for formal prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions and that they were certainly not criminal defendants in the traditional law enforcement sense. Indeed, faced with this new situation, the president ordered that detained combatants be treated humanely under the laws of war. The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was established for the simple reason that the United States needed a safe and secure location to detain and interrogate enemy combatants. It was the best option available.

The Department of Defense, working through the National Security Council interagency process, established procedures that would provide appropriate legal process to these detainees, procedures that go beyond what is required even under the Geneva Conventions. These included combatant status review tribunals to confirm that, in fact, each individual is, in fact, an unlawful enemy combatant. Every detainee currently at Guantanamo has received such a hearing. As a result, some 38 individuals were released.

Military commissions, trials with full representation by defense counsel for those suspected of committing war crimes. The commissions have been temporarily suspended pending further review by the U.S. federal court system.

And third, administrative review boards that annually assess the remaining potential threat and intelligence value represented by each detainee. These boards are designed to reexamine detainees regularly in order to identify detainees who can be released.

Our goal as a country is to detain as few people as is possible and is safe. We prefer to return them to their countries of origin if the country is capable and willing to manage them in an appropriate way. In some countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, we have begun a process of trying to help them develop the proper facilities and the proper trained forces to manage these detainees. Other countries have not satisfied the U.S. government, as yet, that they will treat their nationals humanely, were they to be transferred to their countries. Still others don't have laws that permit them to detain individuals of this sort, and they're in the process of passing such laws.

One of these detained terrorists at Guantanamo is a man, called Mohamed al-Kahtani, believed to be the 20th hijacker on September 11th. He has direct ties to al Qaeda's top leadership including Osama bin Laden. While at Guantanamo, Kahtani and other detainees have provided valuable information, including insights into al Qaeda planning for September 11th, including recruiting and logistics; the identities and detailed information of 20 of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards; information leading to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the September 11th attacks; and information allowing foreign police to detain 22 suspected terrorists plotting attacks earlier this year.

Detainees are sent to Guantanamo only after a proper screening process that identifies these prisoners who pose a threat to the United States or who have intelligence value. The kind of people held at Guantanamo include: terrorist trainers, bomb-makers, extremist recruiters and financiers, bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, and would-be suicide bombers. They are not common car thieves. They are believed to be determined killers.

Arguably, no detention facility in the history of warfare has been more transparent or received more scrutiny than Guantanamo. Last year the department declassified highly sensitive memorandum on interrogation techniques. Unfortunately, they were documents that are useful to terrorist operatives, and we posted them on the Internet specifically to set the record straight about U.S. policies and practices.

There have been nearly 400 separate media visits to Guantanamo Bay by more than 1,000 journalists. Additionally, some 180 congressional representatives have visited the facility.

We provide continuous access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose representatives meet privately with the detainees.

Allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, as at any other U.S. military facility, have been thoroughly investigated. Any wrongdoing is -- wrongdoers are being held accountable. The U.S. military has instituted numerous reforms of the conduct of detainee operations, with a renewed emphasis on standards and training.

The U.S. military has also gone to unprecedented lengths to respect the religious sensibilities of these enemies of civil society, including the issuance of detailed regulations governing the handling of the Koran and arranging schedules for detainees around the five daily calls for prayer required by the Muslim faith. In fact, at Guantanamo, the military spends more per meal for detainees to meet their religious dietary requirements than it spends per rations for U.S. troops.

Since September 11th, the military has released tens of thousands of detainees, including some 200 from Guantanamo. Regrettably, we now know that some of those detainees that were released from Guantanamo have again taken up arms against the United States and our allies, and are again -- were again attempting to kill innocent men, women and children. The U.S. government will continue to transfer others to their countries of origin after negotiating appropriate agreements to ensure their humane and -- humane treatment.

The United States government, let alone the U.S. military, does not want to be in the position of holding suspected terrorists any longer than is absolutely necessary. But as long as there remains a need to keep terrorists from striking again, a facility will continue to be needed. The U.S. taxpayers have invested over $100 million in military construction in the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and it is spending something like an average of $90 (million) to $95 million a year to operate that facility to its highest standards.

The real problem is not Guantanamo Bay. The problem is that, to a large extent, we are in unexplored territory with this unconventional and complex struggle against extremism. Traditional doctrines covering criminals and military prisoners do not apply well enough.

As the president has said, we are always looking for ways to improve our procedures. And of course we have been looking for better suggestions as to how to manage detainees who pose a lethal threat to the civilized world, and we have already implemented dozens of reforms.

Finally, today is the 230th birthday of the United States Army. From this Republic's earliest days, the American people have depended on our soldiers to protect our freedoms and to stand against those who seek to take our freedoms away. Theirs is a proud history. So I want to wish the Army a happy birthday and extend my appreciation to all those who serve in the United States Army around the world, and the appreciation of a grateful nation."

THOUGHTS ON THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF AMERICA

2005-06-02T00:07:00.000-05:00

For those concerned about the immigration issue that the Minuteman movement in Arizona is attempting to bring to our attention... I, a born and bred decesendant of Texas Freedom Fighters, would like to share a bit of Texas history for the purpose of illustrating a point.

When the Anglo settlers in Texas (who were Mexican Citizens if they were landowners) decided to declare independence from Mexico it was because the government had been overthrown and in control of Santa Ana, a tyrannical dictator much like Saddam.

All agreements and constitutional freedoms that had been granted the settlers (as well as many for the Mexican nationals) had been revoked by Santa Ana when he overthrew the Mexican government and he was determined to drive out and destroy all the Anglo settlers and take over their farms, ranches and businesses (in addition to taking anything from Mexican citizens he desired.)

When the decision was made to declare independence from Mexico, many Mexican nationals, who treasured freedom, joined with the Anglo settlers to fight for their independence. Those Mexican nationals became known as Tejanos and their ancestors were honored as heroes here in Texas, just as much as any of the better known names in the US (like Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie.)

Tejanos were every bit as proud of being Texan and American as anyone I knew. When I was growing up, Mexican immigrants were proud to become Americans... they were among the most vocal opponents of bilingual education... they WANTED their children to learn English, to be proud of their adopted country.

Now to my point... the Americans with Mexican heritage and the legal immigrants were opposing bilingual education (the first phase of this drive to open borders.) Those in this country illegally (I object to calling them immigrants) did not yet have a political voice... so WHO was pushing bilingual education?

I will give you a hint... the same people that were pushing MULTICULTURALISM. Have you guessed yet? Yes, it was the liberals... this is why I advocate the eradication of liberalism. Liberalism is the enemy of everything that is American.

Multiculturalism was just another anti-American program. The hated MELTING POT is uniquely American... it is the TRUE American culture... that is why the liberals have spent so much effort trying to demonize it. It is who we are.

The so-called melting pot is a phenomenon that occurs no where else in history. It is when people from many countries and cultures come and bring the best of their heritage to blend with others looking to become part of something that was bigger and better than anything they had ever had before. And by doing so, this country of immigrants developed its own melting pot culture, one that offered freedom and unlimited opportunity for anyone who was willing to work, fight and sometimes die for such an unheard of ideal.

Change and growth is always difficult and so it was with this country... We have had evil infections that had to be rooted out and healed, but we have always strived for that "impossible dream" until we made the impossible, not only possible, but the envy of the world. However, envy can become a sickness... and that sickness has invaded our country and created a sub-culture that we call liberalism. That disease has made great inroads in vital areas of our country and has weakened the very foundations that once made us so strong. Other countries have always and will always attempt to take advantage of and then belittle the US... but our greatest and most dangerous enemy is the one within.

Unfortunately, those that do or have dearly loved this incredible adventure called America have largely been blind to the threat liberalism has become for our country. Expecting, but not demanding, the best from everyone coming to America has been both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. It was not 9-11 that shook many of us out of our complacency... it was the aftermath, when the liberals shed their various disguises and began to show their true colors and vicious hatred for America that many of us recognized the enemy and became warriors in the War for the Heart and Soul of America where victory is even more vital than in the War on Terror.

The election of George W was an important battle, but there are many more battles yet to be fought and won. Freedom Fighters, such as LetFreedomRing and the other warriors here and in other America-Loving groups, are vital to regaining our lost ground and putting US back on solid ground. We must never again let complacency or ignorance reign in this country. Therefore I implore you not to blame Mexico or certain politicians while ignoring the fact that this illegal invasion was begat and is being legitimatised by that disease of the mind and soul we call liberalism.

YOU MIGHT BE A LIBERAL IF...

2005-04-16T02:04:00.000-05:00

...
you aren't joking when you make redneck jokes.

Does anyone remember that the term redneck originally meant nothing more than slang for a blue-collar worker whose job WAS generally done outdoors --hence the red neck. It's just another example of a perfectly good word stolen and corrupted by liberals to serve their purposes.

In much the same way that Texans poke affectionate fun at the Texas A&M Aggies... Redneck jokes (for most Texans and Southerners) is an affectionate form of poking fun both at ourselves and at the Northern Liberals who see the term redneck as a serious insult.

As usual, Texans and Southerners have exhibited an extraordinary ability to laugh at themselves in spite of all the slurs and insults slung at them by liberals in an ongoing attempt to degrade any citizen of Red State America... particularly the South.

What isn't so funny is how the so-called tolerant, diversity-fixated and inclusive philosophy is so extremely intolerant, divisive and exclusive. Although they talk a good game, actions speak louder than BS and the actions of Liberals scream that they are very restrictive about what groups, divisions, philosophies or minorities that they favor and protect (although use and confuse is a more accurate description.)

It appears to be perfectly acceptable for the Liberals to discriminate against, ridicule, slur and denegrate anyone that is Texan, Southern, Blue-Collar, Redneck, Conservative or Christian (of the Fundamental, Evangelical, Catholic or Bible-Believing variety.)

Oh, but let us NOT forget the "ANGRY WHITE MALE " (gay white males excepted, of course.) Liberal Metrosexual men, who completely kowtow to the FEMINAZIS, are somewhat exempt from male bashing, as long as they pretend that women are pulling their strings.

On the other hand, the Liberal 'rock-star calibre' adoration of the womanizer and abuser, Bill Clinton, is totally inexplicable... although there is a theory, being passed among Pajama Patriots, that any election-winning Democrat will be forgiven everything, at least up to the point of... well, come to think of it, I don't guess we have seen the limit of THAT TOLERATION yet.

OOPS... I almost forgot the sin for which no democrat can ever be forgiven ... the MORTAL SIN of SUPPORTING Bush!

PROBLEM SOLVED

2005-04-14T18:24:00.000-05:00

"U.S. Executions by Lethal Injection May Not Be Humane"--headline, HealthDay News, April 14

"Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death"--headline, New York Times, March 20

THE LEFT'S THOUGHT GULAG

2005-03-18T17:12:00.000-06:00

Three Blog Cheers for David Limbaugh. He has given a precise and correct definition for Political Correctness in his Townhall.com article: Lawrence Summers and the left's thought gulag.

"It's time we call political correctness what it is: a liberal code of thought, speech and conduct. Anyone who thinks conservatives are behind any of this lunacy is either uninformed or being dishonest."

I would say it is high time we called a spade a spade (and that is NOT a racist comment no matter how much the Left's Thought Gulag tries to tell you differently.) Words @ Random's Word of the Day section defines it as such:

"To call a spade a spade, which means, ironically for this discussion, 'to speak plainly and bluntly; to speak without euphemisms', is first found in Ancient Greece. The exact origin is uncertain; the playwright Menander, in a fragment, said "I call a fig a fig, a spade a spade," but Lucian attributes the phrase to Aristophanes. Later, Plutarch notes that "The Macedonians are a rude and clownish people who call a spade a spade." (It is worth noting that the Greek word translated as "spade" seems actually to mean something like "bowl" or "trough"; the "spade" may be based on a Renaissance mistranslation. In this case the original expression was "to call a bowl a bowl," and thus the "spade" expression is "only" 500, rather than 2,500,
years old.)"

Unfortunately, they give a nod to the LIBERAL CODE of Political Correctness lest the Thought Police come after them...

"Let's get two things straight here: first, the expression to call a spade a spade is thousands of years old and etymologically has nothing whatsoever to do with any racial sentiment. The second is that in spite of this, some people think it is a racial statement, and therefore it should be treated with some caution."

I say BS to so much as a nod to the LIBERAL CODE! And RIGHT ON Mr. Limbaugh as he goes on to explain the Liberal Code further:

... "The dirty secret -- at least it's a secret to liberals -- is that political
correctness, emanating as it does from a liberal mindset, is not open-minded, it's not inviting, and it's not progressive or enlightened. It is the antithesis of what liberalism claims to be all about."

"No, the liberal code is illiberal, it's close-minded, censorial, tyrannical, oppressive, uncompassionate, intolerant, anti-libertarian, anti-intellectual, anti-academic inquiry, arrogant, proud and unforgiving."

... "How can anyone take such people seriously? They not only don't value President Summers' views (or those of anyone else who runs afoul of the "code"), they won't even let him bring certain subjects up for discussion. This isn't just thought control, it's thought prison."

"The Left is increasingly intellectually bankrupt and delusional. But worse, it has become boorishly dictatorial, not even sparing would-be allies, like Clintonite Lawrence Summers, from its hellish wrath, if they dare not just to disagree with their dogma, but to express a willingness to consider ideas the 'code' forbids."

Go read the Limbaugh article and cheer on this Write Wing Warrior's efforts to expose and eradicate Liberalism.

BREAKING NEWS

2005-03-18T14:50:00.000-06:00

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) - Doctors removed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube Friday despite an extraordinary, last-minute push by Republicans on Capitol Hill to use the subpoena powers of Congress to keep the severely brain-damaged woman alive, a source close to the case told The Associated Press.

THE LAST DITCH EFFORT: "The Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee, Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has requested Terri Schiavo to testify before his congressional committee, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In so doing it triggers legal or statutory protections for the witness, among those protections is that nothing can be done to cause harm or death to this individual. Members of Congress went to the U.S. Attorney in DC to ask for a temporary restraining order to be issued by a judge, which protects Terri Schiavo from having her life support, including her feeding and hydration tubes, removed... Developing..."

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. Mar 18, 2005 — The presiding judge in the case of Terri Schiavo ruled Friday that the feeding tube keeping the brain-damaged woman alive can be removed despite efforts by congressional Republicans to block the move by seeking her appearance at hearings.

Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer refused a request from U.S. House attorneys to delay the removal, which he had previously ordered to take place at 1 p.m. EST. Greer determined that it should go forward about an hour after another judge issued a temporary delay blocking the tube's removal."

The LAST DITCH efforts to prevent the execution of Ms Schiavo appears to have indeed failed according to a Reuters report.

I do not agree with the article by Peggy Noonan who often tends to blame and tirade against Republicans.

"... note to the Republican leadership in the House and Senate: You have to pull out all the stops. You have to run over your chairmen if they're being obstructionist for this niggling reason and that. Run over their egos, run past their fatigue. You have to win on this. If you don't, you can't imagine how much you're going to lose. And from people who have faith in you.

Bill Frist and Tom DeLay and Jim Sensenbrenner and Denny Hastert and all the rest would be better off risking looking ridiculous and flying down to Florida, standing outside Terri Schiavo's room and physically restraining the poor harassed staff who may be told soon to remove her feeding tube, than standing by in Washington, helpless and tied in legislative knots, and doing nothing.

Issue whatever subpoena, call whatever witnesses, pass whatever emergency bill, but don't let this woman die."

I think (and truly hope) that the citizens who have taken up the banner for Terri Schiavo will remember and blame the ones truly responsible... liberals and their judicial and congressional activists.

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF THOSE WHO THREATEN IT

2005-03-18T14:25:00.000-06:00

Mark this day on your perpetual calendar. It is another day that should and will live on in infamy... the day that the courts succeeded in establishing another group against which they have issued a LICENSE TO KILL.

On another day just as dastardly, January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval for the LICENSE TO KILL all unborn babies if their mother so desired. March 18, 2005 will now forever be known as the day the courts forced upon us the 'right' to kill persons that suffer severe injury or illness after birth. Today the court-ordered death sentence of Terri Schindler-Schiavo will be carried out.

The Federalist Patriot, who has been a staunch champion advocating for the life of Ms Schindler-Schiavo, capsulized the case for us and it is a hard pill to swallow.

"The details of Terri Schiavo's case, and concern for the precious value of her life, raise important moral and ethical questions which should concern all Americans. Who should decide the fate of a disabled person needing essential medical care and interventions? Are courts really the proper venue for resolving disputes over whether to continue or withhold life-preserving treatment? Should the government be involved at all?"

The Federalist contends, accurately, that this case is about the judiciary protecting its power and supremacy over the executive and legislative branches of our government. That power has consistently been focused on overturning the constitution, to render it toothless and useless and then eventually to order it's execution.

Evidence of that truth is not hard to find. Consider the comments (online at RadioBlogger) made by the Democrat Darling Barbara Boxer at a recent Move.On.org rally held in support of the obstruction efforts by congressional Democrats... "Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote? So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a superimportant position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."

The WSJ Best of the Web has this say about it: "Now, maybe it's a good idea to require 60 votes to confirm a judge, though we don't seem to recall Boxer or any other Democrat suggesting it in 1993-94, when it would have allowed minority Republicans to block Clinton appointees. But the Constitution requires only a majority vote. If Boxer thinks a supermajority would be better, she should propose a constitutional amendment--one that would impose the rule for all time, not just when it's expedient for the Democrats."

As you can see, the eventual eradication of the Constitution is an essential component of the Liberal Manifesto for, as the Federalist points out, our Constitution defines certain rights as God-given (can't you just hear the liberals shudder.) These rights, according to the Constitution are "unalienable." That means the rights of the innocent cannot be surrendered, transferred, abridged, or removed by anyone, not even the courts. The Liberals CANNOT abide this as it interferes with one of their primary goals: replacing God.

"The measure of a society is how they treat the least of us," The Federalist further quotes Kate Adamson (who testified that the removal of her feeding tube caused excruciating pain that she recalled even after recovering from her "permanent vegetative state") She states, "Life is sacred or meaningless, there is nothing inbetween."

Both the House and Senate of the USA as well as Florida have introduced and/or passed bills that supposedly will rectify the injustice of courts being able to kill incapacitated adults that do not have the safeguards and protections of the appeal process (including clemency and pardons) that do the murdering bastards on death row. Unfortunately, liberal opponents have thrown enough obstructions into the process that there is no hope of the bills making their way into law in time to prevent Michael Schiavo from legally killing his wife , succeding now where he allegedly failed to kill her illegally in the first place.)

QUOTES

"The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected -- and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities." --President George W. Bush

"Do we want to reinforce the fear that the infirm are no more than a burden on the healthy? We need to send a message that even in our darkest hours, life is still worth living, that loved ones will come alongside to help, and that doctors will treat pain effectively and compassionately -- not with a lethal prescription." --David Stevens, M.D., executive director of the 17,000-member Christian Medical Association, an alternative to the American Medical Association, which long ago abandoned the Hippocratic oath, especially the part, "First do no harm..."

"Terri Schiavo, and men and women like her, deserve the same due-process rights that death row inmates are granted. When a court is making a life-or-death decision for a disabled person who has been charged with no crime, shouldn't they be afforded independent counsel to speak on their behalf?" --Florida Republican Rep. and physician Dave Weldon, sponsor of the House of Representatives version of the "The Incapacitated Person's Legal Protection Act," which extends federal habeas-corpus protections -- now available to convicted felons -- to innocent disabled persons set to be executed by legal order.

KING SOLOMON HAS LEFT THE BUILDING

2005-03-18T13:55:00.000-06:00

"...a dilemma for the national conscience."

"...everyone's stricken loved one the lost daughter, the spouse beyond reach who resides in the dark corners of our worst fears..."

"She's the blank slate upon which both sides in the culture wars can spell out their arguments. She's the Rorschach test for our most enormous, inchoate existential questions. What is the meaning of life, after all? And who gets to decide when it's worth it?"

"Like the miners and Baby Jessica, like Persephone in the underworld in Greek mythology, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White in fairy tales, Terri Schiavo is alive but beyond our reach. The heroine in a state of suspended animation keeps us hanging as well. We are drawn to her in the way we gravitate to the classic, archetypical stories that give substance to universal fears and wishes."

"Stripped of its legal trappings, Terri Schiavo's mystery is our mystery, the one we try to avoid most of the time. It's about how we measure the inherent value of a particular life, your particular life or mine."

"Terri Schiavo can't speak for herself. Into the silence, we project our deepest anxieties about existence and significance. We all wrestle with the meaning of our lives, but we're rarely called upon to quantify it or justify our existence before the court of public opinion. So Terri Schiavo becomes a surrogate for our self-evaluation on some cosmic scale. How would I weigh in if my life hung in the balance? "

This soul-wrenching equivocation is stomach-wretching. Acknowledging that there could be another side in this particular situation is like validating the NAZI view of qualifying life on a sliding FASCIST-calibrated scale. This much vaunted right to die is thrown in our faces as justification for assisted suicide, mercy killing , and the passive euthanasia of "removal" of life sustaining "extraordinary" means. That nebulous SLIPPERY SLOPE our tyrannical Liberals say they fear so much from the Right THEY have shoved down our throats.

Ignoring for the moment, the little mentioned fact that her husband pocketed the million plus collected for her care, ignoring for the moment the buried charges that she suffered the brain trauma directly as a result of her husband's brutality, what is left? His claim she said, SHE SAID, that she would not want to live like a vegetable. How convenient. Worthy of a soap opera if it were not so horrifically real.

REASON #1,000,006 FOR ERADICATING LIBERALISM

2005-03-17T13:31:00.001-06:00

There has been much handwringing, soul-searching, by Liberal Cassandras as they make dire predictions about the collapse of our democracy if we so much as inconvenience one "detainee" at Guantanamo and other detention facilities. Subjecting them to conditions such as allowing them to believe themselves to be drowning or in imminent danger of drowning is described as "torture," which, according to the liberals, make us no better than the monsters we are fighting. If they are deprived of one meal or have their access restricted to Coca Cola, the Civil Liberties Union or Amnesty International runs to the International Court at the Hague.

Are they tortured? Depends on your definition of torture, I suppose. Suffice it to say that Marine Corps recruits at the now defunct MCRD in San Diego would not cry for the "detainees" at Guantanamo who would undoubtedly cheer at the sight of American women and children being incinerated by aircraft driven into US buildings (probably preferring to be the suicidal zealots flying said aircraft.) Under the liberal's definition of torture, most military recruits in boot camp would have grounds for law suits.

Our view on how we treat detaineed terrorists was summed up by an unusually patriotic American jurist who pointedly noted that the United States Constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact. We are not obliged to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while our opponent is kicking below the belt.

Where are the liberals in the case of a bed-ridden woman-- innocent of any crime, terrorism or secession-- adjuged by court-appointed doctors who have made the diagnosis of Permanent Vegetative State-- although that diagnosis have been contradicted by other equally qualified physicians.

Never mind that this supposedly vegetative state does not prevent her willing care-givers-- her mother and father-- from giving her the love and nurturing which rewards them with what they think is a NON-VEGATATIVE response... Never mind the strong belief held by other doctors that Terri would respond to treatment and therapy (had it not been disallowed by the husband after he received medical malpractice compensation for that purpose.) In spite of all of this the liberal judiciary have given this woman's husband the right to execute her by dehydration and starvation and (barring an act of Congress or the intercession of the Supreme Court) one can presume that he will be more successful with the help of the courts.

Take note that no Civil Liberty Union or Amnesty International attorneys are championing Terri Schiavo's cause. Perhaps they are too busy filing legal motions to make sure terrorists are not uncomfortable or deprived of their daily bread, water and Coca Cola.

The liberals take great liberties in gleefully accusing Republicans and the Right of being hypocritical or inconsistent because they oppose abortion but support the death penalty ...

MEMO to Liberals: We oppose abortion for the same reason we oppose the execution of Ms. Schiavo... they are innocents, unlike the murderers, terrorists and criminals in general that you choose to champion so zealously.

LITIGATION: THE GREAT AMERICAN LOTTO

2005-03-11T14:54:00.000-06:00

--------
We can all be comforted in knowing that the Great American Lotto is not only open to the truly deserving but has also been extended to those who are injured through their own stupidity, felons, con-artists and NOW illegal immigrants.

The Bronx Superior Court recently awarded $4 million to the worker. Problem is, he's an illegal immigrant, living in the Bronx with his wife and three kids. Apparently, the man worked for 15 years, most recently making $18/hour off the books, before sustaining severe injuries by falling from a scaffold. "The lesson today for all the undocumented immigrants of New York is they have the same rights to access the courts in New York City as any American citizen," said Brian O'Dwyer, the lawyer in the case.

A Warrior Salute to The Federalist Patriot

RANDOM RANTS 1

2005-03-09T22:55:00.000-06:00

++++++++++++++
I was glad to hear, that while one of my cinema heroes may not exactly be on the same page with me, politically, at least he doesn't have the puke-for-brains of your typical Hollywood Socialistic Liberal...

Clint Eastwood cleaned up at last night's Academy Awards, as he won for Best Director and his film "Million Dollar Baby" took home the Oscar for Best Picture. But he remains the center of a mini-political storm as debate rages over whether his film -- which features a paralyzed boxer who wants to die -- endorses euthanasia.

Mr. Eastwood says the controversy over his film's ending is overblown. He says people often assume his politics are tied up in the films he chooses, but adds, "If somebody thinks they know who I am because of a character I've played, it just means I played the role well, which is what you're supposed to do."

However, he is happy to sound off on his personal political views, which can be broadly described as libertarian. He stirred up a fuss a few years ago by speaking out in favor of a flat rate income tax. "Generally speaking, I always believe in being fiscally conservative, though it doesn't seem either party is in that category," he told Outside magazine in 2003. "I just think we should get off everybody's backs. We don't have to micromanage our society. It has to be run, but it doesn't have to be beaten to death."

######################

It is amazing to what lengths the Demwits will go to keep from keeping President Bush from getting credit for the outbreaks of Democracy in the Middle East... But let me tell ya... They Are NOT Random Acts of Democracy and the Dems notwithstanding... history WILL attribute to President Bush the attempt (and hopefully the eventual success) to bring freedom to the middle east (in much the same way it gave President Reagan credit for ending the Cold War over the Dems desperate attempts to place it elsewhere.) I think I just set the outline for my next essay post.

###########

Dennis Prager gives the most pragmatic definition of the cultural war being waged between the left and right in this country...

"The entire edifice of moral relativism, a foundation of leftist ideology, is built on the notion of feelings deciding right and wrong. ...

For liberals, the entire worth of the human fetus is determined by the mother's feelings. If she feels the nascent human life she is carrying is worth nothing, it is worth nothing. If she feels it is infinitely precious, it is infinitely precious. ...

[F]ar more conservative positions are based on 'What is right?' rather than on 'How do I feel?' That is why a religious woman who is pregnant but does not wish to be is far less likely to have an abortion than a secular woman in the same circumstances. Her values are higher than her feelings.

And that, in a nutshell, is what our culture war is about -- Judeo-Christian values versus liberal/leftist feelings." --Dennis Prager

WOW... I think that leads us to yet another post that must be written....

MELLOW MUSINGS 1

2005-03-03T20:25:00.000-06:00

I have gotten quite mellow (a somewhat unusual state for an unemployed writer) while sitting here looking forward to seeing my sweetheart for a great rodeo weekend (it's a Texas thang) and listening to one of the greatest CDs that has ever been burned (George Strait 50 Number Ones.)

I have therefore decided to follow the advice of my soul mate (to do more blog writing than blog reading) by combining the two and try jotting down my thoughts as I check out my favorite bloggers, commentators and wordsmiths. It may not be exactly what the love-of-my-life had in mind but I don't tend to be all that creative when I am in a mellow state... But then this is a vanity blog... so I don't have to worry about looking silly do I? So here are my MELLOW THOUGHTS for March 3, 2005...
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I am chuckling over an article by Ann Coulter, "Calling the Kettle Gay." It could be called "Let, go let Spongebob"... but since I can't improve on her discourse about how the Liberals stopped taking their frustrations out on smart, successful Black Republicans and started lashing out at the gays by outing the gay children of prominent Conservatives... I will just encourage you to read it.

Brent Bozell is asking "Is the Liberal Media Dead" in his take on the most recent explosion of hypocrisy by the MSM and the liberal Net frenzy about Gannongate (in collusion with NBC and MSNBC.)

For some inexpicable reason this has made me wonder about how I can master or, at the very least, conquer virtually any software program by playing around in it but cannot for the life of me figure out how to attach my digital camera to the tripod without step by step directions. I wonder if it is the same mental quirk that made me kick-hieny great at Tetris but totally hopeless at Super Mario Brothers... back when I had Nitendo freaks living at home.

Jonah Goldberg wades in on the pajama patriots that have the MSM in such a snit with an article, "The Medium Isn't the Message." He insists that it is not blogging itself that has created such a stir but that is has been a successful outlet for the idealology of the right-wing, much in the same vein as when the right-wing took talk-radio and made AM a viable and successful medium once again.
====================
"It is fairly easy to see that something important is happening in Lebanon, a move in the direction of independence and the idea of a civil society with democratic underpinnings that is reflected elsewhere in the Middle East. It is more difficult to figure out why it is happening just now, what forces have converged at this moment." --Orange County Register

CLUES FOR THE CLUELESS MEMO to the Orange County Register: Afghanistan... Iraq... elections... "Let Freedom Reign" ... President Bush was right after all about opening the door to democracy!
====================
As I begin reading more and more about our Supreme Court (Ayatollahs) I am beginning to lose this mellow mood, so I will stop for now and come back ready for battle once again.

SPOTTING THE LEOPARD'S SPOTS

2005-02-25T15:18:00.000-06:00

------------
If Darwin was right, (and there are many who do not worship at his altar) the human race is in a flux-- an ongoing process of "becoming." The opinions as to the direction and final result of that "becoming" seem to differ greatly based upon whether your zip code is in what the MSM refers to as the Red States (aka Fly-Over Country) or in the Blue bastions of the East and Left Coast.

The self-appointed Brahmins (from the Mount Olympuses of the East & Left Coast Fortresses of Urban Liberalism) believe that our becoming requires the human race to become more tolerant and intelligent. Perfection can only be achieved by using more compassionate and understanding means of overcoming the trials that Gaia puts before us. The ultimate task being the eradication of the evil swamp land created by conservative thought and the dark medieval superstitions of Christianity.

On the other hand, those in the Red hinterland mostly cling to the old notions that one must strive for a strong moral character in order to fight the evil temptations of this world in the hopes that they will reap their rewards in Heaven.

Now that the election is over, and the Red Neanderthals have celebrated their triumph over the evil elitist Liberals, the focus in the battle for the heart and soul of America has now shifted to the President's second term agenda. To the horror of the disspirited, deceived, and yet determined Democrats-- President Bush is energetically pursuing his goals rather than limping along like the lame duck they hoped he would be. Currently, what all of us (red or blue) are trying to analyze and pundisize is the President's trip abroad.

The cynic in me (and I cringe at the thought that God is taking notes) tends to lean toward the old saw that a leopard cannot change his spots. There are those who will never want nor seek to repent (which, correctly defined, means acknowledging and turning from evil.) In spite of the beam in mine own eye, I cannot help but see Putin as the heir to Lenin and Stalin-- who are his spiritual and political mentors. The deceitful, conniving, ruthless KGB officer that he was-- still lurks in the Russian leopard who is now trying to hide his spots.

The "La vie en rose" myopia of the Left sees Bush in much the same way it still sees Reagan-- as a bungling idiot instead of the "irresistible force" of Democracy that moved the "immovable object" of Communism toward the precipice overlooking the "trash heap of history." A position where it rightly lies. (And yes, I am discounting the University of Chicago's and Senator Kerry's fanatical attempts to keep Communism from extinction.*)

Liberals see Putin, not as the vicious KGB enforcer that he still is, but as a mild mannered sophisticated statesman. In one respect he is, with apologies to Saint Paul-- all things to all men, or tries to be. For those of you ignorant of the KGB's history, just ask anyone with a Slavic background what NKVD/KGB means to them, and whether they think he can be trusted.

The recent Ukrainian elections and Putin's frantic, vicious attempts to manipulate them (up to and including, attempting a murder to guarantee the results) gives lie to the Liberal's view, through rosy-hued glasses, that Putin is a born-again reformer. (The "if looks could kill" glare Putin bestowed upon President Bush shown in recent news publications speaks volumes.)

As was expected, by those who understand the Liberal bent of the MSM, Bush has been taken to task for daring to question the emperor about his attire. According to the Liberals and MSM, Putin was correct to voice his, and the world opinion (at least the world according to the Left) about Bush's decision to go to war. However, when Bush stated (oftimes in words that made diplomats cringe) that his purpose in fostering freedom throughout the world was our sacred duty as well as in the best interests of the US-- they claim he is being cowboy- combative and taunting a potential ally.

"President Bush should make more of an effort at not offending Putin and his Gallic and Germanic friends," the MSM and Liberal Left declare. I think, mayhaps, it is Putin and the EU that should make more of an effort to not offend the President of the only remaining superpower, a nation that has the most powerful military force, the most prosperous economy, and more freedoms than even our English cousins can claim (see their Official Secrets Act.)

For the edification of our liberal friends and for those of short memory about Old Europe-- it is the dog that wags the tail. Perhaps, the position and function of the Germanic, Slavic, and Gallic gnats (that are posturing, unconvincingly, as US allies) would be best illustrated as being the part of the dog that is immediately beneath the tail.
______________
*Click here to read more about Senator -Never Met a Communist He Didn't Like- Kerry's attempt to honor W.E.B. DuBois with a Senate Resolution.

WORLD TRAVELER

2005-02-23T17:31:00.000-06:00

Just back from visiting the love of my life's hometown Chicago... not exactly world travel... but very different from my Texas world. What can I say but... I LOVED it... perhaps I would not have loved it as much if I was not in the company of my loved one who was showing me the BEST of Chicago, but who knows.

More about my observations later, but I will say one thing... Chicago has Yankees out the kazoo! Everywhere you looked there were Yankees... but they are a much nicer bunch of people than I was wont to believe before my visit. I am very much looking forward to my next visit.

2005-01-31T17:31:00.000-06:00

Iraqis celebrateIraqis danced in the streets on Sunday, celebrating the votes they had cast in the country's first free election. It's believed that over sixty percent of Iraq's 13 million registered voters turned out to vote.

- Stephen Schwartz: We won!
- Ryan Sager: The blue-finger revolution
- CNSNews.com: Millions voted; 'Resounding success,' Bush says
- AP: Photo gallery: Election day in Iraq
- AP: Iraq finishes first-phase ballot count
- Jay Bryant: First olive
- CNSNews.com: Arab-Muslim media largely positive about Iraqi poll
- National Review: The finger
- W. Thomas Smith, Jr.: "It's our duty"
- FDD: Iraqi Election Watch

KERRY - YOU LOST IN THIS ELECTION TOO!

2005-01-31T17:28:00.000-06:00

No one in the United States should try to overhype this election. - John unFreakinbelievable Kerry

"[I]t is significant that there is a vote in Iraq. But no one in the United States or in the world -- and I'm confident of what the world response will be. No one in the United States should try to overhype this election. This election is a sort of demarcation point, and what really counts now is the effort to have a legitimate political reconciliation, and it's going to take a massive diplomatic effort and a much more significant outreach to the international community than this administration has been willing to engage in. Absent that, we will not be successful in Iraq. ...

And I will say unequivocally today that what the administration does in these next few days will decide the outcome of Iraq, and this is --not maybe -- this is the last chance for the president to get it right. ...

I agree with Senator Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem. Now, obviously, you've got to provide security and stability in order to be able to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops, so I wouldn't do a specific timetable, but I certainly agree with him in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops."

--John Kerry

LET FREEDOM REIGN!

2005-01-31T17:01:00.000-06:00

=================
INK STAINED FINGERS - THE MARK OF FREEDOM

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110713906141940778,00.htmlmod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
For the flavor of events in Iraq unmediated by Western reporters, check some of the local Weblogs. Iraqthemodel.blogspot.com, (is) compiled by a pair of brothers (Omar and Mohammed) in Baghdad. Here's a sample of how they described yesterday's election:

"We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear. We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue-tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center. I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that.

From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turnout was higher by the way. And by 11 a.m. the boxes where I live were almost full! Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph.

The sounds of explosions and gunfire were clearly heard, some were far away but some were close enough to make the windows of the center shake but no one seemed to care about them as if the people weren't hearing these sounds at all.

I saw an old woman that I thought would get startled by the loud sound of a close explosion but she didn't seem to care, instead she was busy verifying her voting station's location as she found out that her name wasn't listed in this center.

How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends. Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not."
================
The New Iraq
So much for the argument that Arabs don't want democracy.
Monday, January 31, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006231

The world won't know for a week or longer which candidates won yesterday's historic Iraq elections, but we already know the losers: The insurgents. The millions of Iraqis who defied threats and suicide bombers to cast a ballot yesterday showed once and for all that the killers do not represent some broad "nationalist" resistance. ...

... As a certain American President said recently, the spread of freedom is essential to winning the war against terrorism. Some of America's leading lights scowled and said that Mr. Bush was "over-reaching"; yesterday, millions of Iraqis offered a more eloquent rebuttal.
=================================
Happy Birthday
A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq.
BY ARTHUR CHRENKOFF
Monday, January 31, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006229

BELOW IS A SAMPLE OF THIS TWO WEEK COVERAGE OF THE IRAQI ELECTION... IT IS A WORTHY READ...

Readers must've felt as if they'd gone through a time warp if they picked up their paper Sunday morning after watching the news on television. In scenes unimaginable only two years ago--and unimaginable to the press's professional pessimists two days ago--millions of ordinary Iraqi men and women braved terrorist violence and came out to vote in their first free election.

Kassim Abood, a senior adviser to the out-of-country voting program, told journalists outside a polling station in Sydney, "I think a lot of Iraqis are very proud today. People coming to me, shake [my] hand, hug me, kissing me and tell me 'congratulations,' it's wonderful." London's Daily Telegraph reported that "exiles danced in the street as they cast their ballots at nine polling stations in Australia. Turnout was high and some proudly displayed the blue ink on their fingers which proved that they had cast their ballots, calling it 'a mark of freedom.' "

Turnout in Iraq itself was considerably higher. Millions came out to vote, despite well-advertised threats of Election Day violence. Some three dozen people around the country died in suicide, grenade and mortar attacks, but vastly more Iraqis were stained with ink than with blood.

Some rode on donkey-carts. Others piled into buses laid on for voters. Most came on foot, steadying the elderly and pushing the disabled in wheelchairs to the ballot box. Voters in Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim holy city of Najaf turned out in force on Sunday, many walking for kilometres through filthy streets, to cast their ballots in Iraq's first multi-party election in half a century. . . .

Some began trickling in as soon as the region's 240 polling centres opened at 7 a.m. By mid-morning queues of voters snaked around schools used as voting places, everyone holding their documents at the ready. "It is a good feeling to experience democracy for the first time," said Isra Mohammed, a housewife in the black Islamic robe traditionally worn by women in southern Iraq.

To sample some of the joy of average Iraqis undiluted by the media, read Iraqi bloggers. Mohammed and Omar write in the aftermath of the vote:
We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center. [We] couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that.

Read also blogger Ali's journey to the polling station.

Blogger Zeyad writes: "My mother was in tears watching the scenes from all over the country."

Aala wrote about "suicide bombers versus suicide voters"; the latter have won the day.

Hammorabi reported on crowds demonstrating when some polling stations failed to open on time in Mosul.

And the Friends of Democracy site is running firsthand reporting from around the country.
=============================
"Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East. In great numbers, and under great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy. By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists. They have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins. And they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government.

Some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens. We also mourn the American and British military personnel who lost their lives today. Their sacrifices were made in a vital cause of freedom, peace in a troubled region, and a more secure future for us all.

The Iraqi people, themselves, made this election a resounding success. Brave patriots stepped forward as candidates. Many citizens volunteered as poll workers. More than 100,000 Iraqi security force personnel guarded polling places and conducted operations against terrorist groups.

... Across Iraq today, men and women have taken rightful control of their country's destiny, and they have chosen a future of freedom and peace.

... There's more distance to travel on the road to democracy. Yet Iraqis are proving they're equal to the challenge. On behalf of the American people, I congratulate the people of Iraq on this great and historic achievement."

--President George W. Bush

CATCHING UP - 1

2005-01-25T17:44:00.000-06:00

========
PRESIDENT BUSH INAUGURAL ADDRESS - WHAT THEY ARE SAYING

Reversing FDR:
by Kin Masugi
http://www.claremont.org/writings/050120masugi.html

President Bush's Second Inaugural Address is the most fascinating one since Lincoln's. It projects grand ambitions for the nation, domestic and foreign. Its greatness as a speech comes from its Lincolnian themes, not its Wilsonian ones, which commentators have been emphasizing.
=============
Bush's 'Conservative' Vision
By Duane D. Freese
http://www.techcentralstation.com/012105D.html

Margaret Thatcher once said, "Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy."
====================
Liberty for the captives
Chuck Colson
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/chuckcolson/cc20050121.shtml

The presidential inauguration, no matter who is being sworn in, is a glorious moment, showing the world how freely elected governments work. But to my mind, the second inaugural address of George W. Bush was not only beautifully written and delivered, but also historic and memorable, for two major reasons.

First, the president’s address focused on liberty and what it means to the world. This was the most idealistic and moralistic presidential message since Franklin Roosevelt summoned us to the heroic task of saving the world from tyranny in World War II.

Second, the address marked an extraordinary moment for the conservative movement. One White House insider told me this week that, in his opinion, Bush is seizing the mantle of idealism from contemporary liberalism
===================
Same man, different president
Jeff Jacoby
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20050121.shtml

What a difference a day made. When George W. Bush took the oath of office four years ago, it was as a moderate Republican anxious to get beyond the unpleasantness of Florida and reclaim his reputation for easygoing bipartisanship. ...

Then came Sept. 11.

It was always an overstatement to say that 9/11 changed "everything," but it certainly changed George W. Bush.
============
Fighting tyranny, a revolutionary idea
Jonah Goldberg

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050121.shtml

President Bush's historic second inaugural address will no doubt occasion endless amounts of insta-analysis (as opposed to the thoughtful and careful deliberation of this column). Much of that commentary will center around the alleged "radicalism" of President Bush's "freedom" agenda. Indeed, Time magazine already dubbed him an "American Revolutionary" in its 2004 Person of the Year issue.

In what may well be remembered as the most important inaugural in a half-century, the president declared:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

That really is the stuff of an American Revolutionary.

What conservatives understood then and what President Bush understands now is that America itself is a radical nation, founded on the revolutionary principle that self-government is simultaneously the best form of government and the most moral. And that lovers of liberty in all parties should seek to conserve that legacy.

The circumstances we face today are new, but the principles are eternal. So, yes, George W. Bush is a revolutionary, but he is merely the latest in a long line of American Revolutionaries.
=================
No lack of vision thing
Mona Charen

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20050121.shtml

George W. Bush is, above all, an idealist. We saw it during his first term in his passionate advocacy of faith-based charity and in his ardent desire to reform education. This is not a leader who thinks small. ...

Freedom, the president argues, is the only solution to this grim threat. The more places liberty takes root, the safer the world, and we ourselves will be.
There is no problem with the "vision thing" in the administration of George W. Bush.
Doubters will scold that the task the president has undertaken is impossibly ambitious, that we cannot even confidently predict a benevolent outcome in Iraq, far less the whole teeming world. But the president's speech -- with its sweeping scope -- demands that critics at least provide an alternative.

Promoting and nurturing freedom in darker corners of the world is difficult. But not doing so, the president argues, is dangerous.
===================
IMPROMTUS
Jay Nordlinger
http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/nordlinger200501210803.asp

Amazing how Bush got right into it — no introductory chaff, no folderol — just right into the challenge of our times. Marvelous.

... Here was the nub of it: "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." Connecting freedom and democracy to our security is realism.

Perhaps my favorite line: "America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause." No, let me identify my favorite clause: "fortunately for the oppressed."

... Of course the Left would disrupt the speech. That's what it does; it has certainly done it all of my life, on college campuses and beyond. For them, freedom of speech means the freedom to shut you up. They, naturally, are never shut up.

But I don't wish to end my inaugural — particularly my inaugural-address — remarks on a gripe: That speech, my friends, should be chiseled on a wall. It is magnificent, because magnificently true and right. If ever anything deserved the adjective Lincolnesque, this is it.
==============
Bush's Breakthrough
The president's second inaugural address smashes the wall between the idealists and the realists.
by Fred Barnes

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/152ejgml.asp

WHAT WAS SO GREAT about President Bush's inaugural address? First, it was eloquent, noting that freedom lights "a fire in the minds of men" and represents both "the hunger in dark places [and] the longing of the soul." More important, the speech laid out an extraordinarily sweeping and ambitious foreign policy for the nation. In doing so, Bush broke down the barrier between the foreign policy idealists, of which he and President Reagan are the most notable, and the realists, who include his father and his father's two chief advisers on foreign affairs, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker.

The most significant statement in the speech was simple and not lyrical at all: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." That's quite a declaration, one likely to unnerve tyrants and autocrats and even a few allies around the world. But Bush wasn't kidding or just riffing.
=============
President Bush Celebrates Liberty
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6359

What we saw on Inauguration Day was a President who has the strength of his convictions and the heart to fight back.
=================
Of faith and freedom
Oliver North
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20050122.shtml

It is precisely his "at least from my perspective" stipulation that separates George Bush from those who would impose their religion -- or lack of it -- on others by decree or the sword. In a recent interview with the editors of the Washington Times, Bush made it clear that "the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit. That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban."

For those of us tired of hiding our beliefs lest we "offend" anyone, President Bush is an example of how to live one's faith in the public square: with respect, enthusiasm, openness and, above all, humility.
Humility, though, is not timidity. It is not a subservient disposition that quiets all assertions of strength or conviction. Humility is recognition of the simplicity of truth and a willful, joyful submission of any self-importance or ego to the cause of promoting truth.

After President Bush made it clear that he believes in the right of every person to worship or not according to their conscience, Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, responded, "He just doesn't get it ... and he seems to ignore the fact that in our Constitution we do not have a religious test for those seeking public office ... he does not respect the diversity of the country."

Johnson apparently missed the "at least from my perspective" caveat. She demands to be heard and stresses the importance of diversity -- yet she seems to have difficulty granting such consideration to others.

Like his 42 predecessors, Bush invoked the protection and blessing of the Almighty on the nation in his inaugural address. He stands for what he believes is right and supports the rights of others to disagree. He is unashamed to pray for wisdom, peace, and the spread of freedom and justice. And above all, he maintains humility. We're blessed to have such a man as our president.
==================

AND THEN, THERE IS PEGGY NOONAN

Way Too Much God; Was the President's Speech a Case of "Mission Inebriation"?
By Peggy Noonan
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion Journal)
January 21, 2005

...the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.

One wonders if they shouldn't ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not.
=============

Has Peggy Noonan become so inebriated with political cynicism that she no longer recognizes a most statesmen-like idealism tempered by realism?

Larry Kudlow gives his take on just how wrong Peggy Noonan was...

Freedom over cynicismLarry Kudlow
January 30, 2005
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/lk20050130.shtml

When you read that Jordan's King Abdullah is taking steps to organize new elections in his country, with regional election districts that look a lot like Iraq's, you realize just how wrong my friend Peggy Noonan is when she writes that President Bush's inaugural speech "forgot context."

When you read the latest fatwa from the murdering terrorist Zarqawi, that it is our democratic, freedom-embracing way of life that makes us the enemy, you realize how wrong Noonan is in calling Bush's vision of eradicating tyranny worldwide "rhetorical and emotional overreach of the most embarrassing sort."
When you recall FDR's famous address of more than 60 years ago, when he talked about a world founded upon four essential human freedoms (to speak and worship freely, as well as the freedom from want and fear), you realize how mistaken Noonan is when she tries to restrain Bush's vision.

Go back and reread Bush's second inaugural speech. He says, "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment ... the force of human freedom." He declares, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." He states that supporting democratic movements with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world "is not primarily the task of arms." Read all this, and you know how wrong Noonan truly is. ...

=======================

One wonders if Noonan would have called Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan "mission inebriated" after listening to their various speeches declaring that Great Britain's darkest days would be her finest hour... or talking about a day that would live in infamy or demanding that a wall representing tyranny be torn down?

Inaugral speeches should be visionary ones that celebrate and encourage great causes and ideals... the one given by George W Bush was historical and stirring and nothing short of statesmanlike genius... it espoused incredible idealism well-grounded with realism and properly-ordered priorities... We fight tyranny, because it is in our interest to do so. We are morally justified in doing so, because the fight against tyranny is a noble cause.

KNOW THY ENEMY

2004-11-09T22:26:00.000-06:00

***
I have been on something of a breather since the election because blogging can be taxing and time-consuming, wearing pajamas or not. But I see the election as a victorious battle not the end of the war.

We, at Right Wing Warriors are now looking to carry forth the fight to eradicate liberalism. I hope many other bloggers do the same... we still have a war to win.

That liberals have declared open warfare on Republicans and the right has been blatantly apparent from the unfettered hatred and venom that has spewed from the left. Now that the Main Stream Media has openly declared their alliance in this war for the heart and soul of America, the Write Wing Warriors and Pajama Patriots have a vital role in defending our victory.

Expect the liberals to redouble their efforts to sabotage President Bush in every endeavor. Without regard to the welfare of this country, liberal Democrats, and their willing MSM allies, will attempt to discredit and undermine this administration in the War on Terrorism or any other situation or program whose success might credit the president.

I am currently compiling a detailed look at the left and guesses at their probable areas of attack.

A RESPONSE TO JON FRIEDMAN'S ARTICLE

2004-11-08T20:51:00.000-06:00

***
"Media missed the passion that burned for Bush"

You got this much right, but do you have any clue why?

"If pop culture is a reflection of a nation's values, then the signs of a Bush victory were there a long time ago for anyone to see."

Pop culture had NOTHING to do with it.

"There've been two runaway box-office surprises this year: Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

One was a production of half-truths, twisted-truths, perversions of the truth and outright lies put together solely for the purpose of getting a president out of office... the other wasn't.

"The point probably wasn't lost on President Bush and his staff."

President Bush's faith and beliefs did not began as, nor was it used as, a campaign strategy and people of faith, for the most part, can tell the difference. People believed President Bush was sincere, because he was. People thought Kerry was not, because he wasn't. Take note, that President Bush himself, unlike Kerry, never criticized nor questioned Kerry's faith, or more accurately, (in my humble opinion) Kerry's posturing.

"Religious Right ... influential evangelical Christians ... Wal-Mart Republicans ... By any name, they ultimately turned the outcome of the election."

Did you forget fundamental, right-wing-wackos? How about the vast-right-wing-conspiracy?

Once upon a time, the journalists, talking heads and pundits called them the salt of the earth, pillars of the community, and the heart and soul of America...

"The Bush political team intuitively understood the tone of the U.S. voters much better than the media did."

Wrong again, Word Slinger... You got close, but only semantically, not knowledgeably. President Bush, understood US voters because he thinks and believes the way most US voters think and believe.

"To be honest, I still don't quite understand how certified media junkies like me could have been so wrong."

You answer your own dilemma here...

"I read the New York Times (NYT) and the New Yorker religiously. I watch CNN (TWX) and the networks' evening news programs as well as the gabfests on Sunday mornings, too."

There you go! In the "ignorant red state" circles we call it preaching to the choir... and you just happen to be a member of this particular choir.

"...the heartland tuned out the noise."

Maybe you do get it, at least to a small degree. ... But, then again... maybe not.

"Team Bush figured out where the votes would be coming from and it played to the audience, relentlessly."

Once again... President Bush, understood US voters because he thinks and believes the way most US voters think and believe.

"The lesson that the media should take away from the 2004 election is this: It's just as important to know all about who is voting for president as it is to know about who is running for president."

Perhaps, the lesson that the media should take away from the 2004 election is this: Red State Voters are not nearly as ignorant or stupid as the media think they are. And, the huge majority of them, are not mean-spirited cold-hearted, racist, homophobic or oppressive.

"Some people observed that many television news anchors and reporters actually seemed to be depressed by Bush's victory. It's fashionable for (my fellow) liberals to gnash their teeth and act as if the Bush win was some sort of horrendous freak of nature, like an earthquake or a hurricane."

Hey, we all know that the media did their best to defeat George W! You instructed all your staffers to NOT hold the President and Kerry to equal standards.You omitted stories that were favorable to the president, pushed unfavorable stories tirelessly, printed rumors from every single 'insider' known to man not to mention the infamous "some say."

Chin UP! Everyone knows the outstanding efforts put forth by the media to avoid pursuing any leads that might have had the slightest possibility of resulting in a news story that could be detrimental to Kerry.

And, when push came to shove ... you even planted phony or distorted stories to try to discredit President Bush. Nobody in this country can possibly blame the media for not doing it's gosh darned best to defeat this president!

And, trust me, we ignorant, red-state bumpkins are all going to remember the media's intense efforts come next election. Yesiree Bob and Dan and Pete and Tom and Dick and Harry and Jon ...

2004-11-08T13:46:00.000-06:00

Unleash HELL!
Let loose the DOGS of WAR!

BACK FROM VACATION

2004-11-08T13:02:00.000-06:00

***
As my few... oh so few... regulars will know, I have taken an extended vacation from posting. AND even though I have a freelance job crop up, I am building a MAJOR rant that I will be posting to the myriad of analyses of why Bush won and why all the Demwits are going ape-sht.

Up to and including the comments off Hanity & Combs from the has-been Geraldine F. who spouted off her opinion that if the Blue States seceded from the Union the Red States would be sunk because the ONLY smart people live in the BLUE... oh yeah? OK, Mustn't gloat, mustn't gloat. This is not any different than what other Liberals are sprouting off... I have much to say about that... just stay tuned.

2004-11-04T23:47:00.000-06:00

Unfreakin believable... ya think the liberals are east and left coast but the map shows us county by county that virtually the whole freakin country is red!

DEMOCRATS STILL DON'T 'GET IT'

2004-11-04T18:02:00.000-06:00

***
The Democrats just don't "get it." Already, the dems so-called soul-searching involves more bashing of Kerry as a candidate than realizing that conservative Republicans are NOT the dummies they think they are.

From the WSJ: "Even before he knew the result, NYT columnist Nick Kristof was lamenting today that these voters had been gulled into voting "utterly against their own interests." If that's what Democrats keep telling themselves, they doom their party."

I think the defining moment in this campaign is one that was overlooked by the media and most liberal democrats and forgotten by many conservatives. That moment was when Kerry called Whoopi and the Hollywood elite the "heart and soul of America."

NOTE: I may get around to doing a long, thoughtful reflection to the campaign and election, but for now, I will post some random, but oh so insightfull, thoughts as they come to me.

IT'S ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING!

2004-11-03T13:31:00.000-06:00

***
The Democrats have not had an election loss this huge since the last time they tried to thrust an ultra-liberal, candidate from Massachusetts upon this country, but they would rather make excuses, blame the Republicans and spout conspiracy claims than figure out why the country didn't want their lying liberal.

I think the Republicans have probably learned their lesson about not giving the fringe extremists power or a loud voice in the party. But then lessons rarely stay learned after new people move in to replace the battle-weary warriors. Therefore, we must be ever vigilant and never forget that more conservative changes and policies will be enacted when we are willing to work from a centrist position.

But the Democrats just don't get it. They should try actually choosing a strong centrist candidate, instead of one that just lies about it. Even when the MSM goes all in the efforts on behalf of the Democrat candidate, hoisting a lying liberal on this nation will seldom fly in the 'fly-over country' ... Especially when the lying liberal the Dems choose to represent them is one that flip-flops and lies so blatantly and transparently.

If they can't bring themselves to support a true centrist, then they should at least choose a liberal who is honest about it and proudly tries to convince the country that liberal is the way to go. But, judging by many of the comments being bandied about, they will probably continue slurping down the kool-aid and get a whole new set of tin-foil beanies.

I took the "Day After Election" off from blogging but will start sharing my post-election thoughts, same as everyone else, later Thursday evening.

MVP or MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK?

2004-11-02T16:33:00.000-06:00

D-DAY is here. DECISION DAY, the final day we have to show Iraq, the terrorists and the world whether we are going to stand firm or if we are going to cut-and-run. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what Kerry will do. He has already used the phrase "getting our troops out of Iraq with honor." The last time he used those words Kerry was talking about Vietnam when he helped manipulate the public debate to such a degree that we did cut-and-run, allowing the wholesale slaughter of millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians, many of them brave soldiers who had fought side-by-side with us and who were deserted after being promised refuge and safety.

So... Who are we going to choose? ... A man who has freed two countries from vicious, totalitarian regimes, centralized the war on terrorism half a world away from our own cities while working to put our economy back on the right track after suffering multiple economy busters like the Clinton era, 9/11 and the corporate clean-up? ... Will you choose a man of vision, whose strategies backed off the terrorists and caused Libya and Pakistan to stop their arms proliferation, and then, even with a war to prosecute, still initiated revolutionary and real changes in fundamental areas such as education, social security and Medicare? ... A man who has a visonary way of looking at problems and creating new solutions such as the ownership society, faith-based initiatives, using technology to clean the environment without trashing the economy and worker cards for illegal aliens? I've discovered that his thinking about the age-old illegal alien problem makes much more sense than I originally thought.

Are you willing to stick with a man who has the character, backbone and integrity to stick to his guns and stand up for what he believes is right, even in the midst of disgruntled supporters, global unpopularity and the hatred from the maniacal liberals?

OK, now, for the other choice... Kerry, the MAN with a PLAN. Everytime I hear Kerry talking about his so-called plans I expect him to break out in song... "Anything you can do, I can do better... I can do anything better than you..." He has taken every possible position, non-position or nuanced position on every issue at one time or the other. If you look closely, Kerry's plans amount to nothing more than, 'whatever Bush is doing I will do better' ... somehow, someway, someday. All his domestic plans pretty much consist of keeping things the way they are and hoping that nothing too obvious goes wrong before the next guy gets in office. The two exceptions are health care, which he will turn over to the Ketchup Queen so she can play with her favorite new-age toy "The Department of Wellness," and Foreign Policy.

And his foreign policy? Well... in a nutshell, his plan is to turn our sovereign interests over to his adored UN. You do recall that he said his very first act as president would be to call a meeting of the General Assembly of the UN? Presumably, so he can take his first global test and then kiss their butts, publicly and in person... then watch the kowtowing began in earnest, at least towards those who are NOT the "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted," or in other words, our REAL friends and allies.

As far as Kerry's record... just consider that he and his handlers CHOSE to run on his spurious medals and shaky 4 month record in Vietnam (including his probable dishonorable discharge which is being covered up with his refusal to release his military records.) You never or rarely hear anything from him or his campaign about his 20+ years in the senate, or as the state prosecutor or Lt. Gov. of MA. Need any more be said?

We will soon discover just how pervasive that dreaded disease, American Amnesia, has been over these last three years. How many voters have already forgotten how they felt that day on 9/11 and in the aftermath. Will they remember how they felt about the president and the man who withstood the greatest crisis of our century and emerged not only as great leader strengthened and tested by a purifying fire but he became a great man who carried an even greater burden of sorrow and responsibility for a nation's terrible pain and urgent need for security.

How can we, as a people of good conscience, allow some self-serving, pontificating politician (that has consistently sided with our enemies and detractors throughout his entire adult life) try to turn one of our greatest military victories into a "blunder, a botched operation" in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because the president had "outsourced'' his capture to "warlords'' in the battle of Tora Bora. Outsourcing by any other name is called an alliance (at least when Kerry is talking about himself.)

Nor is he satisfied with just trying to tarnish the president and call him a liar and incompetent, he is doing the same to General Tommy Franks, our military officers, special ops forces and now he is degrading and demeaning the 101st Airborne and 3rd Infantry Divison while trying to damage the President over the missing explosives. DeJa MOO... I think I've heard this BS before!

Let me once again remind any of ye, of short memory, about how the president put together a military operation in Afghanistan that accomplished what many said was impossible! It was less than two weeks before the detractors started screaming, "It's a Quagmire... Another Vietnam!" How I would love to shove that crow dinner down their throats! Ah, yes, within two months the CIC and his men had routed and put under control this country that had driven both the British and the Soviet empires into retreat. He also forced Pakistan into an alliance, gained cooperation from the neighbors to the north, and authorized a radical war plan that with just a handful of Americans on the ground, high technology and local militias the mighty Taliban was utterly routed! ... Bringing about an end to 25 years of civil war and held the first democratic election in a country that has no history of democracy. The naysayers, VietnamQuagmire-Squealers were wrong about Afghanistan and they are wrong about Iraq.

But let me jog your memory just a bit more... Remember the lesson we learned (or hopefully learned) with Clinton? The lesson that character really does matter after all? Besides being the Flipper King of DC, Kerry has lied bald-faced and repeatedly and even lies about lying. He was NOT in Cambodia (no matter how seared in his memory it was. He NEVER met with the UN Security Council in anything even closely resembling what he claimed. All the rest of his lies, not to mention his distortions and exaggerations, would take up more bandwidth than I am allowed.

So who will you choose? A man who has ushered in some of the most visonary and positive changes this country and world has ever see. ... An MVP (Most Valuable President) who has thrown the game winning pass in the play-offs and ready to lead us to victory in the Super Bowl?

Or, will you choose the Monday Morning Quarterback who only thinks he can do things better AFTER they have already been done? ... as he has proven by accomplishing nothing noteworthy in his career as senator. Are you going to chose a team captain whose only claim to fame is running the wrong way down the field and scoring a touchdown for the communist team?

BLOGGERS TELL NYTimes WHAT THEY THINK

2004-11-01T22:59:00.000-06:00

***
Perhaps on Election Eve I am being more judgmental than I should... but here I sit an unread blogger that no one knows suffering from ESS (Election Stress syndrome) with perhaps 'nuances' that others don't have in that I truly believe that electing Kerry will have prophetic consequences... and perhaps I put way too much of my enthusiasm into the blogsphere... at least I think so as I read a NYTimes (the Shady Lady DNC whore) asking bloggers view on the contest between Bush and Kerry... I would not have expected the same view that I have... but I did expect a substance vs style analysis from the bloggers. I was greatly disappointed.

GREG DJEREJIAN,http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/: He used one example but did focus on an example that represented a core character issue.

ANA MARIE COX,http://www.wonkette.com/: Focused on BS issues but what would you expect from a wonkette. Betcha a bundle she's blonde either naturally or from a bottle.

MICKEY KAUS,http://www.kausfiles.com/: He votes against the president because George W did not nail Kerry in the first debate about his ignoramus claim of only supporting huge alliances when he didn't support one of the greatest alliances put together by Daddy Bush? Does he NOT realize how much more is at stake here then how someone performs in a debate???

LORIE BYRD,http://www.polipundit.com/: Again... as much as I respect and repeatedly return to polipundit for information and energy for the fight... this election is more than style and how one appears or presents oneself or a convention... the issues we are fighting for is so important that I am amazed that even those I thought understand still point to style rather than substance... read that to mean gut reality.

JOANNE JACOBS,http://www.joannejacobs.com/: I am sorry that I have not been to visit Joanne before now, she seems to get it... they want to kill us... pretty words and pictures... good photo ops or conventions don't really amount to more than... well BS.

ANN ALTHOUSE,http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/: I think Ann Althouse is one that finally got it... even if she isn't quite sure of what she has got.

J. BRADFORD DELONG,http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/: I am looking forward to getting to know J. Bradford Delong better, I cannot quite understand what he thinks from his paragraph here.

KEVIN DRUM,http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/: Another one who seems to value style and who looks best on camera over substance and core, gut level, reality... he is another one that will have to learn the hard way... and unfortunately probably force my grandchildren into facing the same devastating horrors when the terrorists destroy the very fabric of this country because too many of us preferred the pretty lies to hard reality.

DAVID ADESNIK,http://www.oxblog.com/: It appears his biggest problem is that he chooses to believe the Mainstream Media instead of thinking for himself.

JOHN HINDERAKER and SCOTT JOHNSON,http://www.powerlineblog.com/: I respect these two as much or more than I do any in the blogsphere... and I agree that it is of utmost importance that we understand the position the MSM has taken and the challenge bloggers must accept to either take the MSM down or force them to revert to the true and pure ethics of journalism. However important the showdown with MSM and the drawing of the line in the sand... it is even more important to bring the electorate back to demanding a honest, upright representative of this country that will fight for the core values that will preserve our union. Instead, of the fake shallow shell the MSM thrusts upon us... as I write I realize that I must bow to the wisdom Powerline has presented... my kudos and respect, sirs, for seeing to the core issue.

GLENN REYNOLDS,http://www.instapundit.com/: Having just seen a new revelation, as you can see above... I will also give a nod to Glenn and instapundit... with only a reminder that in addition to the fight against allowing main stream media to dictate our values and candidates is the fight agaisnt their liberal partners that want to disparage anyone that has backbone and character and honesty as a core part of their being.

TOM BURKA,http://www.tomburka.com/: Another of many that misunderestimate the enormity of 9/11 and how much had to take a backseat while a vicious enemy had to be conquered before other important projects... such as space could be stepped up... space exploration doesn't really mean much if Space Center Houston has been vaporized with a suitcase nuke, does it?

APPLE DOESN'T FALL FAR FROM THE TREE

2004-11-01T18:00:00.000-06:00

***
The son of the Ketchup Queen has come out over the weekend calling the president of the United States a "cokehead" which he later kinda, sorta, in-a-way, but not really, retracted in saying "I have no evidence. He never sold me anything," which translated means he doesn't care about the truth but will say whatever pops in his head that he thinks will reflect negatively on the president since no one is going to hold him accountable for his words.

He also stated, in words not restricted like those who don't have a zillion dollars of protection against slander... that those supporting President Bush are the ENEMY and the campaign would have been much uglier if he were running it.

Oh, yeah... he is also anti-semantic and thinks the Jews have much too much influence over presidential elections. And THESE are the people who the majority of Jewish Americans are voting for????

God help us! We need it.

THESE ARE THE "TIMES THAT TRY MEN'S SOULS"

2004-11-01T14:44:00.000-06:00

***
I am sure I am not the only one chewing my fingernails down to the stubs and having ESS, Election Stress Syndrome!

Paul Johnson, a Brit, is as worried as I am about the disaster a Kerry win would mean for this country and this world. He asks:
"How seriously does the United States take its role as a world leader, and how far will it make sacrifices, and risk unpopularity, to discharge this duty with success and honor? In short, this is an election of the greatest significance, for Americans and all the rest of us. It will redefine what kind of a country the United States is, and how far the rest of the world can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our civilization."
He has it right! He doesn't see Bush in the same light I do, but I can forgive him that since he didn't have the benefit of living under Bush as governor (and in my case of doing considerable research on his initiatives in job with a government watchdog group.) He sees a transformed Bush rather than the strength of character that I saw even when he was governor, long before our homeland was attacked so viciously.
"... he has been absolutely right in estimating the seriousness of the threat international terrorism poses to the entire world and on the need for the United States to meet this threat with all the means at its disposal and for as long as may be necessary. Equally, he has placed these considerations right at the center of his policies and continued to do so with total consistency, adamantine determination, and remarkable courage, despite sneers and jeers, ridicule and venomous opposition, and much unpopularity."
Johnson says "there is something grimly admirable" about the stoicism Bush faces in these hard times. It reminds him of the "dark winter" Washington faced that Thomas Paine described as "a time to try men's souls." Johnson also compares it to the difficulties faced by Lincoln and to the determination displayed by Wellington at Waterloo and obliquely to Winston Churchill.
"There is something grimly admirable about his stoicism in the face of reverses, which reminds me of other moments in history: the dark winter Washington faced in 1777-78, a time to try mens souls, as Thomas Paine put it, and the long succession of military failures Lincoln had to bear and explain before he found a commander who could take the cause to victory. There is nothing glamorous about the Bush presidency and nothing exhilarating. It is all hard pounding, as Wellington said of Waterloo, adding: Let us see who can pound the hardest. Mastering terrorism fired by a religious fanaticism straight from the Dark Ages requires hard pounding of the dullest, most repetitious kind, in which spectacular victories are not to be looked for, and all we can expect are blood, toil, tears, and sweat.
He emphatically states that Bush "is the president America needs at this difficult time." He says this impression is "abundantly confirmed, indeed made overwhelming" when one looks at the alternative, Kerry. He affirms that all of Kerry's support both abroad and in America comes from an anti-Bush attitude rather than any support of Kerry. He then gives six reasons he believes that a Kerry presidency would be disastrous for America and the world.

ONE: Kerry's lack of convictions and beliefs. He says, rightly that " in a time of crisis, and on an issue involving the security of the world, what is needed is leadership. Kerry is abdicating that duty..."

TWO: Kerrys personal character or rather... his lack thereof. Kerry changes his stands, his beliefs, and even his heritage (not Irish-Catholic as he has implied but Germanic-Jewish, which there is nothing wrong in that other than his attempts to hide it.) He has no core values or beliefs... everything he says and does is based upon expediency and vote gathering. There is nothing he has not been willing to be dishonest about if it served his purposes.

THREE: Kerrys long record of contradictions and uncertainties as a senator and his apparent inability to pursue a consistent policy on major issues.

FOUR: His posturing over his military record, highlighted by his embarrassing pseudo-military salute when accepting the nomination (and numerous other times during his stumping.) I might also add Kerry's probable dishonorable discharge which is the most likely reason he refuses to release his military records combined with the known exaggerations and outright lies concerning his history and the pass the MSM has given him both on his military service record and his seditious if not treasonous activities when he returned from his incredibly short tour of duty.

FIVE: Kerry's so out-of-touch with reality lifestyle. Marrying a heiress of $300 million, getting an annulment then marrying a heiress of at least a billion along with the armies of lawyers that keep them from paying as much taxes as the "middle class" even though in MA you can elect to pay a higher income tax rate if you choose... which the Heinz-Kerry's don't choose to do.

SIX: You are known by the company you keep! Kerry chose as his running mate an ambulance chasing lawyer who personally done so much damage to his home state, the first time Senator would not have been re-elected and in general his ilk has done massive damage to this country and to the health care costs, that they try to blame on Bush. Add to that the ones that Kerry has described as the heart and soul of America... the Michael Moores, Whoopi Goldbergs and Cher's and other Hollywood, Rock idiots. Then consider the Billionaires for Kerry... most especially... George Soros... ask yourself WHY he wants Kerry.
"Of Kerrys backers, maybe the most prominent is George Soros, a man who made his billions through the kind of unscrupulous manipulations that (in Marxist folklore) characterize finance capitalism. This is the man who did everything in his power to wreck the currency of Britain, Americas principal ally, during the EU exchange-rate crisisnot out of conviction but simply to make vast sums of money. He has also used his immense resources to interfere in the domestic affairs of half a dozen other countries, some of them small enough for serious meddling to be hard to resist. One has to ask: Why is a man like Soros so eager to see Kerry in the White House? The question is especially pertinent since he is not alone among the superrich wishing to see Bush beaten. There are several other huge fortunes backing Kerry. "
Johnson continues his analysis of why there is so much anti-Bushism going on both here and on the continent with this insight:
"Anti- Americanism has seldom been stronger in Continental Europe, and Bush
seems to personify in his simple, uncomplicated self all the things these people
most hate about Americaprecisely because he is so American. Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a
mental disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending leadership."
He is saying what I've been shouting... because what I read between the lines is that ... the European countries, and indeed the liberal left here, want and demand a weak American leader. It is the strength and pure Americanism of President Bush that causes such intense hatred.
"Behind this second line of adversaries there is a far more sinister third. All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit politically, financially, and emotionallyfrom the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced."
With the election of Kerry the streets of Europe and the middle east will fill with the cheers and celebration of the caliber that we saw when the Twin Towers fell. Those would that rejoice to see America weakened and defeated will be celebrating. I know, as apparently Paul Johnson knows... that such an event will be disastrous not only for America... but for the world.
"I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively."

Why is it that a Brit gets it right, when approximately half this country has it so wrong?

KERRY WILL FIGHT WAR ON TERROR BY ASKING WORLD WHAT IT THINKS

2004-11-01T14:22:00.000-06:00

***
On Fox & Friends, Ed asks Wesley Clark what Kerry would do differently about the War on Terror. Clark (who was big supporter of the Bush, Gen. Franks led war until he became a candidate) said Kerry would go to the world community and ask for a definition on the War on Terror. YUP! that about sums Kerry up... that he is even IN this race is unfreakinbelievably AMAZING!

KERRY AND THE LEFT PROUDLY TAKE SIDES WITH OSAMA?

2004-11-01T13:02:00.000-06:00

Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot thinks it's time the left took a long look in the mirror.

"We’ve seen a truly unparalleled deluge of criticism of the president that well beyond policy differences. He is tarred as a war criminal, a fool, an idiot, a warmonger, a man who trades blood for oil, a mass murderer of innocent civilians, a stooge of sinister corporate interests, a puppet of Cheney, a terrorist himself, the anti-Christ, the second coming of Hitler, a slave to Ariel Sharon, an anti-Muslim hatemonger… and I’m sure I’ve left out plenty.

This rhetoric has been picked up by the British left, the European left, the Arab press, and anti-American interests around the globe. And — to my knowledge —not one Democrat, not one voice on the left has said, “Hey, we know you hate Bush, but stay out of it. He’s our president, leave the criticism of him to us.”

Instead of reacting to the London Guardian’s silly letter-writing campaign with laughter or dismissive criticism, the left embraced it. Why would anyone welcome a foreign power’s advice on how to vote? Next Spring, the British people will hold their election. Why should they listen to my advice or opinion on the choice between Tony Blair and Michael Howard?

The far left hates George W. Bush with a raging fury. So does al-Qaeda. Was it really so shocking that the rhetoric of the former would eventually be taken up by the latter?

No, this tape should cause many on the left to stare into the mirror for a long time and ask, “What have I turned into? How did I become so reflexively partisan, so blinded by rage, so intemperate in my rhetoric that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

“How the hell did I reach the point where I agree with Osama bin Laden on Bush?”
An earlier post looks at the comparison between the DNC talking points compared to OBL.

WHAT OBL SAID THAT THE MEDIA DID NOT SHOW

2004-11-01T11:34:00.000-06:00

***
The NY Sun talks about the portions of bin Laden's tape that was NOT shown to the public, in which he complains about the setbacks (including the election in Afghanistan) and problems that had been caused by the war on terror being prosecuted by President George Bush.

"Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape — of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday — bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.

On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

A portion of the left-out footage includes a tirade aimed at President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, claiming the war in Iraq is purely over oil."

WHY DO DEMOCRATS-MSM EMBRACE LIARS & CHEATS?

2004-11-01T10:44:00.000-06:00

USA Today is basically presenting dismal numbers for Bush and predicting a Kerry win...
"The findings suggest that Osama bin Laden's warning to Americans in a video broadcast Friday failed to provide the boost for Bush that some analysts predicted. That development and the disclosure last week that 377 tons of high explosives were missing from an Iraqi site U.S. troops failed to secure seemed to have damaged his standing."
Among my more dramatically dire declarations (as to what a Kerry win would mean to this country) one would certainly have to be a pronounced judgment upon the lack of character and intelligence of our voting public that inexpicably seems to prefer liars and cheats that have no character or backbone. Not an over-the-top assumption considering that they elected Clinton even knowing and admitting he was a bald-faced liar and now Kerry? In my estimation, even if Bush wins, it should never have been close.

The reasons given by USA Today that the numbers are trending toward Kerry are both based on blatant lies! 1. The Tora Bora Baloney and 2. The NON-missing explosives.

But the number 3 and main reason that Kerry is even in the race much less maybe winning is that the media has gone all out to support his election, by hook or crook. How powerful the MSM will feel, if yet again they manage to get their anointed candidate elected despite the overwhelming character deficiencies that should have rendered a Clinton or Kerry unelectable.

They will certainly be thumbing their nose at the Pajamahadeen ... and you can bet on it. Unless, of course Bush does get re-elected in which we will hear endless whining about how the blogsphere and ultrarich Bush Machine Dirty Politics affected the election chances of poor mistreated Kerry. I can hear the hypocritical hyperbole already.

I have to conclude that the Democrats love liars and cheats because they tell them the things that they have to hear in order to maintain their fantasy world where sin is not only accepted but good.

The MSM supports cheats and liars because of the challenge. They love pulling the wool over the eyes of Joe Blow Public and proving yet again how superior they are.

KERRY'S DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE

2004-11-01T10:29:00.000-06:00

***
HEY! That's what we've been shouting! WordWarrior, a Vietnam vet himself, has been telling me for ages that there was something "hinky" about Kerry's discharge, according to the records posted on his site. Finally, someone has put the pieces together.

Check out the NY Sun article and World Net Daily for the nitty-gritty.

NBC EDITS TRANSCRIPT TO COVER FOR KERRY

2004-11-01T09:35:00.000-06:00

***
CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS has discovered that the transcript of Brokejaw's interview with Kerry in which he inadvertently admitted to not releasing his military records has been altered leaving out Kerry's admission.

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

I posted earlier about this as quoted by Federalist Patriot but I also copied and saved the entire transript as originally posted.

Although Kerry and his camp has denied it repeatedly Kerry DID admit that he had not released his records...

Brokaw: "Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."

Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from."

I asked Mr. Brokejaw WHY he didn't walk through that mile-wide opening Kerry had left for him and ask Mr. Kerry why he had NOT released his records. I guess that question has been answered quite plainly, so I now have a question for NBC...

WHY do you feel you have the obligation and right to cover for Kerry and try to help him get elected? Does that not make NBC the media branch of the DNC?

HAS OSAMA BIN LADEN BECOME A DEMOCRAT?

2004-10-30T16:27:00.000-05:00

???????
A poster on Roger L Simon's blog made a very interesting observation... Although, he was not suggesting collusion or a conspiracy... his comparison between Osama Bin Laden's words and the typical talking points of the Democrats is rather eerie (as he puts it.)

DNC Talking Point #1: Bush Lied!

OBL Talking Point #1: "Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you, and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to repeat what happened before."

DNC Talking Point # 2: Connection between the Bush family and Saudi Royals.

OBL Talking Point #2: "Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military."

DNC Talking Point #3: Patriot Law violates our freedoms

OBL Talking Point #3: "So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight terrorism."

DNC Talking Point #4: Bush stole the 2000 election.

OBL Talking Point #4: "He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times."

DNC Talking Point #5: My pet goat story on 9/11

OBL Talking Point #5: "Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank god."

Definitely eerie... in fact it is positively CREEPY!

PS: Roger L Simon has a MOST excellent blog where even the commentators are "smarter than the average bear" (No offense intended Truth Laid Bear!)

THE WOLVES ARE OUT THERE

2004-10-30T13:22:00.000-05:00

Bush, who ordered U.S. forces to capture bin Laden dead or alive after the Sept. 11 attacks, vowed that "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country" and said "we will prevail" in the war on terror. Whether Bin Laden is DEAD or ALIVE Bush will not relent in the fight against terrorists. He will keep them fighting off our shores.

"Let me make this very clear," Bush said in Toledo, Ohio. "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this."

Kerry, in Florida, agreed saying, "we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." He went on: "They are barbarians, and I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes, period."

But then he started criticising the US forces running the operation in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan in late 2001 and blamed Bush again for the decision to let Afghan forces lead that chase. "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden," Kerry told WISN in Milwaukee. "He outsourced the job."

Bush responded, "It's the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking," and quoted his Afghan war commander, the now-retired Gen. Tommy Franks, as saying intelligence reports at the time were unclear about bin Laden's whereabouts. Kerry's account "does not square with reality," Bush said.

Can we risk a President Kerry who will wait until they attack us, hold summits, and then take a global test until he finds a some excuse to not take action?

VIDEO LINK TO BUSH AD: DAILY RECYCLER

WHOEVER HAS THEIR FOOT ON SHILLING'S NECK - PLEASE STOP IT!

2004-10-30T13:06:00.000-05:00

****
"Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling spontaneously endorsed President Bush on Good Morning America, Thursday; then he excitedly agreed to campaign with the president in New Hampshire; but by Friday, Schilling backed out, saying he should not have offered up his "unsolicited political opinions."

Oh, and coincidentally, Red Sox executives are Democratic donors

VIDEO LINK to Shilling For Bush!

2004-10-29T23:55:00.000-05:00

"I have nothing to hide.
I want you to ask me questions."
--John Kerry

These men have a few questions for you Mr. Kerry.

SwiftVets and POWs for Truth

NOTE: Also be sure to see Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal FREE online!

SOK - Same Old Kerry

2004-10-29T17:48:00.000-05:00

****
Kerry is at it again with this so-called missing explosives story. Back in 1971 he spoke about and even testified that our soldiers were committing atrocities on a regular basis. He tried to say and his supporters say he was blaming the leaders. But that didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now when he tries to say that his blaming President Bush for the incompetence of the troops doesn't reflect on or insult the troops. Just another load of Kerry Horse Malarky.

There has been much detailed information posted out on the blogs about this story and I cannot really add any pertinent details, expertise or analysis on the explosives or military operations. But I cannot let Kerry's self-serving rhetoric at the expense of our soldiers pass without comment. The best place to start may be a video contrasting Kerry's rhetoric with the truth.

VIDEO LINK and sarcasm brought to you by DAILY RECYCLER:

<~sarcasm~>
"The right-wing media is out to screw the Kerry campaign! First CBS News tricked Kerry and the Democrats into running "Bush was AWOL" ads by broadcasting what they knew to be forged memos. Now Kerry has been duped into co-opting a phony issue into his stump speeches by the New York Times! We understand that it's an important election -- but it just isn't fair for the New York Times and CBS News to sabotage the Kerry/Edwards ticket in the last week of the campaign!"
<~/sarcasm~>

Simply put, this 'story' was began as a deliberate (Oct Surprise) hatchet job on the president was immediately picked up by Kerry (tell-tale hints indicate that he had prior knowledge as with the forged document story since KE HQ had an ad ready to release that day plus the reference Kerry made about missing explosives during the debates.)

Without waiting to find out the facts, without any concern about the truth or how his words might affect soldiers in the field Kerry immediately went on the attack.

[QUOTE]
"President George W. Bush who talks tough -- talks tough -- and brags about making America safer, has once again failed to deliver," Kerry said at a campaign stop in Dover, NH.

"After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this president failed to guard those stockpiles where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept. (The NY Times) said the explosives "could end up or have already ended up in the hands of a terrorist group; the explosives might be used against our troops on the ground; and the explosives could be used to carry out a deadly attack against America or our allies."

Sen. Kerry, continued saying, "terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings."

He (said) that the International Atomic Energy Agency "warned that terrorists may be helping themselves to quote, 'the greatest explosives bonanza' in history. And now we know that our country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics."

"This is one of the great blunders of Iraq; one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry continued. "And the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be.

"Let me say this as directly as I can - that the unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, arrogance of this administration to do the basics has now allowed this president to once again fail the test of being the commander in chief."
[UNQUOTE]

How is it Kerry can scream about 300 tons of missing explosives that could bring down a building or airplane and in almost the same breath say we should never have gone into Iraq.

President Bush responded to Kerry's accusations thusly: "Now the Senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign-policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts...."

Before the day was out, after the front-page, above the fold, hatchet job by the DNC's whore, The Shady Lady (aka The Gray Lady, The NY Times.) the story began to fall apart and sinister overtones of collusion began to crop up. The first (who woulda thunk) interesting tidbit was that CBS had originally planned to release this TimeBomb Oct. 31 on 60 Minutes. With the hope (obviously) that there would not be time to debunk it before the election.

However, the lid was about to come off the story (OR they needed to diffuse the newest Kerry's a Big Fat Liar story) and they knew from experience that it would be ripped to shreds within hours by the blogshpere. They were determined to get it into the public arena quickly in order to get the maximum impact possible BEFORE it was discredited. Hence the front page story by the willing patsy NYTimes.

The story didn't pass the smell test with many bloggers from the get-go. It was just too patently partisan not to be a put-up job. Defense officials say the disclosure of the 380 tons of missing high explosives from Iraq was the work of International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohammed ElBaradei, who is said to be opposed to the United States and has everything to gain and nothing to lose by helping oust Bush (who opposes his re-appointment.)

Fox News also got it's hands on an IAEA report that indicated the seals were virtually worthless since ordinance could be removed through ventilation shafts without breaking the seals. That along with earlier reports indicated there were only 3 tons still at the Al Qaqaa site. But anyway you look at it, even 300 tons only amounts to 0.06% of the ordinance that the military has thus far destroyed in Iraq.

Then during the evening news NBC came out with the zinger that their embedded reporters were with the 101st Airborne that stopped at the munitions bunker and did not find the so-called missing explosives. It was then revealed that the 3rd Infantry had gotten there even prior to that. And even had the explosives remained undiscovered in the massive facility in the days before Baghdad fell, the roads and skies were under Coalition control and no large convoy could have spirited the explosives away.

[QUOTE]
"The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday "it is very highly improbable" that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area."

"Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area," said Col. David Perkins. He commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad."
[UNQUOTE]

However, later an ABC affiliate with embedded reports released a video they had taken and immediately Kedwards and the media wing of the DNC, NYTimes and CBS yelled, in unison, "AH HAH, we told you they were there!" But that story is falling apart as well with the released US military reconnaissance images and other information indicating that the Russians helped remove ordinances to Syria and perhaps Lebanon. They deny it, but go figure. This is not a plucked-out-of thin-air, back in October of 2002, the Federalist Patriot was revealing information that indicated a large movement of weaponry...

[QUOTE]
"As The Patriot previously noted in October, 2002, our well-placed sources in the region, and intelligence sources with the NSA and NRO, estimated that the UN Security Council's foot-dragging provided a large window for Saddam to export some or all of his deadliest WMD materials and components. At that time, we reported Allied Forces would be unlikely to discover Iraq's WMD stores, noting, "Our sources estimate that Iraq has shipped some or all of its biological stockpiles and nuclear WMD components through Syria to southern Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley." In December of 2002, our senior-level intelligence sources re-confirmed estimates that some of Iraq's biological and nuclear WMD material and components had, in fact, been moved into Syria and Iran. That movement continued until President Bush finally pulled the plug on the UN's ruse. " -- Federalist Patriot
[END-QUOTE]

Now with all that, one might think Kerry would back off... but OH, NO! Kerry isn't done yet. He thinks this is too good of a talking point to worry about something as trivial as the truth...

[QUOTE]
Kerry said yesterday, "The bottom line about these weapons that have disappeared. Here's the bottom line. They're are not where they are supposed to be. You were warned to guard them. You didn't guard them. They're not secure. And guess what, according to George Bush's own words, he shouldn't be our Commander-in-Chief, and I couldn't agree more."
[END-QUOTE]

Now the commander of a unit that removed tons of munitions and ordinance from Al Qaqaa has spoken to the media.

[QUOTE]
'WASHINGTON - A US Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from his 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.

Explosives were part of the load taken by the team, but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for. The material was then destroyed, he said.
The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita acknowledged the Defense Department did not have all the answers and could not yet account for all of the missing explosives, but stressed that the major's disclosure was a significant development in unraveling the mystery.'

The Washington Times on Thursday quoted John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who said he believed Russian special-forces personnel, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material from Al-Qaqaa." -- FOX NEWS
[UNQUOTE]

Now that surely would be enough to shut John Kerry up, don't you think? Think again.

[QUOTE]
"Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq. The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.

Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.." -- MSNBC
[UNQUOTE]

So how many more years would Senator Kerry have waited? How many countries would have had to "understand" before we disarmed Saddam... how many more tons of ammunition and explosives would have found its way out of the country and into the hands of terrorists?

HUGH HEWITT @ WEEKLY STANDARD: "Kerry now closes his presidential campaign exactly as he opened his political life: Attacking the United States military. Thirty-three years ago, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he indicted the soldiers of Vietnam as war criminals, the heirs of Genghis Khan. This week he embraced an already discredited account of missing munitions to attack the reputation of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne. Make no mistake, that is exactly what Kerry is doing when he asserts that deadly weapons went unsecured and unreported as these two divisions rushed to liberate Baghdad."

KERRY ADVISOR JOE LOCKHART: "Early this morning, we learned the Bush campaign's latest strategy for dealing with the missing explosives in Iraq. Today, the Bush campaign booked its number one surrogate and convention keynoter, Rudy Guiliani, on America's top-rated morning show and his message was clear, simple and incredible. He said: 'The actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?'

WordWizard: Guiliani is simply stating the obvious; Kerry is being disingenuous by trying to claim he is not criticizing the president rather than the troops and officers in charge of the ground operations.

MARY MATLIN: "His biggest blunder is, he's still failed, with five days to go, to provide a reason to vote for him. ... He has yet to be positive. ... when people get up Tuesday morning to make that final choice -- they want to vote for something, not against."

She said the idea what someone could have up and gone with 380 tons of ammunition after U.S. troops entered the country isn't even feasible. "It's not like you're sticking it your pants or your socks," she said. "It's like running around [with the ammunition on] the LA freeway with our trucks and our tanks all over."

REP. BOB LIVINGSTON: "There's a strong feeling among the American military that he virtually hates them," Livingston told FOX News, bringing up Kerry's post-Vietnam congressional testimony and his anti-war rhetoric. "He's been attacking the military and this arms deal in Iraq just shows exactly that. He went off half-cocked on a deal with the New York Times and with CBS news on a story that simply wasn't true ... I think that just shows that he's just not responsible enough to be in charge of the armed forces."

PRESIDENT BUSH: "A president cannot blow in the wind. ... Senator Kerry has taken a lot of different positions, but he's rarely taken a stand. ... Consistency is not the senator's strong suit. ... Senator Kerry will say anything to get elected. ... The senator's willingness to trade principle for political convenience makes it clear that John Kerry is the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time."

"You can't put a price tag on a person's life. ... "If the commander in chief withdraws before the mission is completed, it's too great a price. ... (It is ) essential that we succeed in Iraq...because if we do not succeed in Iraq ...the terrorists will rejoice."

"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."

"If Senator Kerry had his way...Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts..."

"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXPLOSIVE STORY:
WaPo
Captain's Quarters
Belmont Club
Instapundit
POWER LINE
TRUTH LAID BEAR

UPDATE: John Gibson's WORD on An Explosive Story:

What else does this controversy mean? I think it means the Kerry campaign is desperately worried about Bush's standing with the American people on the issue of terror and national security. If people think Bush would do the better job, then Kerry had to undermine it.

So here came the obliging New York Times, ready to put the worst possible spin on a more or less ordinary story of missing Iraqi explosives. Kerry ripped the headlines from the front page and ran with it:

It's the president's fault soldiers moved on to Baghdad.

It's the president's fault that Iraqis evidently stole some explosives.

It's the president's fault those explosives might have been used against American soldiers.

All in all, it's the president's fault.

But, is that what you think? Do overlooked weapons mean the president has not done a good job, or do they mean the challenger is flailing in the last days... willing to try anything?

I vote for the latter.

That's My Word.

MORE PROOF THE COALITION OF THE WILD-EYED IS LOSING IT!

2004-10-29T15:24:00.000-05:00

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Barry Seltzer, a registered Democrat, of Sarasota, Florida was arrested Wednesday on an aggravated assault charge, being accused of trying to run down US Rep. Katherine Harris and a group of supporters with his car. (Remember Katherine Harris -- Florida Secretary of State when Algore attempted to steal the 2000 election. Wonder why the guy was after her?)

He drove his Cadillac toward the group at an intersection Tuesday evening but played chicken and swerved at the last second, then fled the scene. "I intimidated them with my car," Seltzer told police. "I was exercising my political expression."

Just like the guys were just exercising their right to political expression when they broke the Republican staffers arm, blocked doors to Republican HQs, vandalized Republican property and intimidated Bush volunteers and supporters in a myriad of occurrences across the country?

QUESTION FOR MR. HEINZ-KERRY & MR. BROKEJAW

2004-10-29T14:55:00.000-05:00

????????????????????

[QUOTE]
This dialogue between John Kerry and NBC's Tom Brokaw last night is interesting in light of The Patriot's assertions about Kerry's missing military records (see Kerry's Dishonorable Discharge" at -- http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/).

Brokaw said to Kerry: "Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do." Kerry replied, "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from." -- from the Federalist Patriot Digest
[END-QUOTE]

And just why haven't you made your records public Mr. Heinz-Kerry?

Mr. Brokejaw... WHY didn't you ask Mr. Kerry this question even after he left you a mile-wide opening???????

THESE COLORS WILL NOT RUN... UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH

2004-10-28T23:38:00.000-05:00

Will history show that once again America ran?
With Kerry leading this time instead of aiding and abetting?

ELECTION 2004 - A MOMENTOUS MOMENT IN HISTORY

2004-10-28T23:00:00.000-05:00

***
NEVER FORGET why we are fighting and who has brought us through with strength, determination and steadfastness.

Whatever It Takes!

So are we going to prove the terrorists right? That we are a nation of wussies that will turn tail and run when the going gets tough? And what will be accomplished if this country fires George W because they are weary of war and because it isn't heroic and glorious in the trenches or during the clean up. Kerry is now determined to convince America that this was the wrong war, wrong time and wrong place... but he has a PLAN and could do it better.

Kerry on the War

Worried about the WMDs? Are you worried about them never existing or that they are missing? Even if you believe (sic) like Kerry, who is now screaming about them not existing and calling the president a liar even though Kerry himself and every other responsible person and country believed that they did exist... I think there should be more concern about where they went to... a scenario I am sure that President Bush is at least not ignoring.

But whatever the truth we do know that Saddam WAS a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

What will we accomplish by voting Kerry for president? We would convince the terrorists that we really didn't mean business because we fired the one committed to taking care of business. We would convince our allies that have stuck with us and choose to stand with the US instead of the bribes and kickbacks and anti-American alliances offered by Saddam and our enemies... those mysterious alliances that Kerry considers real while calling our steadfast, reliable, capable friends the "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted."

"Last November, suicide bombers killed 19 Italians stationed at a military police barracks in Nasiriyah, southern Iraq. It was the largest single-incident loss of life for the Italian military since the Second World War, and the shock and pain that reverberated through the country was palpable. Hundreds of thousands of mourners paid tribute at a memorial service in Rome. President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi cut short a visit to the United States to return home.

Inevitably, the tragedy led some Italian politicians to call for the withdrawal of the country's forces from Iraq. The war was never popular with Italians, and such a setback might have resulted in an early exit. But the defiant mood of the country was better captured by Cardinal Camillo Ruini at the massive and moving memorial service.

He said terrorists would not defeat Italy's spirit: "We will not flee from them. Rather we will confront them with all the courage, energy, and determination that we are capable of." Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government stood firm. Acknowledging the gravity of the loss and articulating the nation's pain, Berlusconi also gave a ringing defense of Italy's commitment to the struggle in Iraq.

"We feel pride for the courage and humanity with which our troops . . . have worked, and still work, to make the situation tolerable for children, women, the elderly, and the weak who live in that martyred region," he said.

John Kerry doesn't share the Italians' pride in the gallantry of their soldiers." (From the Weekly Standard)

"With the same energy . . . I put into going after the Viet Cong and trying to win for our country, I pledge to you I will hunt down and capture or kill the terrorists before they harm us," Kerry said. "And we will wage a war on terror that makes America proud and brings the world to our side."

Think about that statement. John Kerry went to Vietnam after not being able to get the deferment he sought. Fought the Viet Cong for only one-third of his commitment, bailing out by using a little-used regulation that allowed a reassignment after three in-theater Purple Hearts, which he collected for uncommonly minor wounds (at least one may have been questionable, even dishonestly acquired.)

Edwards said talk to the men that served with Kerry to find out how he will lead the country... OK, let's do that... but talk to others besides the very few Kerry has selected for you to talk to. Kerry's Gunner

Back in the states, he attacked the US and its soldiers who were still fighting in Vietnam (or in POW camps) publicly siding with the Viet Cong and denouncing our efforts, branding his 'band of brothers' as murderers, rapists, a modern day army of Genghis Khan.

Kerry Sells Out

Not only did he turn against the war against the Viet Cong, he organized massive demonstrations against it, publicly repudiated his own service by tossing (or pretending to toss) his (or someone else's) medals over the White House fence and secretly met for negotiations with the communists against the best interests of his own country.

Kerry Threw Away His Country with His Medals!

Or Did He?

Kerry has already started to keep this campaign promise. After supporting the war on terrorism and the removal of Saddam as a necessary battle in that war, he has backpedaled for a year. He voted to cut off funding to the troops (after he voted for it,) and has since called the war in Iraq the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place," a "grand diversion" and a mistake. But, nonetheless he will get other countries to commit troops and finances to ease the burden on the US.

What do you think the Soldiers TODAY think about Kerry disparaging the work they are doing?

Anti-War and Anti-America is the one stand that Kerry always flips back to, at least when he isn't trying to fool the American people into voting for him. He has undermined public support for the war, fought to cut off funding and has given aid and comfort to the enemy. Now he is once again dishonoring and disrespecting our military just like he did back then.

The Soldiers and families from Vietnam will never forget.

These Men Served. They Know and they know how theses soldiers fighting this war on terrorism today are going to feel if we vote for a president who has, with his wrong war stance, called them fools on a fools mission.

These VETs and POWs want to know WHY Kerry should be trusted to send our sons and daughters into combat when he was the one that condemned their fathers and grandfathers.

Kerry says he will wage a war on terror that will make America proud and bring the world to our side? Is he PLANNING to do that with the global test he has talked about in spite of his claims that he will run the war like Reagan?

The Stakes are too HIGH for us to trust Kerry's obsession with the UN.

These Terrorists are DETERMINED to KILL us!

What about this record of President Bush that Kerry trashes so much? Kerry wants to take us back to the days of the 90s where everything was wonder and terrorism was a nuisance? Terrorism was never a nuisance, it was IGNORED!

How will a President Kerry run this country? Or will he revert to his 'most liberal Senator' mode? Does he really have a plan or will he continue to make his policy according to the front page of the New York Times the same place he gets his talking points?

Kerry can RUN, but even in camo, he CANNOT HIDE from the record.

There are some issues Kerry has never flip-flopped on. He has always adored the UN and played nice with every tolertarian communist leader he has come across. Kerry may have flip-flopped on whether abortion was murder (acknowledging that life starts at conception) but he still remained in favor of it (to the degree that he will appoint only Judges that favor abortion) and since he voted against the ban we know he supports partial-birth abortion which entails birthing the babys head then punching a hole in it and sucking out the brains. Yes Kerry voted FOR that.

What about the other choice in this election? In our opinion, George W is the ONLY choice if you want to salvage the heart, soul and survival of America.

The Write Wing Warrior Creed... We believe this election to be the most important in our history ... American lives depend on electing a president to aggressively wage war on terrorism without seeking UN approval ... We believe America is not defined by Hollywood or the media, but by hardworking patriots in the heartland ...

Write Wing Warriors are fighting for the heart and soul and survival of America ... We believe George W Bush is not only the best choice for president, but the ONLY CHOICE!

Freedom is not Free and Peace is not Pretty but loyalty and steadfastness and strength of character does deserve our vote.

We all must choose...

Do you want a caring compassionate President who embodies all the best qualities of the Cowboy teamed up with THE VP, who has no political ambitions of his own but has all the abilities and experience necessary if needed?

Or do you want the Metrosexual Male Gigolo and the Pretty Boy?

It's your CHOICE!

Choose well!

2004-10-28T22:30:00.000-05:00

We must not forget why we fight...
DESERVE VICTORY!

THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY... HA-HA... HO-HO... HEE-HEE

2004-10-27T21:57:00.000-05:00

##^%#$#%%#%%&**#@$!!!

Just what are you trying to say here, O'Donnell?

"To me the most interesting lie, John O'Neill, that I would submit to you that you should answer, is, you make a lying claim that John Kerry's antiwar activity prolonged the amount of time that prisoners of war were held in Vietnam. ... That's a lie, John O'Neill! ... Lies! ... That's a lie! It's another lie! That's a lie! Absolute lie! You lie in that book endlessly! ... Disgusting, lying book! ... It's a pack of lies! You are unfit to publish! ... He just lied to you! He spews out this filth! Point to his name on the report, you liar! ... You just spew lies! ... I just hate the lies of John O'Neill. I hate lies. It's not an argument; they're proven lies. ... O'Neill's a liar, he's been a liar for 35 years about this, and he's found other liars ... They lied! ... They're lying somewhere! ... Lies! Just tell me the initials, you liar! Creepy liar! ... You are a liar who makes things up! ... You want the lies! That's how you make your living, on lies!"

--MSNBC Political Analyst Lawrence O'Donnell, with a few professional journalistic observations about the Swift Boat Vets' book co-author John O'Neil.

UPDATE: LINK TO VIDEO CLIP of O'Donnell meltdown.

A CALL TO ARMS - LOCK N LOAD THOSE KEYBOARDS

2004-10-26T22:27:00.000-05:00

It has become increasingly obvious to all bloggers and possibly even the MSMers that Campaign-Election dirty tricks and tactics against Bush-Cheney supporters are wide-spread and not just from Kedwards. All across the country there have been threats and intimidation against supporters, reports of vandalism, attacks and break-ins of Republican HQs, peoples homes and cars. I received a memo from Bush-Cheney Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman giving a toll-free hotline to call if you suffer or witness any intimidation or harrassment.
======================================================
I am appalled.

In Missouri, a flyer shows a photograph of a young black man under a fire hose in the 1950s. The flyer tells African-Americans this is an example of how Republicans have kept voters from the polls. In Colorado, Republican voters got calls telling them their family members in Iraq had died. The callers claimed that call would be real unless Kerry was elected.

In these final days, we can only expect more of this filth.

I urge you to turn on your answering machine. If you get a call from an unknown number, let the machine pick it up. It may be the latest campaign of smear, fear and lies from our opponents.

If you get one of these disgusting calls, or an outrageous flyer or mailing, save the message, call our hotline and let us know.

Just a few weeks ago we saw a Kerry campaign manual that told their staff to allege intimidation even if no evidence existed. Now their allies have begun an incredibly dishonest and disgusting campaign of shadowy calls and misleading flyers.

We need to know immediately if you get one of these calls. We need to know the lies, threats, and distortions those allied against us are spreading. With very few days left, we need you to be our eyes and ears on the ground.

Call the hotline at 1-888-610-8170 if you see to report any of this type of activity.

Sincerely, Ken Mehlman

P.S. The shadowy groups allied against us have begun a campaign of filth and lies. Turn on your answering machine. If you get a message filled with lies, call our hotline at 1-888-610-8170 and let us know.

THE OCTOBER SURPRISE IS A TIMEBOMB

2004-10-26T15:49:00.000-05:00

The New York Times taking the stand, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it," disregarding that the evidence has been discredited. Kerry and campaign are following their lead as usual (more proof that Kerry gets his daily talking points from the NY Times, which leads me down the bunny trail of why the lefties would want a president that bases his analyses and decisions on the MSM.)

That this was intended as the October Surprise is becoming evident as the story unfolds in that CBS had originally planned to release the story on election eve. The reason given for not doing so was "it wouldn't hold up." They did not clarify why it wouldn't hold up. My thinking is that they couldn't sit on this story because they needed to deflect the attention from the Washington Times story about Kerry's lying concerning his meeting with the UN Security Council. That leads me to think that Kerry's lies about meeting with the UN were more threatening and damaging than the Ho-Humming Bloggers had realized.

There is further information slowly seeping out that (as with the forged documents) Kerry may have had prior knowledge of the story. First, is the audio clip from one of the debates played on Rush's show today that had Kerry listing "missing explosives" as part of his claims that the war had been bungled. Second, is how quickly the Kerry campaign had an ad ready exploiting the story of missing explosives. I will be updating this throughout the afternoon and evening and adding links to all the extensive and excellent information being posted by Pajama Patriots.

UPDATE I

KERRY SPOT has had some posts from military servicemen (whose identity they confirm) concerning the 'missing explosives.'

A Kerry Spot reader with a ".mil" e-mail address:

"You are correct in your bottom line conclusion. Here is a second follow up. I was serving as a [identifying information removed by the Kerry Spot] staff member during the time in question. The Commander on the site had complete real time intelligence on what to expect and possibly find at the Al-QaQaa depot. The ordinance in question was not found when teams were sent in to inspect and secure the area. When this information was relayed, Operational plans were adjusted and the unit moved forward. Had the ordinance in question been discovered, a security team would have been left in place."

Another with a ".mil" e-mail address, stating he was among the soldiers who secured Al QaQaa on April 10th with the 101st:

"I can tell you what happened at my squad level. When we arrived there, humvees with Mark-19's and other mounted weapons immediately secured the parameter with appropriate manpower backup. On the foot level we broke up into squads and went building to building and cleared them; mind you, we couldn't do them all. But we found what had been typical finds, caches of AK-47's, artillery rounds and bullets. There was absolutely no talk of a big find, and what I could sense no worries of anything that should have been there. Of course, we were still worried about the possibilities of chemical weapons but they never panned out.
I am a little perturbed at the gross mischaracterization of what went on there. From what I remember of the NBC crew, they did not go out with us, and they may have in fact been asked to not to go on the search with us, due to the dangers that may have possibily come up. Now this part is my opinion, but don't you think that if they had gone out with us they would have video?"

Two more posts with e-mails from a ".mil" address writes to Kerry Spot:

"I was there at Al QaQaa on April 10th with the 101st, I can rest assure you that [NBC producer interviewed on MSNBC earlier today] Lai Ling Jew is lying about it, she seems to be expressing a convenient contrary opinion of the time. The very first thing we do when we move into an area is clear it of any enemy combatants, including going inside warehouses full of ordinance, which we did immediately when we reached there."

"Operational plans in modern warfare are continually rolling and are available to combat commanders in a real time network environment. The original pre-invasion Operation Plans listed the Al-QaQaa weapons depot as a priority security site. After the 101st Airborne Division inspected the site, the security priority was downgraded and the Operational Plan was modified."

HUGH HEWITT thinks that Kerry's rush to capitalize on the "already collapsed story of the missing RMX" indicates that the Kerry camp has nothing else. As Hugh expresses, there are desperate attempts being made to resuscitate this story. But the story has no legs, no teeth and is quickly running out of hot air. What it is accomplishing, as I said earlier, is the diverting of attention from Kerry's lies about meeting with the UN Security Council.

A HUGH HEWITT Bottom Line: "UN bigs are trying to help John Kerry into the White House, and MSM is helping them help Kerry. That's not going to play well anywhere."

CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS has a good analysis on the logistics of removing the missing explosives: Insurgents Hauling 380 Tons Of Explosives Not Exactly A Covert Act.

UPDATE II

How is it that there were no WMDs or any reason to worry about Saddam and now suddenly Kerry is freaking out because these MASSIVE amounts of explosives are in the hands of terrorists and yet Mr. Kerry has been advocating throughout this campaign to leave all those terrible explosives in the hands of Saddam to sell or give to any terrorist he pleased? The Shady Lady, not caring that she has been exposed as a whore, is screeching about the president being too concerned with weapons that didn't exist instead of those that did.

Question: Why are you perfectly willing to believe that 380 tons of explosives could be spirited away, but not hidden caches of WMDs, that everyone, including the UN inspectors believed existed?

HUGH HEWITT interviews Former NYC Police Commission Bernard Kerik who spent four months in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad: John Kerry trusts the UN bureaucrats at the IAEA more than the 101st Airborne's Screaming Eagles.

ROGER L SIMON discusses the scary implications if the suspicions that a high UN official was actually the source of information the media used in it's attempted hit job on the president.

THE TRUTH LAID BEAR has an update that explores the question: If the explosives were looted, why haven't they been used?

MICHELLE MALKIN'S BOTTOM LINE: Bottom line: Yet another anti-Bush bomb has exploded and the shrapnel is firmly embedded in the foreheads of the CBS producers and New York Times editors who have recklessly lobbed their weapons of journalistic destruction on John Kerry's behalf.

BELMONT CLUB HAS INTERESTING ANALYSIS ON MISSING EXPLOSIVES

2004-10-26T01:33:00.000-05:00

Belmont Club has an interesting analysis for you vet/military types on the meaning of the missing cache of weapons and explosives beyond proof positive that the Paper of Record Spinning is now the NY behind-the-Times.

"The withdrawal of enemy resources into safe havens was the subject of Belmont Club's War Plan Orange. In this context, the loss of 380 tons of RDX is similar to worrying about a toothache after being diagnosed with AIDS and Ebola. Some 600,000 tons of explosive are said to have been dispersed throughout Iraq prior to the conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The loss of the RDX is serious, but in the overall scheme of things, one of the least worries. But it provides indirect confirmation of the preemptive dispersal of war materiel by the Saddam regime while the US was trying to negotiate UN permission to topple him for six months, compounded by Turkey's refusal to allow the 4ID to attack south into the Sunni Triangle.

The account above shows that the RDX explosive was already gone by the time US forces arrived. Although one may retrospectively find some fault with OIF order of battle, most of the damage had already been inflicted by the dilatory tactics of America's allies which allowed Saddam the time and space -- nearly half a year and undisturbed access to Syria -- necessary to prepare his resistance, transfer money abroad and disperse explosives (as confirmed first hand by reporters). Although it is both desirable and necessary to criticize the mistakes attendant to OIF, much of the really "criminal" neglect may be laid on the diplomatic failure which gave the wily enemy this invaluable opportunity. The price of passing the "Global Test" was very high; and having been gypped once, there are some who are still eager to be taken to the cleaners again. "

THE BIG LOSER OF THIS ELECTION WILL BE THE MSM

2004-10-25T23:59:00.000-05:00

Even though Kerry's lifelong dream of being president will end in tatters and all the ABBers will require therapy or even hospitalization... the biggest loser of the 2004 Presidential Elections may well be the MSM. One would think that the NY Times would have done a bit of checking before printing this front page top-of-the-fold story. But then that would have totally blown our image of the NY Times would it not?

----------------------------------------------------------
NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED

The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday how the Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to "guard those stockpiles.""This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration," Kerry said.

In an election week rush:
**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 TimesBut tonight,

NBCNEWS reported, once: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad! An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to report the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing before troops even arrived.

"The U.S. Army was at the sight one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone," a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday. The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.

Developing...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
-----------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE KERRY SPOT:

Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News pretty much dismantled the New York Times attack on behalf of Kerry today.
NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)
If Jill Abramson, managing editor of the New York Times, had a shred of concern over her paper's reputation for getting the facts right never mind objectivity or fairness, she would be running the correction - or at least this blatantly contradictory information - in the giant headline font and above-the-fold location that today's story got. But I guess the interest in echoing the sentiments of Maureen Dowd is more important than getting it right at the Old Gray Lady.