Happy New Year!

The Conservababes have been busy running around celebrating the holidays...ahem...Christmas and New Year...so posting has been and probably will be nonexistent for a few more days.

Just wanted to wish everyone a very happy New Year!

"Oblivions of the Year" and sillyness from the MSM

In case you haven't noticed, we're not really in the serious "discuss weighty matters of politics" today. So. In the spirit of being irreverant and non-weighty...here is a collection of stuff I found while browsing various sites this morning.

Oblivions of the Year 2005. (What's an "oblivion"? Go read and find out!)

IMAO.us brings us the world's stupidest, most biased poll ever. (you can cast your own vote, too, if you want - they give you the link to MSNBC)

Speaking of the world's stupidest, most biased ever, check out MSNBC's Eleanor Clift make herself look like an even bigger twit than her strangely mesmerizing photo with her un-researched and ridiculously shrill "Biggest Political Lies of 2005".
(and no, there aren't any surprises. It IS what you expect)

And the graph showing New York Times' stock prices for 2005 tell a better story than anything else ever could. As American Digest puts it "Thanks for the fish wrap!"


And with that, I think we're done here for a while.
We wish you all the best Christmas and happiest New Year ever.

See you in 2006!!

More on the debate over "warrantless searches"

From the Washington Post, this is the best analysis of the current kerfuffle over Bush's wiretapping and the Constitutionality of it all that I've read this week.

Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who "literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence") finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."

In 1972 the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.

True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the United States be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, wrote: "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms." Indeed, President Bill Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that "the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," then noted a few minutes later that "courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches."

Presidents always jealously guard executive authority. And Congress always wants to challenge the scope of that authority. This tug of war is a bipartisan and constant feature of the American system of separation of powers. President Bush's circumvention of FISA is a classic separation-of-powers dispute in the area in which these powers are most in dispute -- war powers.

Take a gander when you get a chance.

On iPods and MSM stupidity

***Important breaking news of the day!!***

Dick Cheney! Decided to plug in his iPod on Air Force 2! Instead of letting reporters plug in to "file stories"!

Also, in other news, George Bush listens to Aretha Franklin.

(via Lucianne.com)

We now return to our regularly scheduled blogging.

Top 10 Worst Quotes from Democrat Underground

These would be very very sad if they weren't so very very funny. We've never posted any lunacy from the lefties at Democratic Underground before - but frankly I think we should more often.

For those of you that aren't familiar, DU is infamous for being a gathering spot for all of the crazed tinfoil hat-wearers of the left. Some of the things I have read over there make me seriously wonder if it's all a big hoax. It is WAY too out there sometimes to be true.

Yet, it is true. And these people actually believe what they're saying. If you want a laugh sometime, go to what is referred to the Fever Swamp and take a look around if you can stand it. (just go to democratic underground - dot - com...I refuse to link to them on principle) I usually last about 30 seconds before my vision starts to blur and my brain starts to go numb. So go at your own risk.

Right Wing News has braved these swamps to bring you the Top 10 Worst Quotes. This'll show you what I'm referring to when I say these people are absolutely too nuts to be for real.

For example:

Honorable Mention: Syrinx: The Conspiracy Is Real And It Must Be Stopped. Now tell me again why "conspiracy theories" are out of bounds? If conspiracies don't exist, why are there federal laws against them, and laws against them in every state?

There most definitlely is a conspiracy in place, ongoing, that is transforming our country into a fascist oligarchy. The evidence is undeniable. And the Bush family is at the epicenter of it.

Bush's grandfather was a buddy of Hitler. Bush's daddy murdered JFK. That's the answer to the great mystery. No mystery at all. Why the f--- was George H.W. Bush in Dallas that day. Hmm? Why can't he recall where he was? Bullsh--.

Why are the Bush's best buddies the bloodthirsty oil-barons of Saudi Arabia -- Bandar Bush and all? Why were they buddies with Saddam Hussein. With the Iranian clerics? Even with Osama Bin Laden?

The Bush family are cold-blooded murderers. And they will not rest until they have a stranglehold on you and everyone and everything you hold dear. They are evil, and must be stopped.

Can they be stopped?"

Here's another Great American who apparently is off his meds:

8) stevietheman: "Brilliant. I've often thought myself that without a peaceful remedy, and soon, we may just be months away from Revolution in America.

That's how sinister these people in stranglehold of our government are. They may not receive it, but they deserve a French-style Revolution, with actual heads rolling.

And we have to be clear who these reich-wing creeps get their power from: Oligarchs and big corporate CEOs from particular industries.

If we are to fight the most wicked of today's politicians, we must also fight the true source behind the wickedness, the resources that fuel and fund the wickedness. These politicians are merely superficial veneers to the truly problematic entities. If only they are removed, then those problematic entities find some sneaky way to come back at a later time. They always do.

So when we "take them down", *this time* we need to pull out the roots and soak the ground with permanent plant killer.

The true enemy is corporatism."

If you want to be entertained, go take a look. (foul language alert...) These people are considered more and more the "mainstream" these days. Howie Dean and Algore are only *this* close to saying very much the same things, wouldn't you agree?

Oh - and for even more freaky goodness, visit the "Best/Worst of DU" threads over at Conservative Underground. Fun way to kill an hour or so.

Powerline takes on the New York Times

Heh.

This is good stuff. The lawyers at Powerline take issue with the NYT's misleading article about "warrantless searches" by the President.

Check back to see if Reporter Eric Lichtblau responds to the latest question they posed:

Here's my problem with your coverage: as a legal matter, there isn't any debate. The authorities are all on one side; they agree that warrantless surveillance for national security purposes is legal. I think your articles misleadingly suggest that there is real uncertainty on this point, when there isn't. Thus, for example, you write:

Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program's legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.

I don't think you should be quoting anonymous "officials" making incorrect assertions about legal issues, while not pointing out that their assertions are wrong. (I would also note that the NSA intercepts are not "inside the United States.") And I don't think that a partial sentence from one of the controlling decisions, buried at the end of a long article and not repeated in subsequent articles, removes the incorrect impression you convey that the NSA program is, in all likelihood, illegal. Also, with all due respect, I think your treatment of the 2002 FISA case is itself misleading. While you do quote part of the key sentence, you go on to suggest that the court left the issue in a state of ambiguity by writing:

But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."

Those quotes had nothing to do with the court's recognition of the President's inherent power to surveil without a warrant to obtain foreign intelligence information, and did not in any way qualify the court's clear holding on that issue. You plucked them from another part of the opinion. The "dividing line" the court referred to was the "primary purpose" test that was established by the Truong decision and changed by Congress in the Patriot Act. The court noted that the "primary purpose" test was difficult to administer, which it saw as an argument in favor of the constitutionality of its revision by Congress. Contrary to the implication of your paragraph, this had nothing to do with the President's power to conduct warrantless surveillance.

In my opinion, you should not convey the impression to your readers that the NSA surveillance is likely illegal unless there is, at a minimum, a respectable argument, supported by legal authority, to that effect. Do you think there is such an argument? If so, what is it, and what is the authority?

Thanks again for responding.

Maybe Mr. Lichtblau will respond.
But...let's be honest. What is there to say?

Speaking of Lawyers, Ann Coulter (of course) weighs in on the current "non-story" with her characteristic snark...

Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

[nice to know we're not the only ones. -dp]

But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.

Go read the rest if you have a few minutes.

Finally. Someone understands the "Church and State" clause.

Finally!

A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

And...

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."

Ahhh. Finally. There's hope.
SOMEONE gets it. (h/t Right Wing News)

Regarding torture.

So Saddam Hussein says he was tortured while in US custody. (world's tiniest violins playing) Can't wait to hear the Democrats take his side against America. THAT should be good stuff.

Update 12/21: Righting America douses the "news" in a good bit of sarcasm. Pretty funny if you ask me.

The benevolent and peaceful former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has been tortured by the cruel and bloodthirsty Americans while being held in illegal captivity. This brave and misunderstood leader of the truly Free Iraq - who agreeably destroyed his weapons of mass destruction upon request and who had been respectful and generous to his beloved people, neighbors, and even United Nations Inspectors during his long stewardship - has now been brutalized at the hands of the ruthless and evil American Empire who savagely plucked him from his "happy place" in the ground.

While we're on the topic, LaShawn Barber makes some good points and observations about torture. She also links to this post at Blogs4God that features comments from other bloggers as well. Interesting reading, if nothing else.

The Non-story of the Week

"Illegal" wiretapping. Warrantless searches are "illegal". George Bush isn't "above the law".

*sigh*

Apparently Republicans ARE the only ones that can actually read and deduce. The only ones that can see a set of facts and say "hm. Well, that makes sense, but let me see what others have to say". "What is this REALLY about?"

Democrats not only lack powers of deductive reasoning, they lack the ability to even remember things that happened as recently as 8-10 years ago. (or two weeks - thank you Powerline) 'Course selective remembrace could be a nice skill to have in some situations. Can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure it could come in handy. Oh, well there's the situation in which you find yourself hating the current Republican administration so darn much that you "selectively forget" that your golden boys, Carter and Clinton, did the same thing and you thought it was really cool.

Anyhoo. Drudge has one of his "flashback" posts up, which is very helpful for the selectively forgetful.

Powerline, as usual, is all over it. Please go there and scroll around. There is a veritible wealth of information, links and other useful tidbits.

For example, they analyze the New York Times' "coverage" of this "scandal":

I have scoured the Times' reporting for any argument as to why the NSA program would be illegal, and so far haven't found one, beyond the false insinuation that warrantless searches must be illegal. What the Times has mostly done is quote anonymous sources who express "doubts" and "concerns" about the legality of the program. But doubts and concerns may or may not be well-founded, and a doubt is not an argument. Today's reporting continues to be argument-free.

Yes. "Argument Free", indeed. Because...that's all they can come up with. Why? Because this is (say it with me, now) a NON-STORY.

Again, for the selectively forgetful, Michelle Malkin hauls another one out into the light.

Also "Selective Uproars" from Michelle Malkin - and her new column this week entitled "Privacy Hypocrisy".

Blogs for Bush links to something kicky and fun: MSM Manufactured Controversies of 2005. Which is, of course, related to this current Manufactured Controversy.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say that the wiretaps were done outside the law; that there was a clear and definitive prohibition against the President doing what he did: even so, to bring it up and hammer on it is stupid. We're at war - the MSM and the left don't recognise this, but the American people do. If the Democrats really want to go into 2006 arguing that we shouldn't monitor phone calls from Colorado Springs to Pakistan's Tribal Areas, then that is fine by me...we'll happily take the 30 extra House seats it will give us.

It really is as if Karl Rove has a mind-control ray....

Heh. Good ol' Karl Rove at it again.

More from the Chicago Tribune.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

And yet we still get comments and e-mails from liberals squawking about how Bush did a bad thing and he's a criminal and how dare we and we're just taking Bush's side because he can do no wrong in our eyes and blah blah blah. Brings me back to my earlier paragraph about liberals lacking any powers of deductive reasoning whatsoever. As someone once said, "Being that stupid should hurt".

Okay, that's all for now. I have to be a good capitalist and do some work.

Cheers - and Happy First Day of Winter!

This photo is totally unrelated to...well...anything, but it makes me smile, so there.

This is gonna leave a mark...

Bush's approval ratings climb.

And the article is from ABC News, so take it with very large grains of salt.

Still shows that coming out and speaking the truth is indeed helping.
Keep it up, Dubya.

Woah. Holy mackerel.

It's gotta be a bad day to work in Manhattan today.

Subways and buses across the nation's largest city shut down Tuesday morning as transit workers walked off the job following days of acrimonious labor talks, stranding more than 7 million daily riders and threatening the city with a $400 million a day financial hit.

I heard about this on Fox this morning and thought somehow it was a joke or they were kidding or something. People are walking. Twenty blocks. To work. In the cold.

"This is a fight over dignity and respect on the job, a concept that is very alien to the MTA," union President Roger Toussaint said in announcing the strike. "Transit workers are tired of being underappreciated and disrespected."

Give be a big, fat BREAK.

I heard someone important (don't know who it was, sorry, wasn't paying THAT close attention but I'm pretty sure it was Mayor Bloomberg) state for the cameras that the transit workers decided to basically screw everyone else because "their needs trump the needs of other citizens". Um...yeah. Duh. And around Christmas?

What is WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE? Oh, boo-hoo they feel underappreciated and disrespected. Boo frickin' hoo.

Update: An alert commenter (thanks, PCD) reminded us of what happened to PATCO under Reagan....perhaps a PATCO-esque smackdown is in order once again?

PATCO's leader, Robert Poli, still naively thought that he could shut down the nation's airports and that the administration would have to give in to their demands. But instead, the government scrambled to hire more controllers (many from the military) and the disruption to air traffic proved to be brief. And amazingly, the American people stood with Reagan in large numbers. It wasn't too long before air traffic was back to normal, fears of disaster having been unwarranted.

But on the second thought, just imagine what would have happened had one accident occurred during this time. The blood would have been on many hands, including Ronald Reagan, himself.

As D'Souza notes (he was a Reagan aide at the time), the president adopted this stern course of action without consulting any polls. Yet, much to the surprise of many on his staff (who were often incredulous at some of his actions), the American people supported him because they were convinced that principle mattered, especially in the face of threats and intimidation. By this one incident, which set the tone for the whole presidency, "Reagan proved that the right thing to do can also be politically advantageous."

It took two years to fully train the new controllers, but we all survived, disruptions were few and PATCO was dead. The American labor movement had suffered its worst defeat in decades and the balance of power in labor disputes shifted towards management. Reagan's image as a courageous leader was burnished.

Also see GOP and the City for NY Strike Blogging...

UPDATE: This is disgusting. Via Bloomberg News:

Transit workers want 8 percent annual raises over three years, while the MTA has proposed 6 percent raises spread over 27 months. The union later indicated that it would accept smaller raises if the authority agreed to decrease disciplinary actions against workers.

Subway operators earned an average of $62,438 a year, including overtime, under the previous three-year contract, which expired at midnight New York time, the MTA said.

Train conductors averaged $53,000, subway booth clerks $50,720, and bus drivers $62,551, the state agency said. The MTA wasn't immediately able to provide the average amount of overtime.

``The MTA's position has been clear from the beginning,'' Gary Dellaverson, the transit authority's chief negotiator, told reporters outside the talks late yesterday. ``There are no cuts in health benefits on the table.''

Employees yet to be hired by the MTA would have to pay a ``small portion'' of their salaries toward health care.

ANOTHER UPDATE 4pm 12/20: Via Drudge

The city's subway and bus workers went on strike Tuesday for the first time in more than 25 years, stranding millions of commuters, holiday shoppers and tourists at the height of the Christmas rush. A judge promptly slapped the union with a $1 million-a-day fine. State Justice Theodore Jones leveled the sanction against the Transport Workers Union for violating a state law that bars public employees from going on strike.

Good.

people who mattered?

vomiting, vomiting, vomiting.... Oh, this picture really does make me sick to my stomach...

yep, they sure did MATTER. They made a huge difference in world events. Yep, they've saved thousands of lives, these two. What nobel souls. Oh, don't you just feel so sorry for them in this picture? I mean, first you get your hubby a job. He has an agenda. He's a big lib. So he comes back, misrepresents what he finds over there. And someone "leaks" her name.. oh, the scandal! She hadn't been under cover in how long? Wasn't even illegal to leak her name, but the MSM naturally ignores that. Because they smell blood. Bush blood. Rove blood. Cheney blood. Ummm. The frickin' vampires. These two victims were so traumatized they could hardly smile for their picture on the cover of Vanity (un)Fair, and it was really hard for Joe collecting that check for his"tell all" book.

vomiting, vomiting, vomiting... ewwww!!!!!

Update: Drudge held a caption contest for the photo...heh.

"I made some yellowcake"

Rebuilding... for 57 years

Someone had the above title written on a sign going to the Lions game yesterday.

Yes, sadly, I was there. I saw the debacle. Got there into the first just in time to see the Bengals get their second TD. And, to add further insult to injury, Chad Johnson did not even feel the need for any endzone celebration antics after the TD! I mean, truly, that was half the reason we went to the game!

I have to say, being at Ford Field was extremely disturbing. I never thought I'd see the day that I would be in a Detroit sports stadium and see more people wearing the other team's colors than there were home supporters. Yes, there were many Bengals fans who had driven up from Ohio. But there were also quite a few orange clad Detroiters there. (many sporting a "Fire Millen" slogan) And the cheering was all for the Bengals. The Detroit fans could barely muster up applause for the one TD I saw us get.

The Lions, as usual, didn't show up. They were just counting the seconds until they could go home. I did feel a little bad for them that, unlike myself and most fans, they actually had to stay until the end of the fourth quarter.

This is PATHETIC. The Lions are unacceptable. This is a town of champions. The Wings, the Pistons... hey, even the Tigers won in '84. At least I was alive when that occured.

It is complete crap that the Lions haven't even come close to a championship in 50 years. Not only does Millen need to go, but I'd really like the Fords to get out of the football business if they don't care to make the investment to build a decent team --that at least makes the playoffs say... once every seven years. Maybe actually win a playoff game once every 10. Is that really too much to ask? The Fords should be ashamed. I can tell you one thing, if Mike Ilitch owned the Lions, we would not be in this state.

Obviously, making smart decisions regarding coaches and managers is where it starts. How about getting a line before the QB? I've said it before --a Manning couldn't throw behind that pathetic line.

I don't care what lengths they have to go to --get a priest or root doctor in there. When your own players believe the team is cursed (yes, I have heard Lion players interviewed that say they are starting to believe in the "curse"), you have a huge problem.

I propose a boycott of Ford vehicles until they show that they're committed to the football team that they've owned... let's see, for the last 50 years of losing. Who's with me?

Update: Michael from Monoblogue (cool name) weighs in on the Lions as well. *pfft* on them, I say. Go see our Pistons or our Wings instead. Money MUCH better spent. In my humble opinion.

Leak??

I admit I'm stealing this straight from Rush's show today, but I thought I'd generate some conversation on it...

Did anyone here Bush's press conference this morning? He made the point that in the '90s we were tracking Osama by his cell phone. Someone leaked this to the press. What do you think happened? Osama stopped using his phone. Bye, bye ability to track him by that method.

So now someone --I'm guessing someone in Congress-- LEAKED that the U.S. is tapping into peoples' phone calls without a court order. According to our government, they're only listening to calls made to numbers outside of this country by people w/suspected al queada ties.

But now that this info. has leaked, what do you think any terrorist who was using a phone to make plans will do?

Now, let's see. What do we think is the bigger leak? With a greater threat to our security? This? Or Valerie Plame's supposedly secret identity?

Yeah, and how much do you think the press will be demanding action over this leak?? Demanding investigations and peoples' heads? I guess we'll see...

My guess is nothing. The MSM, like their liberal idols, care more about bringing President Bush down than they do about America's security. Does it mean anything to them that since 9/11 we've not been attacked again? (Gee, maybe Bush is doing something right) Well, they're certainly out there fighting for al queada in hopes there will be another attack on Bush's watch.

Update: Patriotette here...Sage beat me to the post about the press corps smackdown...er... press conference. :)

(don't you just love it when he gets all fatherly and professorial on them?
I love that "gonna tell you how it is" look!)

Here's the transcript. (here's more via Drudge)
The best quote:

So I'm just going to keep doing my job. Maybe you can keep focusing on all these focus groups and polls, and all that business. My job is to lead, keep telling the American people what I believe, work to bring people together to achieve a common objective, stand on principle, and that's the way I'm going to lead. I did so in 2005, and I'm going to do so in 2006.

Live-blogging Bush's adress to the nation

(Monday, 12/19: Much more - scroll down for updates)

Wow. I was sort of puttering around doing Sunday evening things with the news on in the background and heard the President begin his address. When I heard him mention WMDs four times in as many minutes, I ran back to the living room to hear the rest of his speech.

He's taken on each and every one of the liberals' talking points. One by one he brought them up and took them apart piece by piece. Good for him. About goshdarn time. I think I heard some liberals' heads exploding with each point he made.

He mentioned that age-old, worn-out lie that we are encouraging terrorists by being over in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reminded us that on 9/11 we weren't at war with them, but yet they attacked us. And, if you've read our "Iraq:102" post by Amy Proctor, you'll see that they've attacked us many times before. "Ignoring them doesn't work", the President said. They don't listen to reason and won't go away just because we leave them alone. It will only make them more adamant in their resolve to kill us.

To a Republican or a supporter of what we're doing over there, this is a "DUH", but to a lot of our liberal friends, it's probably a foreign language of some kind. And, frankly, it probably still is...but I'm glad Bush finally directly addressed some of the idiocy. 'Course that means they'll have to make up something NEW now. And I'm sure they will. And hopefully he'll keep addressing each lie as it surfaces. One can always hope.

Some of the earlier points he made was that war is difficult. It doesn't mean we're losing just because it seems - by the horrific things shown on the evening news - that it's too hard. We "can win, and we are winning". We aren't losing. "Our troops don't believe we're losing and our commanders on the ground don't believe it either."

He also laid out his strategy in three points:
1. Remain on the offense: Building up Iraqi security forces. When we got there there was only a handful of Iraqis trained and ready and now there are 125 battalions and over 50 battalions leading the way. We have turned over 50 military bases to Iraqi control.

2. Democracy: Over 10 million Iraqis went to the polls to vote - including Sunnis who boycotted the elections last January. He shared an anecdote about an Iraqi man who, after dipping his finger in the purple ink, raised and said "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists".

3. Reconstruction: Focusing on their economy and infrastructure. That the Iraqis are optimistic. 7 out of 10 believe things are going well, with another two thirds expecting significant improvement in the coming months.

He also talked about honest critics vs. defeatists. And how defeatists are only going to embolden the terrorists and how the terrorists will laugh at our "failed resolve". He said that "honest critics" are to be listened to and that he HAS been listening to them and making whatever changes need to be made. He reiterated that we will not be running away until the mission is complete, and asked Americans not to give up on this "fight for freedom".

I thought he did a great job. He was brief but very much to the point. We all know the libs' talking points - heaven knows we've heard them a thousand times ad nauseum. But he addressed them all. In a language I hope that even they can understand! I'll post any feedback or updates I find tomorrow.

Speaking of updates, did anyone hear Dick Cheney's speech to the troops today?

I know most of you have heard the political debates that have been going on back home. You've heard some prominent voices advocating a sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. Some have suggested this war is not winnable. And a few seem almost eager to conclude that the struggle is already over. But they are wrong. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. And that is not an option. Every American serving in this war can be absolutely certain the people of the United States are behind you. Americans will not support a policy of submission, resignation, or defeatism in the face of terror.

Our country will never go back to the false comforts of the world before September 11, 2001. Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And this nation has made a decision: We will engage these enemies, facing them far from home so that we do not have to face them on the streets of our own cities.

12/19:
Amy Proctor's blog has the transcript.
See Michelle Malkin for other blogger's reactions and also her take on the speech.

If you don't read Mark Steyn, you must. Especially his latest column entitled "Iraq vote leaves Dems looking like the losers". Here's a taste:

Bush lied, people dyed. Their fingers. That's what this is about: Millions of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis beaming as they emerge from polling stations and hold up their purple fingers after the freest, fairest election ever held in the Arab world. "Liberal" in the American sense is a dirty word because it's come to stand for a shriveled parochial obsolescent irrelevance, of which ''Good Night, and Good Luck,'' Clooney's dreary little retread of the McCarthy years, is merely the latest example. (Clooney says he wants more journalists to "speak truth to power," which is why I'm insulting his movie.)

The Anglo-American political tradition is the most successful in the world in part because of the concept of "loyal opposition." Yes, the party out of office opposes the party in office and hopes to supplant it, but not at the expense of the broader political culture. A party that winds up cheerleading for a deranged loser death cult is the very definition of pointless self-defeating sour oppositionism. So, as Zarqawi flails, Dean and Murtha and Kerry flail ever more pathetically, too. Just wait till the WMD turn up.

Go read the rest. Good stuff.

Also threads and comments at Lucianne.com.

Our friends over at Barking Moonbat make very good points.

Whether you believe in the war or not, the simple fact is that we’re in it and we stand to lose too much if the constant harassment and negativity doesn’t stop. The time to argue over the justification for the war against terror or the war in Iraq is when everything has settled down. Second-guessing the President and publicly espousing defeatism is destructive in nature and only places our troops in jeopardy by encouraging the enemy. The time to stick together is now. We can argue over the details later ... when our troops have come home and, because of their sacrifices, we can debate the whole matter in comfort and safety. Until that day, none of us are safe ... Republicans or Democrats.

Say on, Skipper.

Please also read Freedom Eden's take on the speech: she calls it "apolitical". "He spoke as an American President, not a Republican President".

Something that was driving me nuts as I read through the different reports from the MSM on the speech was their fantasy about a lack of support for the mission in Iraq.

Six in ten Americans believe we should do what the President is proposing. While the President himself acknowledged the deep divide in the country regarding the war, it should be remembered that a majority of Americans believe it would be a mistake to cut and run.

The majority of Americans understand the necessity for completing the mission. They are not willing to accept defeat. They understand how high the stakes are.

The reality is the majority of Americans have not bought into the Dems' retreat and defeat policy for Iraq.

I thought Bush's straight talk was particularly effective.

As I said before, this speech was not political spin. The President was direct and humble, yet confident and firm.

John McLiberal Strikes Again

In case you were wondering why I dislike John McCain... check out this link from Rush about his torture bill.

One question: WHY, with all of the problems we have in this country --national security, education, health care costs, illegal immigration, energy demands, the communist ruling by the Supreme Court about eminent domain-- WHY is this top of anyone's mind in Washington?

Frankly, who frickin' CARES if terrorists are a bit uncomfortable? Do you think they consider the rights of journalists or contractors they capture before sawing their heads off? Didn't think so. The point I liked most from Rush was the article he read --basically this anti-torture bill is banning practices like sleep deprivation, etc., that we use on our own armed forces in basic training. If our soldiers volunteer for that stuff, then I don't think it's too cruel and unusal to subject terror suspects to. Other things like making them listening to rap music, teasing them about being gay, etc. --for Pete's sake, we've got to do something to make these people talk! Giving them their own ACLU lawyer is not exactly the best way to go about getting information that might be vital to our national security from them.

Just one more example of how the Libs in this country are fighting on the side of our enemies. And sadly, John McCain seems to have joined them!

Iraq War: 102 By Professor Amy Proctor

Co-blogging by proxy. Love it. And I'm honored to share with you the latest comment from Ms. Proctor. This is a follow-up comment to our Iraq War: 101 post, and since it didn't fit in my teeny little comment space, I had to post it here so it wasn't lost forever. (please visit her blog - it is time well spent)

Please everyone, be seated. I present....Professor Proctor.

Why are we in Iraq if Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11?

This is a COMPREHENSIVE WAR ON TERROR. Why did we fight Hitler when he didn't bomb Pearl Harbor? Why didn't we just go after Japan? We were conducting a COMPREHENSIVE WAR on fascism and evil empires. See how that works? The United States doesn't deal in retribution or revenge, it deals in knocking out the problem. Here are some reasons why we're in Iraq:

-12 years of Iraq firing at US Air Force planes in the No-Fly Zone (1991-2003).

-Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on George Bush Sr. in Kuwait in 1993. That would be considered an act of aggression.

-The U.N. refused to enforce its resolutions against Iraq and failed to make Saddam comply.

-Saddam paid $25000 to the families of terrorists who'd blow themselves up while killing as many Jews as possible. (Israel is an ally)

-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sought medical attention in Baghdad in 2001 when he was injured in Afghanistan.

-WMD; whether or not he possessed them at the time we entered Iraq, he made everyone believe he did. My husband sat in a foxholes with his 82nd ABN buddies in Kuwait as Saddam threatened to use them against the troops if they entered. Of course, we know for a fact that he was a danger to his neighbors (attacks against Israel, Iran and Kuwait, 2 of whom are our
allies). We also know for a fact that he used chemical weapons on his own people.

-President Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union address that who ever aided and abetted terrorists would be considered part of the "axis of evil" Pres. Bush said in his address at Congress immediately following 9/11, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)" That would be Democratic applause as well.

Aside from the major reasons we went to war in Iraq, Saddam was a terrorist. He provoked a war with Iran that cost millions of lives and lasted 8 years (Sept. 22, 1980- Aug. 20, 1988). If Democrats want to argue that Pres. Bush has made Iraq a magnet for terrorists, remember this:

The United States was the magnet for terrorists BEFORE 9/11/2001:

• The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 and 2001.
• The Pentagon was targeted on 9/11.
• US Military base in Saudi Arabia, June 1996 (Khobar Tower bombing)
• U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, Oct. 12, 2000
• Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, Oct. 23, 1983
• Empire State Building sniper attack, Feb. 23, 1997

(Complete timeline of Islamist terrorism against the US here)

CNN- Feb. 13, 1999 Saddam offers Osama asylum as he is on the run from the US.

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to Osama bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."

Saddam also supported the 9/11 attacks. Look what they found in Iraq while my [Ms. Proctor's] hubby was fighting the Fedayeen in AsSamawa! Saddam & 9/11

For the semantically and historically challenged among us:
This is what an occupation looks like.
This is what a liberation looks like.

Thank you, Professor.
I believe nothing more needs to be said.

(oh, but you know it will be. Liberals trolling who will read three words and start to rant and rave like lunatics.)

Random thoughts on Iraq, WMDs, and Cowards. Oh, and Peggy Noonan.

My uncle recently sent me this article written by one of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan. Please read it when you get a chance. I was particularly struck by this simple, yet very profound thought:

Later Howard Dean, that human helium balloon ever resistant to the gravity of mature judgment, said of the administration that they lied us into war. He left no doubt that he meant they did it deliberately and cynically. But there seems to me a thing that is blindingly obvious, and yet I've never seen it remarked upon. It is that an administration that would coldly lie us into Iraq is an administration that would lie about what was found there. And yet the soldiers, searchers and investigators who looked high and low throughout Iraq made it clear they had found nothing, an outcome the administration did not dispute and came to admit. But an administration that would lie about reasons would lie about results, wouldn't it? Or try to? Yet they were candid.

Indeed. Good thought, yes? Yet another question I'd love a liberal to answer for me someday.

I also recently received a comment from another favorite writer and blogger, Ms. Amy Proctor, and she kindly gave me permission to re-publish. Please visit her blog and spend some time browsing around. You won't regret it.

Ms. Proctor's husband is in the military, and she consistently has a unique perspective to share with us about the war and how our men in the military feel about it.

Here she replies to a recent post of ours rounding up the reactions to the Iraqi elections yesterday. Of course the dems are down-in-the-mouth that it was a success, but that was to be expected. Specifically she takes issue with the "cut and run" cowards that, had they had their way, would have rendered this huge success in Iraq impossible.

Jean Schmidt only parrotted what the military really thinks. While active duty soldiers and their families respect immensely Murtha for his prior service, as opposed to, say, draft dodger Bill Clinton, we are all puzzled by Murtha’s comments, particularly initially. He spoke in either misinformation or lies, in which case he needs to either get a new fact checker or go to confession. His comments about the tactical mission and the activity of the enemy are simply wrong.

What we in the military know to be cowardly is cutting and running. (I'm an Army wife, not a soldier, to be clear) Murtha specifically said in his initial statements that the US needs to pull its troops, against their will I might add, from Iraq immediately. This is what some call immediate withdrawal. In the military we call it cutting and running. All are accurate. This is a recipe for absolute disaster and we have learned from Clinton and Len Aspen’s military disaster in Mogudishu that our enemies take it as a victory when we do such. And, we learned from an interview with Osama Bin Laden about the incident that terrorists see America as a paper tiger that will flee with it’s tail between it’s legs when American soldiers are killed. This is NOT the mentality of the courageous military, but of Democratic politicians who are out of touch with military reality.

So it is cowardly, militarily speaking, to cut and run. War hero? Perhaps. But John Murtha is NO hero now. Lookit, my husband went on over 200 raids, hundreds of convoys, engaged terrorists in combat etc. and it is totally counterproductive for American politicians to use treasonous rhetoric that makes more terrorists want to fight against us. Murtha and other Dems are aligning themselves ideologically with OUR ENEMIES. When my husband is in Iraq, or I think of all our friends there, or our Iraqi friends and all they’ve had to endure, it is unthinkable that a ‘war hero’ would speak in such an irresponsible and frankly unsubstantiated manner. I wouldn’t mind it because the Dems will continue to lose elections, but I do mind it because anyone who gets into ideological bed with terrorists and their pillow talk is about how wrong and terrorizing OUR troops are makes us sick. So there. Murtha is indeed by any military standard a COWARD for suggesting US immediate withdrawal.

Liberals will never understand that they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy while they stand there screeching about "torture" and "Gitmo" and "immediate withdrawal". They say our armed forces are "broken". I say they're the ones that are "broken". Mentally, morally and ideologically broken, all of them.

Thank you, Amy Proctor and Peggy Noonan. Keep it comin'!

Iraqi election results

Once again, Michelle Malkin's got the goods. Complete with related articles and fantastic, must-read quotes and opinion.

Love those guys at Barking Moonbat.

Voter turnout was very heavy with early estimates placing it at roughly 70% of the population. That’s an even better turnout than we get here in America and we don’t have to risk getting blown up or shot just to cast a vote.

Speaking of America, I certainly hope the Iraqis have better luck with their sore losers than we have had here. John Kerry (who spent Christmas in Cambodia many years ago) made a statement Wednesday night that if Democrats win back the House of Representatives in the 2006 elections that there should be immediate impeachment proceedings brought against President Bush.

I will be willing to trade the Iraqis John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and two players to be named later for Saddam Hussein. Have we got a deal, fellows?

You got a deal, Skipper, as long as those two players to be named include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Cindy Sheehan, any celebrity you deem appropriate or John Murtha.


The venerable Powerline also has a letter from a friend's family in Iraq. Also the quote of the day:

John Podhoretz - "The people of Iraq, the men and women of the U.S. military and George W. Bush end this year with pride and the knowledge that they have done good for the world."

Yeah.

p.s. Note to visiting liberals

For some reason Salon.com linked to us and is sending us frothing angry bitter liberals who think it's okay to swear and curse and insult us in our comments section.

This will help you if you're confused.

Just FYI, if you have nothing to add but hate and bad language, your comment will be deleted and your IP will be permanently banned.

If you want to rant and swear and say bad things, please get your own blog.

Thank you, that is all.

DP and Sage

Today's a big day in Iraq, ya'll!

We've got a round-up of news and exciting stuff from Iraq. This truly is a historic day for them, and we should be happy for them, and excited for thier future.

Dare I say it: this wouldn't have happened without the stalwart leadership of George W. If a democrat had been in office I believe we would have run away and or/gave up long before this. Our President has stuck with his convictions and is seeing this process through to its conclusion. Way to go, Mr. President.

Michelle Malkin (of course) has an exhaustive list of other bloggers who are covering this day, news tidbits and other things. (make sure you click the link to find out what the @#$% Joe Biden's doing in Iraq...)

Lucianne.com has a Reuter's article about today's elections. Even Reuters can't spin this to sound negative.

Our buddies over at Barking Moonbat Early Warning System has some neat election-day photos to make you smile.

Stuck on Stupid did the rest of the rounding-up for us, with a very long list of other reactions around the blogosphere.

From Land of the Evildoers comes this tidbit of history - relating Iraq to the United States' humble beginnings:

Sure, I love the fact that we are trying to paralyze terrorist organizations, and freeing Iraq from a brutal jackass regime, but what makes me proud is how our actions mirror those of a benevolent nation who had faith in the future of a fledgling country. One that lent a hand when we needed it. We as Americans tend to forget where we came from, and the principles our nation was founded on. Liberal isolationism, and cries for "peace" will just show other nations who wish to shed their primitive political systems that we just don't care, and have completely forgotten that at one time WE were the ones fighting a war for democracy, using nothing but bravery, and whatever weapon we could find.

If you have anything to add, please do!

Iraq War: 101 by Professor Dubya.

Now pay attention, liberal kiddies. Put your protest signs down and close your mouths for just a few minutes as our great President reminds you why it is we're in Iraq. It seems that with all your screeching and temper-tantrum-throwing you've forgotten. Or maybe you've chosen to forget because sometimes drama queens get more attention. Well, the adults haven't forgotten, and we'd like to remind you. So please pay attention.

We'll keep reminding you, but try to retain this lesson at least for another week. If you don't, we'll be forced to give you a time-out or take away your Prius for a week.

Here, come sit next to me as I read the words of George W. Bush:

When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that. At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way. Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power. (Applause.) We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.

Read the rest of it, please.

Thank you, that is all.
Hugs,
DP

Iraqi election roundup

Listening to Fox News this morning it really hit me how important these elections are. They will decide on the government, how long our troops will be there, their economy - everything. It's a big freakin' deal, ya'll.

The Political Pit Bull links to the Iraqi quote of the decade (via Michelle Malkin):

"Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done, and President Bush, let them go to hell!"

Yes, this is from an Iraqi. Isn't that great?

Forged ballots crossing into Iraq in tanker trucks? This is apparently quite the controversy this morning. (seems to be somewhat of a smackdown between the NYT and Reuters...)
UPDATE: It seems *gasp* that the NYT made up the whole thing and it's totally false. Anyone else suprised? Anyone?

Oh, and this isn't really Iraq-election related, but...

Yes, that's Mother Sheehan. Sleeping on her son's grave. For Vanity Fair.
Words fail me.

UPDATE:
Award for Photoshopping Creativity goes to One of the Evildoers who apparently has a LOT of time on his hands.

Heh. Go see the other one.

UPDATE: Just thought I'd note that while we are poking fun at Mother Sheehan, and have managed to offend a few people, we do so because she has ceased to be a "mourning mother" and has used her son's death as a platfom upon which to bash our troops and spout Michael Moore's lies and talking points. She defended her son's killers. Called the troops that her son was a part of "Baby killers" and by her speech insulted her son and spit on her son's heroic death. She is pathetic. Sorry if that offends you.

Where in the world?

Sorry for the non-existent posting lately...the Sage and I are swamped with work. You know, our day jobs. At least we're being good little capitalists, right?

What with the Iraqi elections today and whatnot, we should be all over it. We will be. Or if you'd like, feel free to consider this an open post and hold forth at will in the comments section.

Oh, and due to global warming and Karl Rove's evil weather machine...it's SNOWING and 13 degrees here in New Fallujah.

Cheers, ya'll!

The Chronicles of Narnia!

UPDATE (12/11): $23,000,000.00 on opening night alone. Holy mackerel, folks. Wow.




Just realized the ONLY movie I've been excited to see is opening TONIGHT. Tonight, people. And what will I be doing? Working.

Anyway, thought I'd share some linky goodness relating to all things Narnia for anyone who's interested.

Blogs4God has a HUGE round-up (meaning over 40 links) of blogger reactions.

So does the venerable Anchoress.

Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 76% Fresh rating (that's good)

Official Site

Update to Dean the Defeatocrat - Whitehouse launches ads aimed at the "white flag" crowd

Stop the ACLU has a comprehensive roudup of the latest fallout and commentary from Dean's latest caterwauling for retreat, surrender, defeat. Lots of linkage - take a look around when you have a few moments.

Very much worth it.
(update to this recent post)

Another update from The Bismarck Tribune (via Drudge):

WASHINGTON - North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy is accusing Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean of overstepping his bounds, saying the former presidential candidate should not give up on the war in Iraq.

On Monday, Dean likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up," Pomeroy told WDAY Radio in North Dakota on Thursday.

Pomeroy later told the Associated Press that he is tired "of the overblown rhetoric on both sides."

"We have young men and women with their lives on the line," he added. "The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."

Pomeroy said Dean wasn't representing Democrats like him when he discussed the war.

"He is not hired to make major policy announcements on behalf of all the Democrats," Pomeroy said. "As our party chairman I believe he needs to focus on the nuts and bolts of winning elections."

Dean backtracked on his statements somewhat Thursday, saying his assertion that the United States cannot win the war was reported "a little out of context," and that Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on Pomeroy's remarks.

Pomeroy said he also is frustrated with Republicans who have politicized the war and a recent House debate on Iraq that became heated and angry. During that debate, Ohio Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt implied that Democratic Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., was a "coward" because he called for troops to pull out of Iraq. Schmidt later said her remark about Murtha was a mistake. (why do Republicans always back down in the face of shrill "offended" Democrats? The truth hurts, Murtha. Shut it. -Patriotette)

"I thought the debate on the House floor was shameful," Pomeroy said. "It was loud, strident and partisan."

Pomeroy, who has visited Iraq three times, said he believes the United States must stay in the country for now to achieve progress on national security, the creation of a stable government and the establishment of a functioning economy.

In 2002, Pomeroy joined 215 Republicans and 80 other Democrats in voting to authorize force in Iraq.

Not quite Joe Lieberman, but it's progress...

Global warming, my tookus.

(12/16/05: Ahem. It's come to my attention that the correct spelling is 'tucas' not 'tookus'. Oops. Thanks to an alert reader for pointing that out. I'm a phonetic speller. Obviously.)

Greetings from the great city of New Fallujah, Michigan where the snow falls freely and the temperatures drop to 3 degrees at night. I awoke this morning at the crack of 6am to hear snowblowers, one of which belonging to my sweet neighbor who also serviced my sidewalk.

Of course nobody plows the roads or anything, because that would diminish the challenge it takes to get to work. I'm lucky to have a four-wheel-drive vehicle, but that doesn't help much when the innocent-looking white stuff is hiding an inch of ice underneath.


So. 25 miles an hour all the way in to work. Cold extremities. But pretty snow. It's lookin' like CHRISTMAS, folks!

Warm Friday greetings to y'all.

More on the Ann Coulter story

Following up from our earlier post, the liberals at the Democrat Underground fever swamps decided to take a vote. Oh....wait. This isn't from the DU.

There's no liberal bias at CNN. Nope, none. I swear.

This is currently on CNN's home page. Lower right corner.
(thanks to Right Wing News for pointing it out)

That Miami airport incident

So everyone's heard about the bi-polar guy who got shot at Miami International Airport yesterday, right?

Collosus of Rhodey, guest-blogging at LaShawn Barber's corner has predictions on what will happen next.

The family of the man will sue the air mashall(s), the airport, the airline and/or the US government for “excessive force” and “negligence,” claiming that the marshalls acted too hastily with deadly force, and that they didn’t make sure the man actually had a bomb. The airport and airline are “responsible” for “allowing” the man to get free from the marshalls.

Ramsey Clark will represent the man’s family in a civil suit against the US government, claiming the man was driven to hysteria because of President Bush’s policy in Iraq.

Howard Dean will call on Congress to investigate the incident based on Clark’s “case;” congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will demand intel from the White House on the growing phenomenon known as “Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome.”

Charles Rangel and other Congressional Black Caucus members will decry how minorities are “disproportionately affected” by “Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome,” now known as IPABS.

Congressman John Murtha will claim that the current crop of air marshalls in the United States “is broken” and “worn out,” and will call for an immediate redeployment of all air marshalls.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry will claim that “there’s no reason for air marshalls … to be terrorizing passengers … terrorizing kids and women, breaking sort of the customs of … proper air travel.”

Yep, and if you click the link (which I highly recommend you do) and read on, some of the predictions are happening. Suprise, surprise, eh?

Stop the ACLU has more:

Another mistake, but who can blame the Marshall for his response? I think he did exactly the right thing, and it makes me feel safer that we have such rapid responders. I wonder if the lefties will try to make a bad guy out of this man? Any one else feel an ACLU lawsuit coming on?

*sigh*

Ann Coulter, filthy hatemonger

So Ann got heckled at a speech yesterday. *yawn* Whatever. She's used to it and so are we.

After waiting with her bodyguard on stage for several minutes for the music to stop while a section of the audience chanted "You suck, you suck," an irritated Coulter said she would not finish her speech. She said she would go straight to questions and answers, suggesting the disruption was the best the liberals could do to counter her.

But the best part is, the University of Connecticut decided to hire Mother Sheehan as a "counterpoint" to our Ann. That's like asking a sock puppet to rebut statements made by Dick Cheney.

To provide another viewpoint to Coulter's, the Progressive Students' Alliance had brought in Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who made headlines in August by camping out near President Bush's Texas ranch to protest her son's death in Iraq. Sheehan's speech Monday also was paid for with student government funds.

Coulter was paid $16,000. Sheehan was paid $10,000.

And oh, does Coulter have a way with words. I love this woman:

One student asked what she would do if she had a child who came out as gay.
Coulter replied: "I'd say, `Did I ever tell you you're adopted?'"

She also aimed plenty of criticism at the Democratic Party, calling U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California a great candidate for Democrats because "she is a woman and learning disabled." She also aimed barbs at Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

"If the Democrats want to stick to the middle of the road, why did they pick Ted Kennedy. Didn't he have some trouble sticking to the middle of the road?" she said.

Well, some whiney, no-sense-of-humor having students were offended and thought her speech was hateful. Is sarcasm totally lost on these idiots? If Ann Coulter was a liberal would they then find their senses of humor? (remember Whoopie Goldberg's tirade against Dubya?)

Jerome Smith, a UConn graduate, talked about how he hid his homosexuality while at UConn, afraid his fraternity brothers and family would shun him.

"Words are sharp tools and certain people like Ann Coulter use them to hurt people," he said.

Is it really hateful to be funny? Or is it just that the truth hurts?

More at LaShawn Barber's Corner, as well as "News that Parodies Itself". Funny stuff - for those of use that aren't sarcasm-challenged, anyway...

Is Michael Moore writing Law and Order: SVU episodes now?

For pete's sake. I have absolutely had it with SVU. Which is too bad because I used to love that show.

Mariska is fantastic and Christopher Meloni? With his Marine tattoos, that stare of his and those forearms?? Fuggetaboutit. That was until I set my DVR to record the newest episodes. I've made it through the first 15 minutes of exactly two episodes before I rolled my eyes, sighed in disgust, and deleted it from the DVR list.

Last episode I watched took the side of terrorists and made people who had problems with said terrorists seem like uneducated neanderthals. This week's episode was about gay marriage and gay couples adopting and raising children. Fine, use it as a story line, as it happens. Well. In this particular episode Mariska and Christopher were discussing the fact that the child's parents being lesbians was causing the child some difficulty at this "very conservative Catholic school". Apparently the parents protested, there was a kerfuffle, but in the end the lesbian parents sued and won the right to keep the kid in that school. Munch's (Richard Belzer) response to this was "When did NY become a Red State?" (because as we all know, "red staters" hate gays. This is where my eyes rolled and my finger hovered over the stop/delete button)

Then, Elliot Stabler (Christopher Meloni) and Olivia Benson (Mariska Hargitawatay-or however you spell her name) were in the hospital speaking to the supposed "victim" who was stabbed by I'm assuming the little girl whose parents are gay (I didn't finish watching, so who knows who did what and who the heck cares)...and the "victim" says that "the Bible says homosexuality is wrong". Elliot's response? A condescending smirk and "I don't remember ever seeing that in the Bible". Have you READ IT lately? No? Didn't think so. (that's when I sighed the sigh of disgust and turned it off)

Can someone please let me know when shows stopped being entertainment and became propaganda? Propaganda so damn obvious it offends me? But who cares if it offends a Christian, right? You can offend Christians all day long, but heaven forbid you offend a terrorist, or a person who's gay, or who doesn't believe in God.

Characters on this show who have some semblance of morals, Biblical values and aren't elitist liberal whackjobs are treated with disdain and feigned pity. As if these people are so terribly unenlightened and simple. It's offensive and insulting. Truly. Yes, I know it's only a TV show and blah blah blah but why on earth can't they just be entertaining and write a good crime drama. You know, like they used to? (Frank J at IMAO is disgusted with Boston Legal for the same reasons...and he's a bit more eloquent than I am on the subject. So is the Ex-Donkey Blog. Nice to know I'm not the lone voice complaining in the proverbial wilderness)

It's disgusting. So much for SVU, guys. I guess I'll go back to my beloved CSI franchise until they piss me off...which I'm sure is going to happen very soon. Then I'd have to like READ or something.

Just kidding. I read. No, really, I do.

YEEEARGGH! I'm a clueless idiot!

So Screamin' Dean decides to commit treason. One more reason to reinstate the Alien and Sedition acts, don't you think? (he goes on and on about more brainless lunacy, even to compare the intelligence leading up to going to war similar to Watergate. Okeedokee then, Howie. Whatever you say.)

Democratic Chairman Howard Dean on Monday likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong," comments that drew immediate fire from Republicans. In an interview with WOAI-AM in San Antonio, Dean criticized what he called President Bush's "permanent commitment to a failed strategy" while saying, "We need to be out of there and take the targets off our troops back." Dean recalled that the strategy to stay the course in Vietnam cost thousands more lives to be lost.

"I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there," Dean said. "The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong."

Ken Mehlman "fires" back with the same mealymouthed crap the Republicans always "fire" back with.

Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman said Dean's "outrageous prediction sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy, and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections."

Blah, blah. I'll be impressed when someone bitch-slaps Howard "Waste of Skin" Dean. On national television. Twice. With a sock. A dirty one.

More here from Flopping Aces, including a photo of the Village Idiot holding Code Pink t-shirts. Yes, Code Pink. As in Pinko. As in "help terrorists kill Americans".

Heh. The Astute Blogger puts it best: Howard Dean is a Misinformed, Lying Defeatist Traitor. (via Atlas Shrugs) Go read his post, wherein he effectively fisks Mr. Dean's latest blather. Very much worth the time.

Guess liberals don't have a corner on the "hate" market...

Interesting to find out that there are major jerks on my side of the aisle, as well. Check out this thread at Conservative Underground where yours truly gets attacked for...asking a question and trying to open up a honest dialogue.

Check out the jerk called "Patriot Game". What *is* his problem, anyway? Whatever it is, it must be serious.

This is my favorite comment directed at me so far. (yes, ME. It's ME he's calling a "sock puppet for a socially engineered leftist nut job", whatever that means)

Why can't you DIRECTLY answer my responses to you rather than being a sock puppet for a socially engineered leftist nut job? Me thinks you can't answer because your handler isn't around to feed your simple mind the talking points that fuel your stance on social issues.
Indeed, you are pathetic and to be pitied.

Yes, folks, he's talking to me. If only he knew...

heh.

Christmas resistance roundup for Monday

Hey ya'll. We're inching closer and closer to Christmas, and with that comes the Monday Christmas Silliness roundup for the week of December 5th.

The founder of the Christmas Resistance, the ubiquitous Yak, has a list of things you won't see on his front yard. Ever.

Via Don Serber comes this poll: Merry Christmas or Season's Greetings?

Stuck on Stupid has the White House Christmas card for all to see. It doesn't say "Merry Christmas", but it does have a Psalm printed on the inside. *sigh*

This isn't Christmas related, but it's a fantastic article by one of my personal favorite columnists: Mark Steyn. Read it all if you have the time. It's worth it - if for nothing more than a new name for the liberals..."defeaticrats". heh.

A letter worth reading...

She doesn't care, and neither do we. This was sent to me by the Detroit Conservadad and is a must-read and a must-share.

The lady that wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq. Read it!

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?

Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I h ear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran'. Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -- you guessed it, I could not have said this any better myself!

Flame on, liberals. Because? I don't care.
Happy Monday ya'll!

Time to Reinstate the Alien & Sedition Acts!

How long are we going to sit back and listen, not only to celebrities and members of the MSM, but to our own government officials slandering our country and committing treason during a war?

We are in a war here, regardless of how serious some people want to take it. Our soldiers are out there fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. How long are we going to let people like Murtha make public statements that are treasonous? What else do you call a congressmen saying, while our troops are in harms way on the field of battle, that our army is "broken" and "worn out?"

To what purpose do these statements achieve? They give aid and comfort to our enemies --this harping about the president "misleading" us and pulling the troops out now-- sends a message to the terrorists: Stay the course, bide your time, because the U.S. will pull out soon and then we'll really be able to take over. And what about to the men and women in uniform putting their lives on the line for a cause they believe in? Do you think they like hearing that they're "broken" and "worn out?" Because that was not the impression they gave Joe Lieberman or countless others who've visited them. In fact, quite the opposite.

So I propose that we bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts. We could conquer two birds with one stone --start deporting all of the illegal immigrants streaming rampantly into this country and get rid of all the traitors in our government! I'm all for public hangings, too. Let's string them up in Times Square! Maybe then they'll finally get the message and shut up.

The message we need to send: Your political power and appeasing your liberal anti-war base is not as important as the safety and moral of our troops, nor is it as important and enabling the Iraqi people to live in freedom as all of God's creatures deserve.