Wednesday, November 30

Joe Lieberman - US needs to finish what we started in Iraq

I received an e-mail this morning from the ConservaMom regarding Senator Joseph Lieberman's recent comments in support of our troops, the war, and our continuing to fight there until we're done. As you can imagine, I almost fell out of my chair. A Democrat? With cajones? No way.

Yes, way, apparently:
To: Friends and Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer, Chairman
Campaign for Working Families
Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2005

A Democrat Defends Bush?

Today’s Wall Street Journal features an editorial by Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut defending President Bush’s stand in the Iraq war. Senator Lieberman spent Thanksgiving with our troops, and the visit was his fourth in the past 17 months. Here are some excerpts:

“Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. …

“None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

“The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

“Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.”

Well, after a bit of Googling and reading and whatnot, I found that it is, indeed true. And has been true for years. Apparently Joe's been called a "Republicrat" for his stance on the war since around 2003. Shall we lump him in with Zell or is it a bit premature for that?

Perhaps you know all about this and this isn't news. But it's news to me and therefore I need to share it with you. Mostly because it shocked the holy heck out of me.

First, from Iraq, Lieberman supports what we're doing over there:
"We cannot let extremists and terrorists, a small number, here in Iraq deprive the 27 million Iraqis of what they want which is a better freer life, safer life for themselves and their children" Lieberman said after his meeting with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
Okay, then. Moving on to his Senate floor statement from November 15th...

It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power – a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face.

I am grateful to the American military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone.

We will come to another day to debate the past of prewar intelligence. But let me say briefly the questions raised in our time are important. The international intelligence community believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Probably most significant, and I guess historically puzzling, is that Saddam Hussein acted in a way to send a message that he had a program of weapons of mass destruction. He would not, in response to one of the 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions that he violated, declare he had eliminated the inventory of weapons of mass destruction that he reported to the U.N. after the end of the gulf war in 1991.

The President himself actually singled out Mr. Lieberman for praise at a press conference on November 20th.
Among other things, he said "the progress in Iraq is amazing" and rejected Murtha's complaint about Vice President Cheney, who received five deferments during the Vietnam war, questioning the "backbone" of Iraq war critics who had served in battle. "I don't think the Vice President's service is relevant in this debate," Bush said.

He also hailed "fine Democrats like Senator Joe Lieberman share the view that we must prevail in Iraq."


As to be expected, out there on Google and Blogger and other search sites, there are venomous "open letters" and such to good ol' Joe, blasting him for daring to support what we're doing over there. I'm suprised he hasn't been smeared from here to Timbuktu yet. I'm sure his Democrat colleagues will find a way soon enough.

Oh, and this is relatively unrelated, but I found this from Right Wing News that I think ya'll will find worth reading and keeping for future reference.


Tuesday, November 29

They say... and then there's reality

If all I did was watch CNN and listen to Democrats, I'd think the country was in real trouble now. Everything's bad, right? Gas prices, the economy, the housing bubble will burst, and I won't even go there about their doom and gloom Vietnam/Iraq comparisons that are absolute nonsense.

But if you'll click on that Drudge Report link to the right there, you'll see the top three stories dealing with:

  • Consumer confidence is up to 98.9 (from 85.2 in October), beating analysts expectations of 90
  • Sales of new single family homes went up 13% over last month, the biggest single month gain in 12 years!
  • The stock market is holding strong and the Dow may hit 11,000
Well, well, well. Now, I know anyone from New Fallujah might not be feeling this. Economic news in Michigan is not good. (don't worry, we'll be devoting several columns to unseating Gov. Granholm as the next election draws near) But the fact is, the rest of America is doing great. We have confidence in the future, we're spending money, we're buying houses.

One of the Drudge articles points out that consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of the U.S. economy!!! Do you know how huge that is? Now is there anyone out there simple-minded enough to argue with me that tax cuts don't work? That putting more money in the pockets of American people is the only way to make the economy grow? And not just a certain class of people, but ALL people. Yes, including that evil "richest 1%." Why? Because then they spend the extra money. They become part of that 2/3 contributing to a strong, American economy.

Anyone want to say that Bush's tax cuts did NOT have an effect on the economy now? Did not lead us out of his inherited recession and into the prosperity we enjoy now?

Anyone want to raise taxes? Yeah, see those stocks decline, see the housing market stall, see that confidence plummet and people stop spending money. TWO-THIRDS of our economy, people! Get with it.

No new taxes! Make Bush's tax cuts permanent! The government doesn't make up 2/3 of our economy, YOU DO!

Update 11/30: According to the New York Times, the economy "appearing" to boom is "not that simple". Do these mental midgets ever tire of getting it wrong? (link via Drudge)

Update 12/2: Welcome Blogger's Blog readers. Feel free to browse around - make yourselves at home!

What's this all aboot, eh?

I couldn't quite get the phonetic spelling down for the Canadian pronounciation of "about"

If anyone out there has any knowledge of Canadian politics, I'd appreciate the insight! I don't quite understand how they run things up there...

But it looks like the liberal, anti-Bush, anti-U.S. government is "aboot" to be saacked

Here's an excerpt:

Canada's Conservatives, by contrast, are seen as much more receptive to improving relations with Washington, though a majority of Canadians opposed the war in Iraq and the policies of President Bush.

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper favors tax cuts and opposed Martin's successful bill to legalize same-sex marriage throughout Canada. He would become prime minister if the Conservatives receive the most seats in Parliament.

"This is not just the end of a tired, directionless, scandal-plagued government," Harper said after Monday's vote. "It's the start of a bright new future for this country."

And I hope so!! I've always liked Canada. They have great beer AND they gave us hockey. But they've been leaning way too close to socialism and anti-U.S. behavior lately. Hopefully, we'll see better relations with our neighbor to the north soon.

Psst. Hi! Patriotette here. Trying to sneak past the Sage so she won't see me...

Michelle Malkin has a nice round-up and linky goodness for anyone interested in Canadian goings-on. (I, personally am bored to tears with Canadian stuff.)

Minority Rules?

I think what’s been bugging me about the whole “Happy Holidays and not - heaven forbid - Merry Christmas” thing is the cowardice of large corporations, Christians and even churches to stick to their guns and stand up for what they believe is right. “Oooh, so and so will be offended if I have a nativity scene in my foyer so I’ll take it out”. “Can’t offend any of my customers by saying Merry Christmas, so I’ll wimp out and say Happy Holidays to appease everyone”. It’s ridiculous and spineless behavior.

The first amendment says Congress shall make no law establishing religion. That doesn’t mean that Target can’t have a Christmas sign up in their stores or that Detroit City Hall can’t have a Nativity scene on the front lawn. Is Target Congress? I sure as heck know Detroit City Hall isn't. And even if they were, putting a nativity scene on their property isn't "establishing" a religion. It's celebrating a religious holiday that the majority of Americans celebrate.

Yes, the majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, believe in God, and go to church. The last figure I heard was somewhere around 90%. So let me get this straight: we the majority are bending to the minority? Why? What’s the worst that can happen if God forbid, we offend one or two of them? What are we afraid of, for Pete’s sake?

What is the absolute worst thing that could happen if we said “No. I am going to have Christmas trees for sale at my store, I am going to say Merry Christmas to you on the street, I am going to put a nativity scene in my front window, and will hang Christmas lights on my home”. Can someone sue you for this? No. Why? Because it’s free speech, people. Free speech, contrary to what liberals want you to believe, applies to everyone. Not just the God-hating, anti-Christian, intolerant minority. (and the libs call US "bigots"??)

And where is the line drawn on what “offends”? I wear a silver cross every day. At what point is that cross going to offend someone to the point where we’re told we can’t wear religious symbols on our person? I also have a W04 sticker on my car. I know it offends people. When’s the PC police going to make me remove it? The answer is, of course, that as of 2005, nobody can make me remove my sticker and nobody can make me not wear my cross. Why? Freedom of expression, speech, and religion.

(And yes, freedom of expression and speech has limits. I don’t think you should be able to stand in a crowded movie theater and scream “FIRE”. Or use the “n” word or other tasteless slang for minority groups. It’s mean and unnecessary.)

That brings me back to cowardice. It is a decidedly liberal trait to obsess about what other people think (and in their beliefs about foreign policy, what other countries – namely the terrorists – think of the US in general) and they twist themselves into pretzels to not offend. Unless you’re a Christian. Christians are fair game for jokes, insensitivity, ridicule and outright hostility. But if you’re gay, black, on death row, a suicide bomber, poor, an athiest, or a Democrat, you had better not say anything bad about them or question them. It’s “tolerance” for all of the above, except Christians. Am I the only one who’s noticed?

And yet we tolerate the ridicule, we tolerate the liberals preaching to us about what we can and can’t say – and we don’t do anything. Most of us just conform without questioning. As an example, when did it become accepted that a “racist”or "homophobe" is also someone who doesn’t accept the concept of homosexuality as "okay"? Is being gay a new race now?

It’s okay to wave a rainbow flag from your house, but it’s offensive to have a “Merry Christmas” flag or a nativity scene on your front yard. What about that which offends Christians? Can't we outlaw that which makes Christians cringe?

The point of this whole post is to get some of us to go out of our way to “offend” people this season. "Offend" them because freedom of expression, speech and religion belong to you too. And I don't mean "offend" by go around hurting people's feelings on purpose. I'm talking about "offending" by referring to "Christmas". Sincerely saying "God bless you". Offering your prayers for someone instead of "good thoughts" whatever the hell that means.

What's the worst that can happen?

Update 11/28:
Speaking of offensive...(safe for work) and I can't say "Merry Christmas", but this guy can do what he does and it's okay and protected free speech? *gag*

Update #2:
Funnies from The Yak - again. Uh...Happy Christmukkah?

Boston says "okay" to a CHRISTMAS tree

Yep, the House Speaker has decided that the Capital Holiday Tree is now the Capital Christmas Tree. Small victory, yes. But still, victory.

I take issue with a paragraph in the article that states:
"To rename a Christmas tree as a holiday tree is as offensive as renaming a Jewish menorah a candlestick"
Because in all fairness, a Christmas Tree is not the Christian symbol of Jesus being born here as a human baby. The Christmas Tree itself is not a symbol of Christianity...not in my mind, anyway. The menorah is a symbol of Hannukkah, and is crucial and central to the celebrating of that particular holiday. I think a better analogy is to say "to rename the Cross a stick of wood is as offensive as renaming a Jewish menorah a candlestick".

I think the main point that we are having problems with is the scrubbing of "Christ" out of everything. We have problems with the oh-so-PC crowd changing our holidays because someone, somewhere, might be offended. (and that is a subject for another post, "Minority Rules" that's still being concocted)

But do not be mistaken, a Christmas tree is in NO WAY a symbol of Christianity. A nativity scene, yes. Not a Christmas tree. Although the term "Christmas" is a term referring to a Christian holiday. It is not, in and of itself, offensive.

Can someone tell me what harm I am doing by saying "Merry Christmas"? Would you rather I cheerfully ask you to "F-k off"? It's a greeting. Not an indoctrination or secret code or anything offensive. I don't get offended if someone says "Happy Hannukkah". I assume that somewhere out there someone is having a happy Hannukkah since it's Hannukkah. If I say "Merry Christmas" and you happen to be Jewish, I'm not minimizing your traditions. You say "Merry Christmas" back because it's...well...Christmas, too.

8 or so years ago when I worked in retail I would say "Merry Christmas" (wasn't supposed to, management at the very upscale department store - won't mention any names but the initials are NM - said that was a no-no) and if someone happened to be Jewish, they would smile and say "Happy Hanukkah". I would smile back. No harm done. I think I posted before about my attempt at PC-ness by saying "Happpy Holidays" to a customer, feeling very proud and tolerant, and the woman sort of scowled sadly at me and said "Merry CHRISTMAS to you, too!". I didn't say "happy holidays" again after that.

Okay, I'm digressing into my other post that I haven't finished thinking about yet. :) More later, ya'll.

Monday, November 28

Another Christmas post

Let's not forget in the midst of all the Christmas controversy out there that Christmas is a NATIONAL HOLIDAY.

Yep, it is. Just like Thanksgiving or Memorial Day. Our other national holidays have a history behind them, just like Christmas. So why are we ignoring the history behind Christmas? The government did not decide to make Dec. 25 a national holiday because it's close to Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa, and don't forget Twelfth Night and Boxing Day! Gee, seems like a good time to have a "holiday" and "holiday sales" and "holiday parties" and "holiday breaks." They chose Dec. 25 because that is the day Christians celebrate the birth of Christ and that day is not only now a religious holiday, but an historic American day of celebration, as this country was founded by Christians and still claims about 90% of the population as Christian.

So when are we going to stop caring when people are offended by stupid things? How can someone saying "Merry Christmas" or having a "Christmas sale" at a store POSSIBLY offend any sensible person? There is nothing offensive in saving money at a store or getting a few days off work. The word "Christmas" has absolutely no offensive connotations.

Enough is enough --call it like it is. Yo' Massholes --it's a Christmas tree! The kids get all those days off from school at that time of year because of Christmas. Christmas. Christmas. Christmas.

If you don't like it, if it truly offends you, please see someone for your other psychiatric issues. Thanks.'s the link to Christmas being a legal holiday (at least for teachers in California). Courtesy of the Good ol' Yak.

Christmas related facts from Wikipedia

2004 Federal Holidays from the Office of Personnel management. They call it "Christmas".

And...gasp!...Massachusetts calls it "Christmas", too. ::Patriotette faints dead away from shock::

Mouch is gone

After that Thanksgiving roust in which the Falcons took the field alone (did you see any Lions at the game? I didn't --and I was there! I stayed for a whole quarter and a half...), the Lions have fired head coach Steve Mariucci.

The article points out the supreme patheticness of the Lions, such as the stat about how we haven't won ONE playoff game since 1957! I don't think we've made it to the playoffs since 1995, if memory serves.

I'm not feeling sorry to see Mouch go, but one of the problems with the Lions is that they always have a scapegoat instead of addressing the actual problem. Maybe Mouch wasn't the right coach, but who hired him? Who put this team of losers together? Millen, the team prez. Granted, I don't know that it was Millen who called 7 yard pass plays on 3rd down when we needed ten yards to make a first.... but still, he's to blame as well.

And how about blaming a QB (who yes, is as inconsistant as Michigan State) when our offensive line are the most pathetic bunch of losers out there. I don't think Peyton Manning could function behind those guys.

But let's address the real problem -the fans. Yes, we are to blame. Because WE KEEP GOING! Why? Why do we enjoy self-induced torture? In any other city, this team would have been relocated years ago. But not here. Here in the D the fans sell out the stadium and tune in on TV to watch the games, no matter how bad the Lions may be. What is the motivation for the owners to go out and make the investment to build a winning team when we act perfectly happy to support losers?

Update to the "X" kerfuffle

Well, well, well. It seems that the "X" over Cheney's face during his speech broadcast on CNN possibly WASN'T a mistake after all? (via Drudge, of course)

A CNN switchboard operator was fired over the holiday -- after the operator claimed the 'X' placed over Vice President's Dick Cheney's face was "free speech!"

"We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying, Bush and Cheney," the CNN operator said to a caller. "Bring our soldiers home."

We? As in CNN or as in this particular operator and the gremlin in his/her pocket? The operator goes on to say how the X was an expression of free speech and if the caller didn't like it to not watch.

Seems to me CNN should be concerned about KEEPING their three viewers, don't you?

Update 10:45am:
Goodness gracious. If it's more detail you want, more detail you shall get. There's a LOT there for any of you that are still interested. (including audio recordings of the conversations between the operator and the callers)

Check out the press release, too...very interesting, yes?
Millions from across the country telephoned CNN to alert the network about an accidental "X" over the Vice President's face, only to be told that the "X" was intentional against the present administration. CNN callers flooded the Internet and online communities with calls to boycott the network.
"Only to be told that the 'X' was intentional"??

Ever threw a party and nobody came?


Happy Monday, ya'll.

Saturday, November 26

No more Christmas, kiddies.

"In this holiday season", "Happy Holidays from ______", Happy Holidays, Happy Holidays...ARGH! It's CHRISTMAS. C.H.R.I.S.T-mas. As in the birth of Christ. As in a celebration and remembrane of the beginning of the basis for the CHRISTian faith. Jesus born on earth as a man who grows up to become our Savior. Without the Christmas story - and the story of Easter, for that matter, my faith is for nothing. I believe in a risen Jesus, a man who walked on earth performing miracles and doing his Father's work. Who was then murdered on a cross, put in a grave, and then rose from the dead and now sits in heaven "making intercessions for us".

This is a continuation from a previous post of ours discussing the war on Christianity. Expect this theme to be updated and repeated in the coming months. Please feel free to add any links of interest in the comments section.

Michelle Malkin has a round-up of some "War on Christmas" type stories. If anyone hears me even *think* "Happy Holidays" I would expect you to please shoot me in the head with a very large-calibur clue. Thank you.

A commentor at Wizbang puts it very well - in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way.

Yeah, I've been confused lately. keeps talking about some holiday that I'm supposed to be giving gifts for, but never tells me what holliday it is! Sears is also saying that I should "Wish Big" because of the holiday, but they too won't tell me what we're celebrating. I mean, at this rate I'm going to miss it! And believe me, I'm not buying expensive gifts for a holiday on some undisclosed date. If I miss that holiday then I will have to find someplace to store it in the hope I catch it next year, assuming the holiday isn't a one year thing.

Plus, I won't even know what's appropriate for the holiday. I don't want to go and buy someone a tea set only to find out we're celebrating the Boston Tea Party. That would be a major faux pas! No no, this won't do! I need to know what we're supposed to be buying all this stuff for!

Thanks, JSchuler. Good point. :)

Another update:
From Random Yak, who speaks my mind.

1. Defend Christmas against the invading Holiday Season at all points and on all fronts.

2. Respond to "Happy Holidays" with a smile and a cheerful, "Merry Christmas."

(This is a MUST DO, ya'll. Christians get freedom of speech, too, remember -Patriotette)

3. Illuminate and discuss Holyday Moonbatisms throughout the Blogosphere and the culture at large.

Go read it and check out his links and comments. Be sure to check back, too - it sounds like the Yak will be updating frequently.

Update: 11/28
Check it out! The Yak himself added us to his considerable and exclusive Christmas Resistance Blogroll. :) Thanks, Yak! (be sure to check out his newly-updated blog entries, too. Good stuff!)

Yes. Let's bomb Al Jazeera. What are we waiting for?

Okay, so it's hard to ignore all the news stories talking about how Tony Blair allegedly had to talk Bush out of bombing Al Jazeera (link goes to Blogs4God and includes linkage to other resources). The same Al Jazeera that, much like the New York Times, makes up stories out of thin air to make the terrorists look better and lead the bad guys anywhere within earshot think the US is losing the war.

Some say Dubya was joking. Ask me why should we even care whether he was joking or not? I say bomb it. And while we're at it, can we bomb the New York Times? Oh, and CNN? Maybe the BBC and CBS? I'm just joking, of course. Or am I? *snickering in an evil manner*

Listen people, Al Jazeera is a propaganda outlet for the bad guys. This isn't new. So why, I ask you, should I give a rat's posterior if Bush bombs it or not?

Perhaps the people who think I should care about Al Jazeera are the same people who think I should care that some US soldiers made the terrorists wear panties on their heads? Well, I don't. I say bomb it.

There are those that disagree with me, however (shocking, I know...) and feel that:

It seems this has to have been a joke. I can't think of many more colossally dumb strategic moves than taking out a TV giant launched by the emir and HQ'd in the same country where you have a military base. (By the way, it's irresponsible of Al-Jazeera to broadcast al-Qaida messages. It's despicable to show beheading tapes. It's vile. But bombing them would be bad all the way around, not to mention attack the principles of free speech for which we fight.)

Freedom of speech? For an outlet of sheer propaganda that isn't even headquartered in the US? Excuse me, but can you explain to me how Al Jazeera gets the same rights afforded American news outlets? Isn't that like screeching about the terrorists and how they deserve rights under the Geneva convention? *ahem* THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL US USING ANY MEANS NECESSARY. They do NOT have the same rights as US citizens. Al Jazeera isn't a US media source that gets ANY "rights" under our constitution.

It's the same kind of thing as opposing "torture" for the terrorists. It makes my skin crawl. Yes, we should torture these asshats if it means saving American lives. Yes, we should bomb an Arabic "news"/propaganda source if it saves American lives.

Since when do we care more about being "fair" and magnanamous than winning this damn war? Since when does a wartime president have to explain every little thing to the public? Since when does a wartime president tolerate propaganda from the enemy and allow collaborators run amok in the country we love and are supposedly trying to defend? During World War II, Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put in camps. Can you imagine the hew and cry if Iraqi-Americans were treated the same way? But people, it is within the rights of a wartime president to do such things.

If it means protecting America, we should be willing to do anything necessary. And lately I've been getting more than a little sick of the namby-pamby "let's understand them" crowd. This crowd wants me to feel barbaric and backward for believing that these people are whack-jobs hell-bent on killing us and that we should stop at nothing to protect ourselves.

A good friend of mine suggested that the eastern half of America should be designated "red" and the western half "blue". After a few years, we can watch the "blue" half self-destruct as their debauchery, elitism and moral relativism takes over. Soon enough they'll come begging the "red" half for our food and for us to protect them. I can see that. I can. Can you just imagine if the "blue" among us were in charge of protecting us? Makes ya' shudder, don't it.

Sorry. I digress. I guess I just feel very thankful that Dubya the Steel-Spined One is in office instead of some noodle-necked spineless wonder like Kerry when I hear stories like this one.

Happy Day After the Day After Thanksgiving ya'll!

Update Sunday 11/26:
FINALLY. Powerline weighs in with an article by Daniel Johnson from the NY Sun:

What interests me about the conversation in dispute is why anybody, let alone a worldly-wise politician and journalist like Mr. Johnson, should be surprised by it. Indeed, I would be surprised if Messrs. Bush and Blair had not discussed ways of limiting the damage done by Islamist propaganda, whose main conduit is indeed Al Jazeera TV. It may well be that the thought of silencing the Arab network crossed their minds, only to be dismissed as too risky. If so, were the two leaders wrong to consider that option?

I don't think so. That shutting down Al Jazeera would be desirable from the Anglo-American point of view is obviously true. And if Qatar, a Gulf state that is nominally an ally of America (on which it relies for its independence), has allowed its capital to become Al Qaeda's principal propaganda base, it has no right to expect America automatically to refrain from punitive action on its territory.

Just as jamming devices were deployed during the Cold War against hostile propaganda, so more modern technologies can now be used to bring pressure to bear on the likes of Al Jazeera. While judgements about program balance are notoriously subjective, there should be no argument about our right to interdict broadcasts of Al Qaeda videos that incite terrorism or wild claims of atrocities by Western troops. Other methods could include financial sanctions and denial of access or facilities to Al Jazeera journalists.

That's what I'm saying. Liberals will say we're being intolerant barbarians. To me and others, it's about winning this war and protecting our country. By any means necessary. Not defend Al Jazeera and maintain that it deserves or somehow has the same 1st Ammendment rights as an American news outlet? Have we forgotten against whom and what we're fighting??

Side note...I've already deleted a few comments from liberals berating me for being so unenlightened - in various colorful terms, of course, since liberals can't say ANYTHING without cursing, swearing, and trying to cast dispersions on someone's character. Notice to any liberal reading this considering a vile comment or two to post: It will be deleted and you will be banned. However, if you have something interesting to contribute, even if I don't happen to agree, please do.

Tuesday, November 22

Communist News Network Censors Cheney's Face

Take a look at this Drudge report article... They had a debate about this on Fox&Friends this a.m. and, sorry E.D., but there is no way this was a "technical error." Someone at the Communist News Network, taking pages from their censorship idols from the U.S.S.R. of old, decided it would be really funny to have a large black X flashing over Cheney's face during a speech he gave. A very mature, classy thing to do, eh?

Can you imagine if Fox had had an X flashing over Hilary Clinton's face? I mean, I could make the arguement that they were just trying to save viewers from disturbingly graphic material and avoid frightening small children... Or if they had a shot glass flashing over The Swimmer's face during a speech? Or maybe a white hood flashing over Robert Byrd's face? Yeah, I could think of a lot of "technical errors," but be assured the outrage would be all the media and politicians talked about for weeks. There would have to be an apology, someone would have to be fired,etc. But it was only the V.P., so I'm sure this will all just blow over soon...

Patriotette here, just to add a few things...
Does anyone remember CNN posting photos on their website and naming them dumbass.jpg? The photo in question, of course, being one of the campaigning George W. This isn't new.

Michelle Malkin has linkage galore for those of you that are interested.

And some funny from Six Meat Buffet. (love the name...)

Another update from the Patriotette (sorry, Sage for hijacking your post!):
Interesting questions from Suitably Flip (and a snarky comment from yours truly in the comments section to boot...heh.):
I can't wait to hear how this one will be explained away. A/V malfunction? Meddlesome intern run amok? Family Feud rerun accidentally superimposed over footage? New Sesame Street cross-promotional campaign; today's broadcast brought to us by the letter X?
I still think somehow Karl Rove is behind this...


Scary moments at the Joe last night. Watching the game, no one initially knew which player it was, since he had gone down on the other side of the boards. You could tell by the players' reaction and frantic calls for an ambulance that something was seriously wrong. Then when you saw the doctors/team physicians doing compressions and CPR on the player, you were just terrified that the worst might have happened.

I've seen a lot of injuries and concussions during hockey games, but nothing as frightening as this. A lot of prayers went our for Jiri around Hockeytown last night.

It turns out his heart had actually stopped and he was having a seizure. Luckily, they were able to stabilize him and he was talking and breathing on his own by the time he was taken from the rink to the hospital.

Let's hope he'll be OK! Jiri's health is first and foremost. Let's also hope he's able to get back on the ice soon --the Wings need him!

Monday, November 21

A stronger state?

Well, well, well --it looks like those riots in France are STILL going on, although they've diminished significantly since they began THREE WEEKS AGO.

Yes, there has been racially/poverty inspired violence in France for three weeks now. In all, approximately 9,000 cars have been burned and hundreds of buildings torched. The culprits have been mainly Muslim first or second generation immigrants from Africa.

At the peak of the riots, I believe it was 1,400 cars burned in ONE night. I think it took that strong-willed leader Chirac about a week to even respond to these riots, finally deciding to issue curfews. (Like most other world problems, Chirac was slow to act, hoping the problem would just go away on its own accord or the rioters would start offering bribes to public officials for a cessation of violence...)

Now, these riots are horrible and expose one of many major problems in France. France has a sluggish economy, with figures I've seen listed as 10 - 14% unemployment overall. However, I believe this number jumps to 24% for people 18-25 years old. Many of these unemployed consist of a rapidly growing immigrant population that the economy of France cannot sustain. They don't have jobs, they do not feel a part of French culture or community.

But I don't care to discuss France's problems now. What I'd like to point out is their utter hypocrisy. Liberal media and papers like Le Monde in France were practically gloating after we were hit by Hurricane Katrina. They were so happy to point out the problems of inner city poverty and the supposed "racism" the response revealed. They used the tragedy to suggest that if the U.S. had a "stronger state" (if we were more like socialist France with higher taxes, higher unemployment, less freedom and personal responsibility, and our government was even bigger), we never would have such problems in our country.

Well, let's contrast here... Apparently, the poor and immigrant population in France live in the suburbs rather than the inner city as is more common in America. Our riots and looting in New Orleans lasted about 2 or 3 days. The city was under feet of water and was without any services (electricity, etc.). Our rioters were stealing food, clothes, and in some cases ridiculous items like TVs. Maybe a car or two was burned. It seemed they were taking advantage of the disaster and lack of police presence to loot, either for survival or personal gain. They weren't revolting about a country and government that they proclaim to hate. So 2 or 3 days of minor rioting v. France's three weeks of rioting, under no natural disaster conditions, with destruction of property being the sole end of their rioting. Who has the problem here?

The worst riots I can remember were in L.A. after the Rodney King verdict, and I don't remember more than 10 cars burning... You'd have to go back to the race riots of the 1960s to even come close to what has been happening in France.

What is Chirac doing now? Taking a page from his respected fellow Jimmy Carter and talking about a "profound malaise" in his country. Yeah, that will solve a lot, Jacques.

My whole point here is don't criticize the best, most free and most prosperous country in the world when you've got plenty of problems to deal with yourself. France has always had a superiority complex. I don't know how many fascist dictators we have to save them from before they'll finally acknowledge that they are not superior. And if I were them, maybe I'd try less socialism and a more republican form of democracy. Maybe banning Muslim children from wearing headscarves in school isn't the way to deal with your immigrant problem. Maybe you could learn a few lessons from across the ocean. But we know you won't.

Sacre bleu! Mon dieu! Vous-etez les idiots! (pardon, my French is a bit rusty. they're lucky I can't remember much more right now...)

Thursday, November 17

The war on Christianity continues.

Okay, so now some mouth-breather wants to have the crosses removed from the city logo of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Las Cruces, for those of you that don't speak Spanish, means THE CROSSES.
"The crosses serve no governmental purpose other than to disenfranchise and discredit non-Christian citizens," said the lawsuit filed by Paul F. Weinbaum, who lives in the Las Cruces area, and Martin J. Boyd of Las Cruces.
Note that Mr. Weinbaum doesn't live IN the city...I guess the crosses offend his delicate, girly sense of decorum by remote. Or something. Maybe if he started wearing his tinfoil hat like the rest of them...?

Neil Cavuto on puts it very well.

A tiny sliver of Americans are free not to like religion, but they cannot dictate life for the overwhelming majority who do. Yet they have and they do.

They make us afraid to say "God," even more afraid to say "Christmas."

They treat prayer as if it's a dirty word. But will defend to the death their right to utter all dirty words.

All I know is a society afraid to even talk of prayer, is a society that doesn't have a prayer.
Like I heard someone say after 9/ invite God out of your schools, your lives, your hearts and your holidays. And then when something like 9/11 happens, you ask "But where was God??"

All I can say is that the Bible praises Christians as they are persecuted and still remain focused. So far we've had it pretty good here in the good ol' USofA. I think that's coming to an end. But believe you me, I will defend the right to offend everyone I can this season when I say "Merry CHRISTmas" not "Happy Holidays".


Update: Read Debbie Schlussel discuss not only the slander of Christians on TV (namely the latest Law & Order episode) but the oh, so politically correct treatment of Detroit. Which I'm not sure I totally agree with.

Also, Frank J of discusses Boston Legal and their left-wing agenda. I couldn't agree more. Which is why I don't watch it anymore.

Dick Cheney. That man rocks.

I fell in love with this man during the debates when he reduced John Edwards to a babbling 12 year old during the debates...but I think I'm even more in love with him this morning when he was quoted as saying:
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
Oh, there's more.

Hee. Like "I'm sorry that we couldn't be joined by Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, or Jay Rockefeeler. They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment". That one got me snickerin'.

Hear Dick speak. Speak, Dick, Speak.
Hear John Kerry and Bill Clinton try to cling to their version of the truth while Dick smacks them in the head with their words from years before.

See liberals run. Run, libs, run!

Oh, looks like Rumsfeld is joining in. Now there's a man I don't ever want to go up against. Be afraid, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton and Algore. Be afraid.

If you have time, the RNC website has a little slide show of what they said then and what they're saying now...kinda fun.

Wednesday, November 16

Let's review for the 4,302nd time: We did the right thing

As a follow-up to the post and comments below--

What the Dems are doing is so transparent. I think people will realize this.

This entire WMD argument is ridiculous. It's detrimental to our troops and success over there. Not to mention completely moronic when, as you say, they DID find some weapons and WORLD intelligence and the U.N. with their 13 resolutions believed Saddam had WMDs.

Even were there no WMDs, Bush listed many other reasons for the war. For me, violating 13 U.N. resolutions was enough. (why pass them if you're not going to enforce them?) How about allowing al quaeda terrorist camps to exist in his country? Where were all the compassionate liberals caring about the gross violations of human and civil rights in Iraq? Were we supposed to do nothing when another country tries to assassinate a former U.S. president? What's to make us think they wouldn't try again? (If they tried to kill Clinton, Teddy would probablly swim across the ocean to declare war himself)

We absolutely did the right think going into Iraq. It's part of a larger strategy the Bush administration has to win the war on terror. Yes, we mourn over 2,000 American soldiers who gave their lives over there. But those 2,000 liberated millions and are part of this critical movement to defeat Islamist terror groups. The effects of what we have done in Iraq have already rippled out to the surrounding countries. The Lebanese kicked the Syrian troops out. Egypt had their most democratic election ever. Saudi Arabia is (gasp!) thinking about letting women drive. OK, that was a bit sarcastic, but my point is clear.

Look at our biggest U.N. opponents to the war. Now go read the Oil for Food investigation reports. Any questions?

What the Democrats' actions regarding all of the accusations of lying will eventually lead to:
1. Firing up those Michael Moore loving socialists who hate America anyway and wouldn't believe Bush if he said that they sky was blue
2. Reveal to the rest of us that:
a. They all flip flop like John Kerry ("oh, I didn't have access to the same intelligence." BS. Most of you voted for the war and you've voted to keep funding it. And you supported Clinton when he bombed the factory over there. You all thought he had WMDs just like Bush and the rest of the world)
b. They will do or say ANYTHING to gain political power/bash Bush, rather than stick with the truth, what is good for the country and our troops
c. Per b. they are DESPERATE

The truth always wins out. And 10 years from now, these Dems will be looking as stupid as the opposition to Reagan did when he was winning the Cold War.

Friday, November 11

Well, it's about goshdarn time.

Heh. Dubya comes out swinging in his speech today from Pennsylvania (full text here)- slapping the Democrats for re-writing history and conveniently forgetting the facts when it doesn't suit them. Or making up new ones when it does. It's about time.
"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."

Michelle Malkin has a good roundup - it's definitely worth reading the speech in its entirety. It'll make you grin. I wish I had actually seen the speech, because you just KNOW he had his "I'm teaching ya'll something important here so ya'll better sit up and pay attention" face on.

And you also know the screeching and caterwauling will be entertaining this weekend. I'm going to be sure to watch the news so I can see them sputter and try to justify themselves. (It's actually starting already. When is Ted "The Swimmer" going to shut up? Ever?)

Have a great weekend!

Happy Veterans Day!

Happy Veterans day to my dad, who served in Viet Nam; my best friend K. (you know who you are), who was a Marine in the first Gulf War; and B.N. who is currently serving in Iraq and who will probably be home for Christmas!

You guys rock, and I thank you for your service to our nation. Heroes, all of you.

Dubya is going to give a speech today in honor of our veterans, but according to this story he'll also spank the Democrats a bit for their criticism of his reasons for going to war in the first place. Which of course they've been doing since 2002. Even though the vast majority signed off on the resolution to go to war. This same vast majority agreed that Saddam had WMDs. Oh, you've heard it a thousand times. Hear it one more time - here's Dubya's speech in which he lays out the rationale for going to war in 2002.
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

Yep, seems pretty clear to me.

But then again, not being a liberal means I have functioning powers of reason and deduction...

That's all for today.
Now go hug a veteran.

Thursday, November 10

Ann Coulter, George Clooney and McCarthyism.

Just a bit of funny for your Thursday morning.

If anyone read Ann Coulter's book Treason and/or Witness by Whittaker Chambers (haven't made it through the forward yet...), you would have been more than a little intrigued by the difference between what we've been taught all these years and what REALLY happened...i.e. McCarthy was right.

I'm otherwise bored to tears with the news these days. Enjoy.

Wednesday, November 9

God help us.

Just when I think that Detroit is on the mend - on the way to becoming the city I know it can be, this happens. Kwame "the thug" Kilpatrick is re-elected as mayor. Give me a break. This guy is corrupt, ridiculously under-qualified, and couldn't be worse for the city. But he's re-elected anyway.

Four years after becoming one of the city's youngest mayors, Kilpatrick found himself asking voters for forgiveness -- and another chance -- after a scandal-plagued first term. Still, he sees himself at the helm of a city dealing with its problems and heading in the right direction.Some city services have improved under Kilpatrick, who touts getting the grass cut in parks and plowing snow from streets among his administration's successes. New homes and downtown construction speak to revitalization efforts, but blight pervades many neighborhoods. *snip* Kilpatrick has implied that the media is out to get him with scrutiny that included his use of a city credit card on expensive out-of- town travel and a city lease of a luxury sport utility vehicle for his family. And he has tried to shake the label of "hip-hop mayor," removing his trademark diamond earring.

Gotta be honest, when I heard the news this morning I wondered how much it cost him to buy enough votes. Or how many dead people and/or felons voted.

Oh, and lookie. I'm not alone:
The FBI said it is investigating claims that the names of dead people were used to cast absentee ballots, that ballots were sent out improperly and that there was improper assistance given by the city clerk's staff to people incapable of voting.

It's a damn shame.
In addition to budget problems, Detroit faces a continuing population decline that started a half-century ago. It now has just more than 900,000 residents, compared with 1.8 million in 1950, and earlier this year was listed as the nation's most impoverished big city.

Monday, November 7


So there I was, perusing Michelle Malkin's site like I usually do and I ran across this story. The NY Times have sunk to lows even I didn't think they could sink to. Editing a dead soldier's letter to further their left-wing agenda is just obscene.

The girlfriend of a Marine killed in Iraq said she was devastated when she saw how The New York Times cherry-picked a letter her "first love" intended her to read in case he died.

"It was sad that we had to go through this some more. I was upset about what they took out of that letter," said an emotional Emmylyn Anonical, 22, whose boyfriend Cpl. Jeffrey Starr died in Iraq earlier this year.

In her first public comments since the letter scandal erupted, Anonical told The Post that going public with the private letter was one of the hardest decisions of her life.

Seeing it used by The Times to misrepresent her boyfriend's beliefs about the war stung deeply, she said.

"The reason I chose to share that letter was the paragraph about why he was doing this, not the part about him expecting to die. It hurt, it really hurt," she said by phone from Seattle.

As I clicked on the links in her post I read that the girlfriend's father wrote to the NYT asking them to print the WHOLE letter. Especially the line in the letter that reads: "others have died for my freedom - this is my mark".

But no. They won't.

"Angry" doesn't begin to describe how I feel.

Update: Oh, it gets BETTER apparently. The NY Times responded to some bloggers who e-mailed with their disgust. (scroll around the linked post for the updates)
Reader Michael Valois questioned the Times' reporter, James Dao, about his selection bias and forwarded me the exchanges. A defensive Dao (who didn't respond to [Michelle Malkin's] e-mail inquiry) argued, "There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr."

He then had the gall to berate the reader: "Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"

Um...have YOU been to war, Mr. Dao? Moron. And what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Thursday, November 3

Pistons - Back to Work!

My beloved Pistons stomped on the Sixers last night and won 108-88.

(and, as a bonus, I won a bet made by a friend who resides in Philly and insists on betting against Detroit. This is...oh, the 4th time he's lost a bet against us. You'd think by now he'd have learned.)

Oh, and Sage - your Rippie was the hero of the night with 37 points!
Hamilton hit endless mid-range jumpers and backdoor layups as he repeatedly shook free of defenders Andre Iguodala, Kyle Korver, John Salmons and Kevin Ollie. He did not attempt a 3-pointer.

Happy Thursday, y'all!

Wednesday, November 2

Joe Wilson and the "Bush Lied" crowd spanked.

And guess who's doing the spanking? The LA Times! This article is a short, sweet, must-read. (thanks to for the link)

Check out the closing paragraph:
This is not an isolated example. Pretty much all of the claims that the administration doctored evidence about Iraq have been euthanized, not only by the Senate committee but also by the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission. The latest proof that intelligence was not "politicized" comes from an unlikely source — Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who has been denouncing the hawkish "cabal" supposedly leading us toward "disaster." Yet, in between bouts of trashing the administration, Wilkerson said on Oct. 19 that "the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming" that Hussein was building illicit weapons. This view was endorsed by "the French, the Germans, the Brits." The French, of all people, even offered "proof positive" that Hussein was buying aluminum tubes "for centrifuges." Wilkerson also recalled seeing satellite photos "that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was … giving us disinformation."

So much for the lies that led to war. What we're left with is the lies that led to the antiwar movement. Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn't a crime.
Take THAT Senate Democrats.

I'm still in shock that the LA Times actually spoke truth.
*shaking head*

Tuesday, November 1

Democrats Throw Temper Tantrum

Apparently, the Senate Democrats have decided to hold a closed session today to throw a little temper tantrum.

First they were disappointed they didn't have a white "Fitzmus" --Rush's nickname for all of the indictments the Dems were gleefully hoping for. Instead of snowing indictments for Cheney and Libby, indictments focusing on intelligence leading up to the Iraq War, they only got a few purjury/false statement indictments for old Scooter. (Who hardly any Americans really know of or care about, outside of us political junkies.)

Then Miers withdraws and they are shaking in their boots about Alito --a nominee they know is qualified and just aren't sure how they're going to thwart yet. They're hoping everyone will forget a Democrat-controlled senate unanimously voted him in as circuit judge in 1990 and now suddenly deem him as very "extreme" -extreme enough to invoke the old filibuster.

And after being so hopeful of Bush's impending doom, all of a sudden things are starting to look up very quickly for Dubya. Well, they can't have that, dammit! They were promised a white Fitzmus and even more trouble for Bush!

So now they've decided to throw a tantrum. Let's forget that Clinton in the '90s and these very Senators throwing this tantrum cited the same U.S. intelligence about Iraq. Let's forget that world intelligence also supported what Bush and U.S. Intelligence was telling us before the Iraq war. Let's forget that our soldiers (you know, the ones the Democrats care so much about with the casualty numbers) are still over in Iraq fighting. Let's forget every other important issue we have to discuss and debate and vote on for the good of this country and throw a flipping tantrum drumming up the Iraq intelligence issue!

They are getting desparate, folks. As a republican, rather than worry, I'm reassured...

Bring it on!

Republicans and Democrats are gearing up for the big fight over Bush's new Supreme Court nominee, Sam Alito.

The Republicans are breathing a big sigh of relief, for they have been looking forward to a battle that they see as imperative for the future of our country --whether judges are supposed to be "activists" (they make laws) or "strict constructionists" (judges who interpret laws, determining whether they are Constitutional according to the U.S. Constitution). Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up the three branches of government, each designed to balance the other branches for the right blend of our republican form of government. The Congressmen are the ones who are supposed to make the laws --you know, those guys and gals we, the people get to ELECT.

This fight is just as imperative for Democrats. Most of their liberal policies would never hold up were they actually put to arcane tests like voting. Instead, they have relied on the courts to push their agenda through. And they know that if the "balance" of the Supreme Court is upset, they'll likely be in trouble. They'd have to go back to trying to convince voters of their policies and beliefs.

The Supreme Court was liberal from about the late 1930s/40s, thanks to good ol' FDR, until, gradually, strict constructionists like Renquist began to trickle back in. Now all of sudden, the court is "balanced." And we can't "upset the balance" or nominate anyone who will "divide" the country.

Now, if, God help us, President Kerry was sitting up there nominating two more former ACLU attorneys, do you really think the Democrats would care about keeping the court "balanced?" When you put the shoe on the other foot, it's clear how ridiculous their arguments are. If Kerry won, he would have every right to nominate whomever he wanted. No one would be asking him to nominate another Renquist or O'Conner. The idea is simply ludicrous.

See, here's how it's supposed to work: A president wins an election and gets to nominate judges. The Senate should vote on those judges based on their qualifications for the position they are nominated for. Just like they did with Ginsburg. Just like they did when they unanimously confirmed Alito as a circuit judge in the '90s.

When the American people decide that they'd rather have more activist judges and a government more in the model of France than America, they'll start voting for Demorcrats for President and Congress again.