Light posting...sorry!

Been really busy these last few days, and this week is shaping up to be a busy one, too! (The Sage is on vacation until Wednesday, too.)

If you have anything to share, please do so in the comments. We'll be back up and ranting in no time!

:)

Fred Phelps - Protesting at soldier's funerals

Thanks to the ConservaBrother for pointing this little tidbit out to me. Brother lives in Tennessee, and evidentally this nutjob (Phelps) is all over the news down there.

From Big Orange Michael:

One of them is Pastor Fred Phelps, a Baptist minister from Kansas. Phelps is leading a crusade against the war in Iraq by celebrating the death of American soldiers killed in this conflict. According to his rhetoric, these men and women are dying because of God's wrath and vengeance for America's "acceptance of homosexuality." Phelps sends people out to the funerals of service men and women who have fallen in Iraq with signs that proclaim hatred of homosexuals and America in general including one that says "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Is the ENTIRE WORLD going crazy, people?

More at KnoxNews...here, too...

How is this godly in any way, shape, or form? It makes me physically sick.

More updates as I find them...

Bring it, Cindy.

I swore no more posting about this moonbat. But then I came across this article and had to at least bring it to your attention. She apparently has agreed to a debate? But no cameras, please.

Sheehan agreed to the debate under one condition, she does not want the media to attend and she has not given a reason as to why yet.

Gee. I wonder why. Maybe because she will be shown to be the wackjob we all know she is? She's already said she has "no animosity" for the men that killed her son.

Yes, she said that.

"The person who killed my son, I have no animosity for that person at all. You know, I many Iraqi mothers who have been destroyed by our invasion and occupation which is illegal and immoral what we are doing over there. I have no animosity towards that person.

To me that's the most unconcionable thing that's come out of her mouth so far.

Anyway. Hopefully she'll keep her word and debate. Somebody, somewhere will get a transcript. heh.

Clinton's "Cindy Sheehan"

You'll have to forgive me - this morning I'm feeling very weary of the hypocrisy and lies and screaming coming from the libs. I believe I've reached a saturation point, and this was the last straw: does this story sound at ALL familiar? Did anybody hear about it? Me neither.

Amazing. (and it's amazing that it continues to amaze me...)

This on top of listening to the news this morning where they actually reported, with a straight face, that Ted Kennedy is calling for "real leadership" in this war, and that Dubya ain't it. Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy is calling for leadership. That's rich. A guy gets fired for calling islamic extremists terrorists. Cindy Sheehan is running amok insulting a man I happen to hold a HUGE amount of respect for. Her lying about my President and his character is starting to really wear on me.


On another note - and a much lighter one, I got an e-mail from a friend of mine who is serving in the National Guard in Iraq right now. He has one of these dry senses of humor that usually takes me a few minutes to get. :) Anyway, the first e-mail was about how he's doing over there and all that - but he *did* have a few complaints. He's very upset that last night at dinner his lobster was a bit rubbery and the cheesecake was dry. But, he acknowledged, it *is* a war.

har. Funny guy.

I thought I'd post his latest e-mail, just to take a break from the doom and gloom and death and fighting. Don't ya'll think we need a break?

The media doesn't hang out here much. We're at the Ritz here. I lied about the Lobster Tail. It was on the menu tonight but I had the steak and shrimp instead (that is true) and it was really good. I haven't had the lobster tail since the first time I had it when we first got here and it was chewy. The media is out with the guys kicking in doors and driving around Baghdad, not with me here. We are well taken care of. Too well I think sometimes. Most of us are just happy we have it so well and are glad we weren't with the first troops that came through in OIF 1. They've had two years to build this place up and improve it. I live in an air conditioned trailer, I eat like a king, I drop my laundry off twice a week and it comes back folded in two days. I can go to a nice gym, lift weights and do step arobics if I want. The OIF 1 people had nothing. They slept in the dirt and dust. Had no AC in the 120 degree heat. Couldn't take a shower for weeks, and most weren't in one place long enough to get settled. We got it really good. If it wasn't for the no beer and the mortars that come in a few times a week, it might be paradise.

Nice to see he's keeping his sense of humor about all this. Be safe, my friend. We're praying for you.

Heh. Go get 'em, Dubya!

Moonbat meltdown in 10...9...8...

Finally. Dubya's addressing idiocy head-on. It's about goshdarn time.

Speaking of arguing with liberals...

Wish I had read this before I wrote this.

You MUST read this gem from Lileks. Seriously. It's stuff I'm sure you've always wanted to say, but perhaps couldn't quite put into words.

Anybody tired of 2000 election news?

Anyone?

No? Good. 'Cuz Paul Krugman of the NYT has decided to make stuff up. Five years later.
He writes:

Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida’s ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.

He got jumped on in this article on National Review and a host of others, including Powerline.

I'll be holding my breath waiting for a retraction...

Bush speaks! Finally.

Now *this* is class...

Bush, in his session with reporters, pointed out that he had met with Sheehan and that she had a recent discussion with Deputy Chief of Staff Joseph Hagin and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley at the Texas ranch. He added that he "strongly supported" the right of Sheehan and others to demonstrate, and said he understood the anguish she has experienced.

This isn't..

Sheehan arrived in Crawford on Aug. 6, four days after the president began a working vacation at his ranch, aboard a bus painted red, white and blue and emblazoned with the words "Impeachment Tour." She vowed she would camp out until Bush talked to her, but she left last Thursday for California after her mother suffered a stroke.

Did anyone else hear in the news that the deputy Chief of Staff and the National Security Advisor had met with Sheehan? I didn't. Guess it makes a better story to write about how Dubya is ignoring her, eh?

He's got better things to do than muck around with mindless idiots.

Note the line in the article about how protesters were "demonstrating" outside of a venue where Dubya was speaking to war veterans. That's real respectful of our veterans, eh?

Oh. Whoops, forgot for a second that it's not about those who served and died in the war. It's about getting their faces on the news and throwing tantrums. Silly me.


More from Blogs for Bush - transcript for more of what the President actually said...

You might be a Moonbat if...

It's an oldie, but it's definitely a goodie.

Enjoy!

Welcome, Publius!

Publius is one of our esteemed "ConservaDudes"...okay, he's THE Conservadude who was part of the original 4 that began this blog. (see his post "Useless Nations" below)

He's from the great state of New York - so he KNOWS from Moonbattery. (his second favorite state is Michigan, so we've made him an honorary New Fallujah-ite.)

Anyway, we're all looking forward to hearing from him often!

Useless Nations

I was again reminded of the the uselessness of the United Nations tonight while watching O'Reilly. A special sub-commission of the UN commission on Human Rights (the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, I think), a 26 member, U.S. funded debating club, has not been able to produce an official UN condemnation of terrorism. Why you ask? What could be so hard about issuing an essentially meaningless statement that says that the UN thinks its bad to blow up civilians? Well because they have to be fair to the terrorists of course. Apparently they could not condemn terrorism because they couldn't agree on how to properly condemn counter-terrorism. Counter terrorism, by their definition, not only includes military action against terrorists and terrorist states, etc., but also the equaling horrific acts of profiling, deporting, and otherwise inconveniencing the people who would blow up bus loads of civilians on the way to work. So according to this UN sub-commission, deportation of known criminals could be officially as bad a crime against human rights as pre-meditated mass murder. Surprisingly this sub-commission happens to include representatives from the shining bastions of human rights protection, Cuba (can't leave), China (can't practice religion or read uncensored news), Nigeria (can't have a child outside of marriage without being stoned to death), and of course France (can't display a religious symbol).


PUBLIUS

Newest "new to me" site

Has anyone heard of or visited the "Conservative Underground"? It's kind of our answer to the vile, hateful Democratic Underground, a site that breeds the wackiest of the whackjobs. (seriously, if you're in the mood for some real wierdness - go check it out.)

Anyway, good stuff over at CU.



On a totally non-political topic - I just about spit my coffee all over my computer reading the English re-translation of the Chinese translation of Star Wars, Episode 1.
Freaking HILARIOUS!

(thanks to Matthew in Beirut via Right Hand of God)

Uninspiring.

Is it just me, or has the left become more and more shrill over the last couple of weeks? Almost like there's some kind of secret signal that went out and they all dropped their granola and strapped on their Birkenstocks and started screeching in unison. Perhaps I watch too much news...I don't know.

But between the Rolling Stones, Cindy Sheehan, Chuck Hagel (IMAO has written an urgent letter to the President regarding this one) John McCain - it just seems like the anti-war, anti-Bush rhetoric has been turned up a notch or two. I even caught MYSELF thinking "yeah, what *is* our plan over there in Iraq? Maybe we *are* in trouble over there" ME. I thought that. Then of course I slapped myself and shook it off. But still.

Then this morning I was listening to a local radio station (Drew and Mike on WRIF for those other New Fallujah-ites) and they were breathlessly extolling the virtues of this 9/11 documentary by National Geographic. And how if "there was anyone out there who thought Iraq had any ties to 9/11, this would end those thoughts". Or something like that. NOBODY ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Did they harbor terrorists? Yep. Was Saddam a murdering f*ckhead? Yepper. But these talking heads were making it sound like Iraq was some kind if innocent victim? And that Pakistan is the real problem. All I could do is change the station.

Anyway, sorry for ranting - just feeling a bit uninspired and weary of the blathering coming from BOTH sides. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves, though.

xoxo,
The Patriotette

p.s. This is rather inspiring. A Jewish Hollywood screenwriter. Who is a Republican. And took the time to write a rather thought-provoking article about his experiences as a Hollywood Republican. Very much worth reading...

Look at Hollywood now. Sean Penn goes to Iraq and apologizes for American war crimes. Hollywood’s patron saint is Michael Moore, its liturgy his package of lies, the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.” When this film had its Hollywood premiere, the red carpet was choked with stars just dying to make an anti-Bush statement. We’re talking about movie stars who know basically nothing about politics. To call them fools would be generous. I have spent time with too many of these people, and believe me, if you’re not talking about how beautiful or how talented they are, the conversation sort of just dies.

Heh. :) That's what I'm sayin'...

Friday stuff...

YAY! Friday. Finally.
Just thought I'd post some "stuff"...not in any particular order.

Getting really sick of John McCain...
And Cindy Sheehan...
So is this person. (very good read by a now former Democrat)

Then it happend. The good little democrat in me tied the little noose around his neck and jumped off the stool. He just couldn’t take it anymore.

Take what? The whining. The constant whining by the extreme left about the reasons for war, the incompetence of this administration, and how we’ve all been lied to, and how we should pull out of Iraq immediately, because, *gulp* our soldiers were in danger.

Guess what folks….they signed up to join the Army, not the boy scouts. Anytime your orientation to a new job involves an automatic weapon, you should be smart enough to figure out there’s danger involved. I actually read some people’s comments about many of the soldiers over there being naive….they weren’t expecting to go to war, so, they should be allowed to go home. Wow.
(read the whole thing - it's worth it!)

I love Dick Cheney.
(in the article it mentions that Bush sent aides to speak with Sheehan - I didn't know this. Did you?)

There were two Mohammed Attas? *whew* Well, that would let Clinton off the hook, then, yes?

Hee. Now THIS is what I'm sayin'.

Office dares from IMAO. Hilarious!

And finally, the ubiquitous New York Times post of the week. If you can figure it out, you get a prize.

I almost made it all day...

...without posting about Cindy Sheehan. I tried, folks. I did.

I *should* be posting about what's going on in the Gaza Strip. Or Air America. SOMETHING other than this insignificant person.

There's just something about it that makes me smile ruefully and feel somehow compelled to post about it. Sorry.

Here's some of the latest stuff...
Someone Attended John Kerry's Flip-Flop Seminar
Sick of the Summer of Cindy
She Does Not Speak for Me

*sigh*
I hope her little camping trip is over soon, because I think I've had about all I can take of hatred and Bush Bashingtm.

Letters from the Fever Swamps of the left...

So I have a vendor that I work with on and off. He is a screaming, drooling liberal. Every single solitary time I have to spend more than 5 minutes with him he goes off on wandering tangents wherein he manages to insult me personally, my Christianity, my support of George W., and my feelings about the war. More often than not, these attacks come out of nowhere like "Gee, Mr. Vendor Person, can we go get Dairy Queen this afternoon?" "George W. is a fascist. He's just as bad as Hitler and you Christians are pawns in his grand scheme to mess up this country".

I'm exaggerating, but you get my point.

Anyway, today he decided - out of boredom or whatever it is that causes liberals to spaz out - to send me a few e-mails that were so "out there" (yet typical of this person) that I just had to share. I attempted to be nice, tolerant and kind - but he pushed me right over the edge. Needless to say I won't be working with a vendor who insults me and calls my belief systems into question for sport.

Enjoy.

Hi,
I know how you feel. I haven't been able to get a straight answer from a neo-con in years. They are able to turn facts into opinions whenever they don't suit their needs and can never come up with any facts to support their arguments. They live in a world where black is white and white is black if it suits their needs.

Projection, anyone? This is the individual who, all last year would send me spitting e-mails containing wild accusations from the loony left fever swamps. I tried being nice. I did. I sent him e-mail "novels" containing links, facts, page numbers for books I've read. But every time I would send a response, he ratcheted up his insults and screaming. No reply to any of the facts presented, though, of course. But *I* apparently am the one that never comes up with any "facts to support" my arguments. Hm.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and what never shall be." Thomas Jefferson.

The context of this quote was related to education. Being an educated voter/citizen so as not to be taken advantage of by the government. You can apply this any way you see fit.

Your arguments aren't arguments. You neo-cons present as the truth (without supporting evidence) faith-based re-iterations that are as valid as claiming the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's Arc and that the universe was made 6,000 years ago

And this is an argument? What is this supposed to mean, anyway? Does anyone have their Soooper-Seekrit Moonbat Decoder Ring?

I take it very personally because I see where this immoral, reprehensible mindset is leading our country. It's one thing to fool themselves and others, but to think that neo-cons are innocent in the eyes of God is a supreme stretch.

Who says we’re innocent in the eyes of God? None of us are, if you know the Bible. "Our finest works are like filthy rags" (but when Jesus died for us, the "debt" was paid. God sees us as righteous because of that sacrifice. We're forgiven. Saved.) But if you want to talk about immorality, is it moral to advocate killing babies? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war is moral? Comparing Bush to Hitler is moral?

Do you think Jesus would support your war or your irresponsible rationalizations for it? Would Jesus support tax cuts for the rich? - especially at the cost of the poor, our children and grandchildren? Would Jesus support the dessimation of our environment?

(*snicker* "My War". *snicker* Didn't know I was that powerful!) Ah, yes, the “tax cuts for the rich”. Such a popular myth of the left.

Is he referring to the same poor children that Air America is stealing from?

Um…”dissemination of our environment”? Talk about “arguments aren’t arguments”. Where the heck did that come from and what does that mean, exactly?

"You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." (Jesus). It would work out well for the neo-cons who think they're going to Heaven if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep ("It is harder for a rich man to enter the gates of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." Jesus), instead of insisting that we have to share. It would be great for you guys if we were supposed to hate our enemies.

How rich that a liberal is quoting scripture – out of context, too, of course. I don't mean to presume to speak for Jesus, but I don't think that quote meant "if a radical Islamist terrorist group flies planes into buildings and kills 3,000 innocent civilians, you should turn the other cheek and invite them to attack again". In the old testament, God waged war to give his people lands and to prosper them. If a civilization rejected God and hated his people, those people faced the wrath of God. God is certainly NOT a pacifist. “Vengeance is mine”, says the Lord “I will repay”.

Did you know that 75% of "Christian" Americans think Jesus said "God helps those who help themselves"? (Ben Franklin).

And what does that have to do with anything?

Neo-cons are destroying our country and everything it stands for through lies, the ignoring inconvenient facts, rationalizations and insidious moral relatavism. As a result, they are on the fast-track to Hell.

I see. We are destroying our country? And he accuses me of attacking without facts? Home ownership is at an all time high. Unemployment is at an all time low. But even besides that, we are finding that the Clinton administration (or at least the Pentagon Lawyers and Jamie Gorelick) was aware of Mohammed Atta (reg. req.) and Osama BinLaden prior to 9/11 and did nothing. We were bombed and attacked on our own soil (first World Trade bombing) and the Clinton administration did nothing. The liberal media is taking sides AGAINST America, hoping we will fail in the war on terror. They go out of their way to lie, distort, and mislead Americans. And the Republicans are the bad guys?? Please.

Do "Christian" neo-cons actually think that God won't hold them accountable for what you're doing?

Absolutely He will. (for what "I'm" doing? *snicker* Again, I'm so darn powerful, aren't I!) On the day of judgement we will all be judged. Thankfully not by self-righteous Liberals with serious mental disorders.

And yes, as a Christian, I believe that anyone who supports Bush's agenda, especially after the facts have been widely reported and established, will have a lot of explaining to do at the pearly gates. Sorry. Don't shoot the messenger. Willfull ignorance won't be an excuse.

"Widely reported and established" by the ever-truthful and non-biased New York Times? CBS?

Yes, wilfull ignorance in the form of wearing a tinfoil hat and holding your hands over your ears screaming “nanananana!! Can’t hear you can’t hear you!! My mind’s made up so don’t confuse me with the facts” isn't an excuse either. Since when did a liberal become judge and jury? Do Republicans judge and condemn like this? Not in my circle of friends, anyway…

If you are a "Christian" neo-con, then you're fair game. It is completely disingenuous to feign insult...

I’m “feining insult” when I’m attacked as I was above. I’m “feining insult” when every time I go for a visit with this particular vendor and the topic of politics unfortunately comes up he yells at me until veins stick out of his forehead? When he calls Christians evil? Knowing I’m a Christian?

when the level of discourse has been brought to the gutter by neo-cons who have demonized, insulted, ruined lives and villified anyone who isn't one of them. It's not the rest of the country who cheers on Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush, Rove, et all, while they spew their hatred, division and lies.

You shrieking moron. Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush…these individuals happen to have the most watched/listened to programs on the air. Hatred? Division? Lies? Since when? Do you even LISTEN to the vitrol coming from your own party? Apparently not.

What is Christian about them? The perception that you neo-cons are victims is absurd. Neo-cons are victimizing the rest of the world. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. I'm a Christian too. The only judgement you should be concerned about is God's.

I’m not now, nor have I ever been a victim. Ever. In any area of my life. How dare you.

I believe in our President, and I believe in what we’re doing in the Middle East. How is this being a victim?

Live/die by the sword, eh? Well, you also die by not wielding one when necessary. I’m not some cringing hippie trying to “understand” the enemy and wondering why they “hate us so”. They killed over 3,000 of us on 9/11. I don’t care why they hate us. I do care about whether or not the country is safe from those idiot terrorists, though. If that means going to war to keep us safe? Then absolutely, I’m in favor. I’m an AMERICAN. I believe in AMERICA. We have an absolute right to defend ourselves.

The Sage very...uh...sagely pointed out:

How can liberals purport to care so much about "the rich" taking care of all "the poor" in this country when they don't care about the most powerful country in the world helping other oppressed peoples? Talk about hypocritical.

So, it's OK to take away people's hard-earned money and pour them into misguided social programs to "help" America's poor (which, incidently, would be considered middle class or better in many of the world's countries), but it's not OK for the country with the most money and best military to help oppressed socities? Societies like Saddam's Iraq where people weren't just poor, but raped, tortured, and murdured? Where they had absolutely NO human rights!

And my response to this person was:
I'm feeling insulted and uncomfortable with your judgementalism and sweeping generalizations, XXX.

Please try to put yourself in my shoes before you start throwing "insults" around like "you neo-cons" and things like that. When I was in Chicago, I ignored your insults aimed at Christians in general because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean ME in specific. But I take these things very personally. Maybe I shouldn't.

And frankly it's this kind of hate-filled, angry accusations that I simply have absolutely no time for. Are you saying *I* am on a "fast track to hell" because I agree with Dubya and most of his policies regarding the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, etc?

I'm not going to enter into another one of these e-mail discussions, XXX. If it lowers your opinion of me, then so be it. On many occasions, (years ago) I have taken the time to provide links and facts to back up what I've said and you've ignored them. I've tried talking to you face-to-face and you seemed to get angry with me, so I don't want to go there. Okay?

Please try to respect my request. I realize we both are coming from two totally different sides of many issues. I'm okay with that, and I'm asking you as a friend to please be okay with that too.

And a typical passive-agressive reply (hopefully the last one):

I've read what I've written and and don't see where I was mocking or attacking you personally. Nor am I imposing my world view on you or anyone. I don't think you're going to hell, by the way, but I do believe 90% of the Christian Right Movement is.

You call me a liberal while I consider myself a conservative. You mocked that. When I presented you with the reasons for considering myself that way, you dismissed them. Am I not to feel insulted? I presented you with facts and opinions and you took them as attacks. You use belittling phrases as "you liberals" (I'm a conservative, remember, that's what started this whole thing) as much as I use "you neo-cons".

You can take it however you want. I never intentionally attacked you personally. Sorry you took it the wrong way.

And people sometimes ask me why I'm such a die-hard Republican or...my new favorite label: NeoCon. One reason (not the main one, of course) is so that I'm not associated with people like this guy, Cindy Sheehan, Dick Durbin, Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Howard Dean...you get the idea. It's this kind of passive-agressive stuff that they're famous for.

Thank you for reading. I feel better now.
*whew*

Bill v. Bill

Did anyone see The O'Reilly Factor last night? He was interviewing Bill Maher, who I absolutely detest. (He's the worst kind of condescending liberal.) Anyway, O'Reilly was f**king with him so bad! It rocked!

My favorite line was when O'Reilly said that what he liked about Maher was that he wasn't a hypocrite. He goes on to tell the audience why:

"He putters around in his little hybrid." Then asks Maher: "Does it have training wheels?"

Then he "compliments" Maher's new book by saying it was funny and "if you want some laughs, read his book."

He then went on and on asking Maher to explain, since he's fond of criticizing FNC, why it's becoming the most powerful news network in the world. He kept pressing this issue, then smirking and mocking Maher's responses.
And all that liberal freak could do was sit there w/a painful smile plastered on his face! It was so great.

O'Reilly might be a pompous a** at times, but it's segments like this that keep me watching...

Hope everyone's having a fabulous Thursday.

Now *this* is cool!

Check it out.

“From the war for independence through the war on terrorism, which we wage today, the courage and heroism of the people of New York has been an inspiration. USS New York will play an important role in our Navy’s future and will be a fitting tribute to the people of the Empire State,” England said.

Using steel from the Twin Towers to build the USS New York. How neat is THAT.

(from Michelle Malkin)

Raising the bar on Bush Bashing.

Brought to you by desperate Democrats, frustrated at the lack of their ability to get their way.

I remember doing that in grade school. "Billy's a dummyhead 'cuz he didn't let me play dodgeball on his team". "I hate my teacher, she's a poopyface. She gave me an F on my test then wouldn't meet with me when I told her I hated her and she should be fired for it".

Okeedokee. First there was ChimpyMcBushitler and his Cult of Fitness.

Now we're on to Bush the Evil, Meglomaniacal Tyrant with Personality Disorders.

Give it up, guys.
It's called "projection". Go look it up.
I'm pretty sure it's treatable...

Okay, some perspective

I started getting all worked up about Cindy Sheehan's "blog" entry for day 9 where she likens herself to Mickey Mouse at Disneyland...no, seriously. She also berates Bush for taking a bike ride instead of meeting with her. Nevermind that Bush is...gee...isn't he still the PRESIDENT you drooling idiot? Meeting with a lunatic fringe hippie would set a bad precedent, don't you think? Especially when you've already said you'd just say "bullshit" to anything he says anyway.

But instead of getting all spitting irritated, I visited IMAO for some funny. This struck me as hysterical - and it put it all in perspective. :) (put your "sense of humor/take it in the spirit it was intended" hat on before you click)

Ahhh...all better now.

UPDATE 8/17 3PM:
Geez, I need to start posting on something else. This woman gives me a headache. Now she's calling to "refocus the mission" or some such.

Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq last year, seems distressed that her anti-Bush protest has become a bit, well, political.

“We need to refocus our mission,” Sheehan said Monday at Camp Casey, the ragtag staging ground she set up nearly two weeks ago near the president’s ranch outside Crawford, Texas. It seems she has become concerned about a “media circus” surrounding her protest.

How typically liberal of her. Let's see. Our "cause" gets blown WAY out of proportion, more drooling moonbats jump on the bandwagon, your original message (I think there was one, wasn't there? A while ago?) gets diluted, and people think you're nuts. You start screaming obcenities and insults at the Commander in Chief. You spit vitrol and angry rhetoric every chance you get to whomever will listen.

Sheehan set the trap for herself.

She’s emotional. Angry. Given to believing the things she reads on left-wing websites. And dazzled by her newfound popularity with the press.

In other words, her own worst enemy.

Then, you look around and see the quizzical looks on people's faces and the backpedalling starts. Doesn't this sound like the Democrats lately? "We need to figure out what we're saying to the American People". "We need a message". Blah Blah BLAH! When have you ever heard a Republican make a big ol' fuss over something not even based in reality, then when it gets overblown and out of control they step back to craft a new "message" and try to change their tune. Like we're going to forget or something.

Last I checked, I don't know a Republican who's done that. I'm sure they have, though - nobody (not even Conservababes!) is perfect. But I certainly don't remember it being so laughably obvious. So transparently silly. Ridiculous, even.

Okay.
I'll find something else to post about.
I hope.

The "Fitness Nazi" drafts another follower...

Just kidding. But how cool is this? Lance Armstrong and Dubya cycling around Texas? Can't wait to hear how Bush does compared to a much-younger Lance.

I have to admit, I had a very bad - albeit very uninformed, I'll admit - opinion of Mr. Armstrong after he dumped his wife who nursed him through his cancer for the Queen Moonbat herself, Sheryl Crow. But him riding with Dubya for some reason has raised my opinion of him.

Apparently I'm much more ambivalent of "celebrities" than I am about Democrats in general, if all it takes is a bike ride to elevate my opinion of them...

Howie "The Scream" Dean flaps his trap again. Yeeaarrgh!

From Captain's Quarters...apparently "Mad How" (ha!) has decreed that women in Iraq will be worse off under a democracy than they were under Saddam Hussein.

*blink*

Huh? Does he realize he's talking out LOUD?

First, find a jerk.

Then do nothing whatsoever to detract from their jerkiness. They will then be shown to be a jerk without you doing anything. (The ConservaMom's wisdom - can't take credit) This is something Dubya does SO well.

(the "jerk" in this scenario would be Cindy Sheehan - the idiot "protestor" who is basically a mouthpiece for the loony leftards)

As an update to this story I posted yesterday - read what Michelle Malkin and others have to say about a Newsweek article - yes, Newsweek - almost praising Bush for his compassion toward families who have lost loved ones in the WOT.

I'm still in shock.

UPDATE: LaShawn Barber disagrees with the criticism being heaped on Ms. Sheehan.

I’m appalled by the blog swarm surrounding Sheehan. The left is using her plight to espouse more anti-Bush rhetoric, and the right is demonizing a woman grieving over the loss of her child.

How do you all feel about it? Her commentors seem to be split about 90/10 against this woman who (in my opinion) is using the death of her son, which is tragic, to spit venom at Bush regarding the war in general. Also her talking about impeachment and refusing to pay taxes? How is this honoring her son's memory and sacrifice?

UPDATE II:
"Lying bastard", "Filth spewer and warmonger", "evil maniac" (via Lucianne) and this is just what she said about Bush. Are these the words of a grieving mother? The words of a grieving mother who "wants answers" about the death of her son? Who just wants to meet with Bush to get some answers?

Or are they the words of an angry hate-spewing left-wing moonbat lunatic who is basking in her 15 minutes of fame? You be the judge. I couldn't read the whole rant of hers, as it made me sick to my stomach. I love LaShawn Barber's blog, but I whole-heartedly disagree with her on this one.

Another Update:
Red Hot Cuppa Politics (heh. Love that name.) has a good rundown of the facts. Put in a nicely non-hysterical format. Well done.

Yet another:
There's stuff all over the place today about this Cindy Sheehan person, and while I'm a bit exasperated that she's even getting ANY attention at ALL, this little gem from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is worth reading. But - don't be drinking anything when you read this or it will end up sprayed all over your keyboard. (Rated "R" for language - ya'll were warned)

A bit of cat blogging...

Isaac has strong opinions about liberals, too. He just wanted to contribute. (that's his "SHUT the heck UP already and feed me" face)

Besides, if Lawrence Simon (invading IMAO) can do it, so can I.

Happy Sunday, ya'll.

WHY??

Why in the name of all that's holy and sacred on this planet is this moron getting ANY media coverage at all? Why. Somebody please tell me.

She's...threatening to impeach Dubya if he goes after her for taxes she's refusing to pay in the year her son was killed in action? Her and what army, exactly?

I hope Dubya is sitting at his ranch laughing until his sides cramp over this mental midget. Seriously.

UPDATE:
Yeah, okay, so Dubya has way more class than to snicker and make fun of this asshat. He says:

"Our nation grieves the death of every man and woman we lose in combat, and our
hearts go out to the loved ones who mourn them," he said. "Yet, even in our grief, we can be confident in the future, because the darkness of tyranny is no match for the shining power of freedom. The terrorists cannot defeat us on the battlefield. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve," he said. "That will not happen on my watch."

That includes whining, ignorant fools "protesting" outside of his ranch. Got it, lady? The President isn't about to capitulate to a group of insipid, screeching moonbats. Besides which - your son died giving Iraq and Afghanistan freedom.

Read Iraq the Model:

"We cried out of joy the day your son and his comrades freed us from the hands
of the devil and we went to the streets not believing that the nightmare is
over."

If you HAVE a conscience, this letter, addressed to YOU by an honest-to-goodness Iraqi, should give you pause. You're making a mockery of your son's memory.

UPDATE II:
The Skipper over at Barking Moonbat has a great synopsis of all this lunacy. Go read it! :)

comments

Wow --I really liked the responses we've had so far on "the new racism" column. It's definately an issue that people feel strongly about and needs to be addressed by our politicians --in a new method! That was part of the point I was trying to make about affirmative action --it was necessary 30 years ago, but times are quite different now, and our laws should be updated to reflect the reality of today, which thankfully for everyone, is a lot better in this regard than it's ever been before. Of course the other point of my last post was that the new hate is now coming from people like Harry Belafonte... And hate has never gotten us anywhere.

So I am going to reply to Dell Gines' comments...

I am new here so I will be gentle. You are correct most blacks were Republican until Roosevelt came along with the 'New Deal' in the 40's. At that point a wholesale shift towards the Democratic party occurred amongst blacks. The Republicans did nothing to win this constituency back. Similar to today, the Republicans demonstrate at best passive desire to acquire the black vote, and at worst no desire at all. So let me ask you this, should anyone vote for any party Democrat or Republican that doesn't actively solicit their vote?

(Before I comment any further --YES, it is always important to vote! Even if you aren't entirely happy with how they are going about (or not going about) trying to win your vote. The country moves on --we fight wars, make laws, etc., and you should want to have a say in that. Be outspoken in your criticism, yes, but by God, anyone's better than a liberal!)

OK, here goes: yes, it's clear this wholesale shift has occured, but what's still not clear is why.

If anyone has lots of time and wants to read this very interesting history of how the '64 Civil Rights Act came to be passed, click here

A little statistic mentioned in the article that refutes what you say about Republicans doing nothing for African Americans after the New Deal (which, incidentally, was in the mid-late 1930s):

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

Yes, this is history. But as far as I know, everything led up the this '64 civil rights act. Once passed and enforced, the course for change was set in motion. I'd be interested in hearing one thing the Dems have done since '64 to help African Americans? (not talk, action)

what have democrats really done? I hear a lot of rhetoric about how they are "for" the African Americans and help them, etc. but they are very short on specifics. Meanwhile, they are constantly attacking Republicans for being racist or wanting to actually take away rights.. And for some reason, these baseless claims and accusations are believed!

You make some good points about history, however they are just that, history. Until the Republican party is serious about acquiring the black vote and begins doing the grass roots things necessary to acquire it, you will always have democratic elitist like Harry Belafonte, and others whose voice is louder than yours. Whose fault is that? I was told once if you want something bad enough you will work to get it, and the Republicans obviously don't want the black vote bad enough because they do virtually nothing to acquire it.

(Side note: You are wrong on why blacks considered Clinton the first black president)

I'd like to point out here that I never said that quote was why blacks considered Clinton the first black president. I was drawing attention to that one particular statement, which was the first instance that anyone put it into words that Clinton was "the first black president." And I'll apologize that I didn't' have the quote exactly right --I think I've heard it discussed and distorted too many times on talk radio. It was African American novelist Toni Morrison who first wrote:

She said Bill Clinton was "the first Black president" because "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."

Not exactly what I said, but I still don't think this is a very positive image... nor do I think it qualifies Clinton as "black." (I would be very interested to hear the real reason why African Americans consider him the first black president)

Secondly, Condi isn't a demonstration of why 'welfare, socialist, liberal policies don't work'. Also, Affirmative action had very little composite positive effect on the national black demographic, so how was it a 'good thing' then but not a 'good thing' now, when it did nothing materially (at least in the corporate world) blacks positions?

I still hold to what I said about Condi, and you could find many, many more successful African Americans to use in place of her. She didn't get into college or get a job because of the color of her skin. I simply think people should be hired on merit, that's it. And I said it was a good thing then b/c companies were blatantly discrimminating in hiring practices; I don't think that's the case now. I think companies, universities, etc. are proud of having a diverse mix of employees, students, etc. Attitudes have changed in the last 30 years. People should be hired on merit, not because of anything else.

What I meant about "welfare, socialist liberal policies" not working is this: people will not reach success if things are handed to them. They have to work for them. Socialists believe everyone should be entitled to a job. The government should gaurantee people jobs. Can you imagine how our economy would crumble? I don't think I'd put quite so much into my job if I had no fear of losing it... People wouldn't work as hard, productivity would go down, etc. Then there's welfare --welfare is good if you just lost your job and need some assistance until you find a new job. But if you abuse it and are enabled to live your whole life on welfare, you won't be very motivated to get out and work hard to improve, rather than maintain, your lot. (consequently, I don't think welfare or socialism have anything to do with Affirmative Action, other than that the same liberals who like welfare and socialism claim Affirmative Action is always necessary because those it helps could never have succeeded without it.)

You make the common logical fallacy in regard to so-called 'handouts'. (by the way, what are these handouts you speak of).

Here is your argument -

Condi is black
Condi is became a successful black without handouts
Therefore all blacks can be successful without handouts

Lets change it a little bit

Michael Jordan is black
Michael Jordan became a successful basketball player without 'handouts'
Therefore all blacks can be successful basketball players without handouts

No! That was not the base of my argument. You're talking like a socialist! That's not the point of our great, capitalistic country. "All" African Americans will never become super successful. Just like "All" whites or "All" Asians or "All" of any group will never reach an equal level of success! As I've stated (including in the original post) --it was a combination of Condi's talent and hard work. Every person is not equal. Talents very. Motivation varies. Yes, backgrounds vary, too. But in America the poorest orphan can become a millionaire through talent/hard work.

If you want ALL people to be equal, then move to China. It is not possible for all people to be equally successful in a capitalistic democracy. Socialism might sound good to say everyone's "equal," but they're typically equally poor. I'd rather be given the CHANCE to make it, then be forced into equal modest/poor conditions with everyone else.

So I oppose affirmative action because you are giving one group an advantage over another. (should we start an employment quota for short white people in the NBA? How about fat people as fitness trainers --it's not fair to only hire people who are in shape. What about retarded people as accountants? The answer is no --people should be hired for their merits and talents, not for any other reason!) Smart, talented, hard-working African Americans will make it with or without affirmative action. (like Condi; like anyone!).

The second argument is the same in principle and it has the same flaw as yours why? Because it uses handouts or lack thereof as the primary principle by which someone may or may not success. That is your argumentation fulcrum if you will, that which it turns on.

But your argument doesn't do a few things. I doesn't look at 'group' disparity which is the key stat. Even during the period of slavery you had so-called 'successful' blacks. By you argument, slavery & Jim Crow shouldn't have been abolished because there were some successful blacks during that time. Secondly, you argument doesn't take into account macro and micro environmental factors that influence the black/white disparity that we see in this nation. If there is a gap in all meaningful social and economic statistics between blacks and whites, logic dictates there must be a reason why.

So in other words, the 'because Condi did it, it is proof' is not a rational or logical argument.

This is so out of line! Not the point of my argument at all. I think my responses here should clear that up. And yes, there are factors between the disparity. And we need to examine them realistically. It used to be discrimmination and prejudice. But there are other reasons now that need to be seriously examined and discussed.

I would be interested in your thoughts about this disperity and to hear how you think Republicans should speak to African Americans. Because you're definately right about that --the GOP have great , American values that can help everyone in this country, but they are not getting their message out to African American voters.

Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission

From what I've read today, this (via Powerline) is shaping up to be THE big new story of the summer. I wasn't getting too whipped up about it because I was sure it's another one of those things, like the Swift Boat Vet's bombshells back in '04, that will get buried and forgotten about. So what's the point, right?

But then I remembered the Dan Rather swarm about the forged documents and how bloggers were instrumental in bringing that out in the open. And I'll bet a lot of money that if it weren't for the bloggers, John Kerry would have gotten away with a LOT more than he did. The Air America scandal is being kept alive even though the MSM refuses to talk about it.

So. With that in mind, I present to you a primer on this latest "scandal" being brought to light. And when you read comments like "...searching the National Archives for documents pertaining to Able Danger..." remember Sandy Berger. Wonder if what they're looking for (proof that the Clinton Administration was warned by Able Danger about Mohammed Atta and did nothing) is in one of his socks.

Important PSA announcement!

If you're planning to visit New Fallujah for the Superbowl...don't say you weren't warned.

Detroit driving tips for Super Bowl guests
1. First, you must learn to pronounce the city name. It's Di-troit. NOT DEE-troit. If you pronounce it DEE-Troit then we will assume you are from Toledo and here for the country Music hoe-down.

2. Forget the traffic rules you learned elsewhere. Detroit has its own version of traffic rules... Hold on and pray!

3. The morning rush hour is from 6:00am to 10:00am. The evening rush hour is from 3:00pm to 7:00pm. Friday's rush hour starts Thursday morning. Weekends are open game.

4. If you actually stop at a yellow light, you will be rear-ended, cussed out and possibly shot. If you're first off the starting line when the light turns green, count to five before going. This will avoid getting in the way of cross-traffic who just ran their yellow light to keep from getting shot.

5. Schoenherr can ONLY be properly pronounced by a native of the Detroit metro area. That goes for Gratiot too. Schoenherr is pronounced CHAY NER.Gratiot is pronounced, GRASH IT.

6. Construction and renovation on I-94, I-96, I-75,I-275, I-375, The Lodge and Southfield freeways are a way of life. Just deal with it. There are two seasons in Detroit. Winter and construction.

7. If someone actually has their turn signal on, it is probably a factory defect or they are "out-of-towners."

8. All old men with white hair wearing a hat have total right-of-way.

9. The minimum acceptable speed on I-696 is 85 regardless of the posted speeds. Anything less is considered downright SISSY. Oh, and don't even think of allowing more than one car length between cars!

10. That attractive wrought iron on the windows and doors in Detroit is NOT ornamental. DO NOT get out of your car.

11. Never stare at the driver of the car with the bumper sticker that says "Keep honking, I'm reloading."

12. If you are in the left lane, and only going 70 in a 60 mph zone, people are not waving because they are so friendly in Detroit. I would suggest you duck.

13. I-275/I-696 is our daily version of NASCAR.

14. It's not M-10, it's "the Lodge".

15. That's not a lake, it's a pothole.

16. If someone tells you it's on Outer Drive, you better hope you have a map.

17. The left turn is simple. If you want to turn left,go a 1/4 of a mile past your turn, get to the left, then make a left, then make a right. NOW you have gone left.

[the Patriotette is sick of politics today...]

Oh, AND:
15 mile turns into Maple.
16 mile turns into Big Beaver (exit 69 off I-75...snicker) and then into Metro Parkway somewhere along the way.
17 mile turns into Wattles
18 turns into Long Lake
20 turns into Hall Road and then M-59

Main street starts as "Main Street" and turns into Livernois for no apparent reason.
If someone tells you to take "75 South to Detroit" make sure you merge onto 375 or you'll end up in Toledo.

We speak our own language here...

Say it ain't so!

OK, I found this article about the "most liberal city" in America to be most disturbing. And also misleading. They based this completely on voting records --Democrat v. Republican. Well, statistically, Detroit is 90+% African American and I think Republicans gained ground by getting 9% of the African American vote in the last presidential election.

But as someone who grew up near the D, I can tell you the ideas of people here are IN NO WAY as outlandishly left and whacky as they are in, say, Massachusetts or Cal-y-fornia.

You wouldn't find judges in the D legalizing gay marriage. You won't find many vegans in the D, either. (or even vegitarians) And we really, really like our SUVs here. The more gas they guzzle, the better. There are a lot of church-goers in the D (and we know how liberals like to scorn Christians).

It's simply the effects of race/class warfare the Democrats have used to persuade so many African Americans to vote for them b/c Republicans are evil racists. (Read entry below: the new racists)

the new racists

In a time when our country should be coming together in a fight against terroism and --well, who isn't sick of the extreme partisan hatred out there??-- the Democrats continue to wage class and race warfare. Apparently, this is one of the only ways they can get votes. (That and calling Republicans lots of nasty names and accusing them of lying, conspiring with Karl Rove, etc.)

The Belafonte comment comparing black Republicans to Nazi Jews (as in --Hitler's regime had Jewish people --which I believe Jewish groups have now completely denounced as false), and stating the black republicans are "tyrants" really pushed me over the limit in what has been a stressful week in many other respects. It's not the first time an African American celebrity has made similar comments, and I can't think why I'm surprised that the likes of Nancy Pelosi and others were at this rally and had no problem associating themselves with a man who would say such things.

OK, let's take a step back and review our history:

-Abraham Lincoln --you know, the man who led our country through a civil war that set the slaves free-- was a REPUBLICAN

-When African Americans were voting and holding elected office after the war, they were voting for REPUBLICANS

-After Reconstruction ended and Union troops left the south, the KKK attacks, the segregation, Jim Crowe laws, and the atrocities committed there against African Americans --these people were DEMOCRATS

-The south continued to vote DEMOCRAT for 100 years after the Civil War!

-Condoleeza Rice grew up in the south when they still had seperate drinking fountains, bathrooms, sections of the bus, etc. Some of her childhood friends were killed by racists in that famous school bombing. (or was it a church --I need to read up on that)

-When Condoleeza's dad went to vote for a DEMOCRAT in the south, her dad was turned away from the polls because of his skin color. She claims he has been a Republican ever since.

-The 1960s Civil Rights legislation was pushed through by REPUBLICANS in Congress; Congressional DEMOCRATS opposed it

-The DEMOCRATS are the only party to have a former KKK member in the Senate --in fact, he used to be their Senate Majority Leader (Robert "Sheets" Byrd, D-WV)

-African Americans (along with ALL Americans, as it should be) are enjoying the highest rates of home ownership ever --under a REPUBLICAN president (George W. Bush)

So, um, when did the Democrats convince African Americans in this country that Republicans are the racist party? And any African American who happens to be a conservative is a "tyrant?"

Maybe they don't like Condi because she is proof positive that all of their welfare, socialist, liberal policies don't work!

Did Condi ever need handouts? Did she need affirmative action to get into college (um, when she was 16) or to get a job? Condoleeza Rice is a brilliant, classy role model for ANYONE. Not just African Americans. Isn't that what equality is all about? About skin color, race, religion, etc. not mattering? She is our secretary of state --the face and representative of the Unites States to the world, and I couldn't think of anyone I'd rather have in that position right now.

So let's compare Condi to a politician Belafonte and all the other African American libs out there admired: Bill Clinton. A black woman once declared that Bill Clinton was "the first black president." Her reasons for making this statement? He had smoked weed (but didn't inhale, remember), had extra-marital affairs, and loved fast food. Now, if any white person had made that statement, can you imagine the outcry of racism that would have ensued? Is that really what Belafonte's crowd thinks are the defining characteristics of African Americans? Now compare that to Condoleeza Rice, who is African American, and achieved her success as all Americans are supposed to --through her natural gifts and a lot of hard work.

Affirmative action, like unions, were necessary, good programs at first that have by now outrun their usefullness. No one should be given a job or accepted to college because of the color of their skin or any other such arbitrary reason --that, to me, is racism. But of course, any conservative who opposes affirmative action is labled a "racist." And I don't know that Condi's spoken out on the matter, but her conservative, American ideals and beliefs of self-reliance and personal accountability would indicate that she agrees.

Well, I say that Belafonte, Pelosi, and every Democrat who still thinks that African Americans need special handouts or government programs to succeed in this country are the real racists out there.

And it's time for this to stop! It's time for the Democrats to stop propegating racial warfare. You should belong to a political party because you share their core beliefs and values, not because of the color of your skin. And it's about time the new racists out there stopped these outlandish attacks and refocused on what's good for our country.

Update: LaShawn Barber kindly requested that posts "of interest" be trackbacked to her - so of course we must oblige! :)

The "myth" of the "nice guy"?

Okay, politics aside here for a moment.

I stumbled on this article at the Conservative Grapevine just now and thought it was interesting enough - and off-topic enough - to post. I've had many conversations with people (male and female) recently about "nice" guys and "nice" girls and what they're all about - and mostly where they ARE, dammit. :)

Anyway, I wrote an entire dissertation on the topic, but deleted it because the article I linked to pretty much opened that can o' worms pretty thoroughly. Enjoy!

Would love your comments if you feel like sharing your thoughts on the topic...

Maybe it's just me.

After yesterday's post about Mick Jagger, Harry Belafonte, Stevie Wonder...it seems that the libs are ratcheting up their whining about...nothing. Are they bored? We've read stories about them criticizing Dubya about working out. Now they're writing snarky columns about Dubya's APPEARANCE. (via RightThinkingGirl) His appearance?

(oh, and if you read the last part from the above link, Dubya must use steroids since he "values muscle". Guess yours truly, the Patriotette is using steroids too, because I'm trying like heck to build muscle too...)

In the meantime, Air America is stealing from poor kids and you don't hear a peep. The Oil for Food scandal is getting good (registration req.), finally - and you don't hear a word.

But holy mackerel, ya'll. George W. Bush doesn't have a good body. (??) I'm sure Laura would heartily disagree, though. I personally don't spend valuable thinking time considering what my President's body looks like, though. Just sayin'.

Totally unrelated to...well...anything at all.

They put stuff. on cats. and take pictures.

Don't ask.

Has beens on parade...

When will these has-been "celebrities" wake up and realize that we don't give a royal rat's a** what they think? Maybe it makes them feel better to "vent" or voice their ignorant opinions to an audience or something. Who knows what goes through their privileged, drug-addled brains.

(we can add Harry Belafonte, too, which is disappointing on many levels.)
(Michelle Malkin adds to the list of morons on parade...)

When I saw this on Drudge this morning I cracked up. This skanky old man thinks we care - or better yet think Dubya or Condi care - what he's squawking about? (I've never been a Stones fan - my apologies to anyone out there who is/was...)

My favorite part:

I feel very much at home in America. I've spent half my adult life here. I have many personal feelings. But I'm from the school that considers it impolite to comment on other people's elections. Now if I had the vote - and I should have, as I pay so much in taxes - I would have a lot to say."

Awww. He has "many personal feelings". Good for him.

Oh, and Mick? You disgusting, wrinkled, drug-distorted usta-be? You DON'T have a vote. So shut it. Play your "music" for those that still think you can sing. But as for your opinions? Please try to have more respect for the platform you have than you had for your poor brain cells. We're all entitled to our opinions, no matter how misguided - but most people aren't idolized by millions of people. Please learn the difference.

p.s. the term "Neo-Con"?:

"...the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy. The term is also used to describe those who are accused of adopting a "unilateral" foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations consensus and actions."

"neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom."

So. Mick. What's your point? I mean you call us "Neocons" like it's a bad thing...

There's Moonbats and then there's Quislings...

What's a Quisling, you ask?

heh.

Could you blame him?

As if being at the Communist News Network wasn't rough enough, poor Bob Novak has to compete to be heard over the Ragin' Cajun? Can you think of anyone more annoying than James Carville?

That's the Democrat strategy-- keep rambling, increasing the volume of your voice, interrupting when necessary (assuming you paused to draw breath at all) so that your counterpoint's views cannot be heard.

Who could blame the poor guy for swearing?

Background checks from the Times???

That is the height of hypocrisy! Why don't they start off by doing background checks on their OWN reporters???

(Anyone remember Jayson Blair?)

It's incredibly obvious to anyone not wearing blinders that the Times is one of the most biased newspapers in this country. People who still read the Times are apparently doing it for entertainment purposes or because they're willfully ignorant, or maybe just afraid of those funny little things we on the Right like to call "facts."

But this background check into the adoption records is just about as low as they can get. Let's hope their subscription dwindles so far (as it's on track to...) that they're forced to declare bankruptcy. Then maybe Rupert Murdoch can buy them and straighten them out...

The New York Times is having a very productive Thursday.

I was working myself up into quite a lather about this Drudge report story about the New York Times deciding that they need to dig into the adoption records of John Roberts' kids, but Hugh Hewitt did it for me. (this post is a must-read!) I couldn't have said it better. And that's the understatement of the decade.

Let me get this straight. It's all part of the NYT's "background checks". Right? Wait. They DO background checks? They know what the word "check" even means? Oh, hang on. I get it. They do "background checks" on Republicans. On Decent People. (don't want to contradict myself by assigning John Roberts a partisan moniker here) Where were there infamous "background checks" when John F'n Kerry was running amok during the 2004 elections telling one whopper after another and he got a free pass? How about when Sandy Berger was stealing documents and stuffing them in his socks? Chappaquiddik anyone? Bill Clinton? Silence from the NYT.

But gee whiz, when the President may or may not have been AWOL, they drool all over themselves to make up something resembling a story and scream about it from the rooftops. Or if Karl Rove may or may not have been involved in outing a CIA agent *snicker* they get all in a lather and can't wait to trot out their made-up make believe garbage and treat it like "facts". That were "checked". "Thoroughly".

The most frustrating thing is I keep wondering if people believe this crap. I mean, there are still people out there that think if it's in the NYT, it's gotta be true. I hope to God that those numbers are dwindling. I truly do. And I pray that perhaps in my lifetime I will get to see rags like the NYT, The Washington Times, The SF Gate, and others go bankrupt. I truly do.

Anyway. Enough. I'm off on vacation now 'till Tuesday. The Sage will be sure to post her Sagely thoughts as the news unfolds.

Have a great weekend ya'll!
:)

Jane Fonda's welcoming comittee

Heh.

New York Times at it again.

Hello BMEWS readers - and thank you Skipper for the linky love! :) We're honored. Truly.

Whatever.

War on Terror, "War on really mean people who hate us", "Conflict with Extremists", "Misunderstanding with misguided Islamic wierdos"...whatever! It's a war. We're at war. The President has SAID we're "at war" since 9/11/01. We're "at war" with terrorists that want to kill us. I don't understand what all the debates on semantics are for.

It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy.

Yeah, because Bush makes a habit of reversing himself. These libs need to look up the definition of the term "projection".

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Mr. Bush said in his address here, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."

Mr. Bush made a nod to the criticism that "war on terror" was a misleading phrase in the sense that the enemy is not terrorism, but those who used it to achieve their goals. In doing so, he used the word "war," as he did at least 13 other times in his 47-minute speech, most of which was about domestic policy.

"Make no mistake about it, this is a war against people who profess an ideology, and they use terror as a means to achieve their objectives," he said.

Whoa. Wait a minute. "made a nod"? "the enemy is not terrorism but those who used it to acheive their goals"? Huh? Are we splitting hairs now just to sound analytical?

Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on July 18 in an address to the National Press Club that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

General Myers said then that the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Not "violent extremists". Terrorists. Murdering f*ckheads who want us dead. Say it with me. We are at war with murding f*ckheads that want to kill us. What. Are we trying to soften the rhetoric, General? And what the hell purpose will that serve? People in uniform, our brave soldiers, ARE the solution. They are doing their job and dying doing it. We proved that sanctions and "time outs" for vicious dictators doesn't work. Like Bush said, "hunt them down and kill them where they hide".

Enough of this namby-pamby crap.

"Some ask, are we still engaged in a war on terror?" Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no mistake about it. It's a war. The president properly termed it that after Sept. 11. The only way to defend against terrorism is to go on the attack"

That's what I'm sayin'. Enough with the semantics.

General Myers and Rumsfield can try to call it whatever they want, but Dubya has made it clear. It's a War on Terror. Now if we could please start FIGHTING this war, without the weenie libs wailing every time we kill or capture a terrorist, we'd be making progress.

p.s. I just love the comments about this article at Lucianne. :)

Thoughts on John Bolton's recess appointment.

Blogs for Bush has two terrific posts about the Democrat's whining and fussing about Dubya appointing John Bolton. They're both pretty long, but very much worth the read.

"A Painful Lesson for Democrats"

and

"Ambassador John Bolton" (includes a roundup from other bloggers)

Geez, between John Roberts, John Bolton, and Dubya's Fanatical Fitness Fixation - I'm gonna go buy stock in Valium. The Democrats have got to be about ready to blow by now. And still our President keeps his class, his style, and his integrity. Which I'm sure infuriates them all the more. Any wonder why I love that man? :)

It's Karl Rove's fault.

The Evil Genius is at it again.
Bravo, Evil Genius. Bravo.

(via Lucianne.com)

Judicial priorities

Here's a good little editorial regarding Judge Roberts. It makes a good point in that the role of a supreme court judge is not to be a partisian. Whether you are pro life or pro choice, why do you want a justice proclaiming his stance on Roe v. Wade before taking the bench? Wouldn't that mean he had an agenda? Supreme Court justices are not supposed to have agendas! They are supposed to strictly interpret the constitution. That is their role. They are not, as many Democratic politicians have proclaimed in the news, supposed to "make law." They are supposed to interpret whether or not laws are constitutional.

The supreme court has been leaning toward activism for awhile now and this needs to stop. President Bush has been speaking out against activist judges since he took office. Have you ever known Dubya to change his mind about something he feels so strongly about? I haven't. And because of it, I have every confidence that Roberts will be a step in the right direction --a strict constitutionalist who will interpret, not try to make, law.

And to all you fellow conservatives worried about a Souter style flip flop once Roberts is on the bench, I ask you to remember --Dubya is NOT his father. Have a little faith.

Fox and Friends made a funny...

So I was minding my own business, drinking my coffee and wrestling with my hair that refuses to do anything when it's hot and humid, and on comes Fox and Friends, starting a discussion about the Democrats attacking Dubya for the high crime of being the healthiest President in history. I rolled my eyes and continued the losing battle with my humidity-induced 'fro.

It was when they quoted from the article we posted yesterday that I dropped my brush and cracked up. In the article they talked about how obesity in children is at an all time high and yadda yadda. (as if that's Dubya's fault too?) The funny part was, they said "shouldn't we be happy and pleased that our President is such a good role model? I mean, he's healthy, he works out. Good role model. Now let's look at Senator Kennedy:




That's not a good role model. I saw a photo of the Senator without his shirt on and I was temporarily blinded. Not good". They went on to talk about Clinton and his penchant for McDonald's - and how nobody. NOBODY made fun of his weight. NOBODY talked about how he's such a bad role model by promoting eating McDonald's.

It's stopped being infuriating and it's just funny now.



Speaking of which, later on as I was giving up the fight and leaving for work, they were showing a TV ad for "Hillary Now_dot_com". It just gets better and better.

Happy Wednesday, ya'll!

p.s. hee.
p.p.s. Scrappleface reports: Bush orders Congressional Fitness progam...

More about John Bolton.

Well, here we go. The Democrats, ever the revisionists, are still asking where he stands on issues, and what his judicial philosophies are. Baseball, people. Baseball.

Roberts provided responses to a broad array of questions involving work history, political ties and views on judicial activism. His thoughts on that subject are considered critical to gauging his position on overturning the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

"Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system," Roberts wrote. "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

He has already stated that Roe v. Wade is the "settled law of the land". See, when Republicans (or men/women of character...same thing) say something once, they mean it. Democrats aren't used to that kind of mindset, so when Mr. Roberts says "Roe V. Wade is the settled law of the land", unlike Democrats, he's not going to wake up one morning and change his mind. Drop it, people. He's said his peace. He means it.

Now, shouldn't you Democrats be berating Dubya for being so darn healthy or something? THERE'S a real issue for ya'll.

"Outbreak" in Iraq.

Sounds eerily like the "nonexistent" WMDs we've heard so much about. At least that's the first thought that popped into my head when I read this article. (Acinetobacter was also the "second most common pathogen in Vietnam".)

However:
"The Acinetobacter was found by Scott in the soil in Iraq. And it has turned up in both native Iraqi's [sic] and in patients treated there for a long time. Scott's study had limitations, but there is a long history of Acinetobacter infections in the Middle East." So perhaps I should remove my borrowed tinfoil hat? 'Course how "long" is this "long history"? As long as Saddam's been developing WMDs? Is it possible that this is the result of him "disposing" of these WMDs? Did he "dispose" of them in the soil and therefore cause "a long history of Acinetobacter infections"?

Lots of questions. I wonder if we'll hear any more about this in the media.

Thanks to the ConservaDad for sending this along. :)

Update: nevermind?
From a quick Google search:
"A. baumannii are a species of gram-negative bacteria commonly found in water and soil. During 1963--2003, A. baumannii became an increasingly important cause of nosocomial infections, particularly in ICUs"

But this makes it sound like there was a spike in infections especially in 2003-2004. (104 during that time, and ONE case during 2000--2002 at LRMC; TWO cases during 2001--2002 at WRAMC)

Hm. Anyone have any thoughts?

The Island - a Pro-life movie?

*gasp*

The Island (rated PG-13 for sensuality and intense violence) might change some minds. Whether its message comes from the views of the filmmakers—the action-movie director Michael Bay and writer Caspian Tredwell-Owen—or whether it just emerges logically from the movie's premise, The Island packs a powerful pro-life punch.

I can't believe it. You mean that someone (Dreamworks and Michael Bay) actually made a move that was pro-life? Of course they neglected to actually market it to their "target" audience - i.e. conservatives, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see it now. I mean, I love Bruckheimer/Bay movies (yeah, I know. Independence Day is my favorite movie. Don't judge a babe a few guilty pleasures now and then. Besides, don't even TRY telling me you don't watch Desperate Housewives.), and here's one with an actual message. Amazing.

Could it be that Hollywood might be getting the message? Or are they still too invested in convincing us conservatives that we're a) in the minority and b) all a bunch of back-woods, backwards-thinking, archaic minded, unenlightened slobs?

Getting whinier and whinier by the day...

More today on this newly minted "much ado about absolutely nothing"...the "nothing" being that President Bush is the most physically fit President in history. He just had a stellar physical. But instead of being happy that our President makes fitness a priority, the dems instead decide to screech, caterwaul and freak out about it.

Update: I couldn't have said it better myself.

Update II: Here's something I didn't know they had a NAME for. Uh, speaking of "fitness". Or the lack thereof. (via Michelle Malkin)

Tuesday funnies...

har.

Impromptu cat performance.

NOBODY or NOTHING touches this dog's bone. (first post)

More pot calling kettle...treasonous??

Are you KIDDING ME?

"Karl Rove: The Voice of Treason"? Guess they should know. Psychologists would call this "projection", wouldn't they?

Let's see. Who would make a better "Voice of Treason".
1. Jane Fonda
2. Dick Durbin
3. Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy
4. Joe Biden
5. Sean Penn
6. Tim Robbins
7. Moveon.org
8. Michael Moore
9. John Kerry
10. Joe Wilson

I could go on and on and on...but 10 seemed like a nice, round number.

Between Moveon.org calling Karl Rove "treasonous" and Sandy Berger telling the White House that THEY are lax on "security"? What's next? Ted Kennedy complaining about the use of water "torture" at Abu Ghraib? Oh. Wait. He *did*, didn't he.

You just can't make this stuff up.

12 least favorite Republicans?

Who are your 12 least favorite Republicans? I can start the list with John McCain, and I'm not a big fan of Bill O'Reilly...but I pretty much run out of ideas there. How 'bout you?

At Right Wing News, Ann Coulter (!!) rates high, as does Sean Hannity. Wuh? I personally think Ann rocks. And Sean? Love Sean. What's wrong with Republicans and strong, opinionated, sometimes offensive people?? While the libs need to take a valium with a tall, icy glass of STFU, the Republicans need to start learning a few things from people like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. And RUSH! Open your mouths, stand up for yourself, and start offending the oh, so politically correct democrats for once. Please. I'll wait here.

Happy Tuesday morning, ya'll.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Pot calling kettle lax on security.

Yeah.
This is priceless.

Joe Biden, World Leader?

At least Castro takes him seriously...(second item)

GUANTANAMO JOE

Maybe Sen. Joe Biden has some political sense, but his staff sure doesn't. Last week, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro gave a speech commemorating the 52nd anniversary of the assault on the "Moncada" and "Carlos Manuel de Cespedes" garrisons during the Marxist revolution. In the speech, which was largely a typical anti-American screed, Castro pounded away on the U.S. detention of terrorists in Guantanamo Bay:

"One of Bush's most cynical measures was to use the Guantanamo naval base, which the United States occupies illegally against our people's will, to set up a concentration camp where he locks up, without trial or any kind of legal process, those whom he kidnaps anywhere in the world. And to top it all, that prison was turned into an experimental center of torture, the same as those later applied in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

Later, Castro cited Biden to buttress his argument: "Democratic senator Joseph Biden, of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that the Guantanamo naval base had become the 'greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world.'"

No sooner was Castro's speech available online than Democratic Foreign Relations committee staffers were emailing it around, seemingly proud that Biden was being taken seriously as a world leader. [by CASTRO. Castro??? These people are idiots, I swear.]

"These are the same people who think John Bolton is a problem, and they think a Biden mention by Castro is a good thing," says a Republican staffer on the committee. "That's all you need to know."

Yes, indeedie. That's all you need to know. Al Jazeera has been using quotes from our lovely anti-American celebrities. Taking sound bytes from Democrats. Using them against us. Now Castro is finding friends and allies in our government.

Can someone PLEASE tell me again what the definition of "treason" is? Please. I want to know.

Jimmy Stewart - Secret FBI agent?

Note: to anyone who still thinks McCarthy was a bad, bad man and was a big meanyhead to all the poor, innocent Hollywood actors and actresses, please read Whittaker Chambers' book Witness. Or do a little research on how RIGHT McCarthy turned out to be. It's really interesting to find out how much of the "history" we've been taught all our lives is largely invented by the liberals...

Jimmy Stewart worked as a secret FBI agent! We always loved Jimmy Stewart.

(of course the article almost says it like it was a bad thing -- spying on commies! Are you kidding? Was the bio. "damning?" It's never been a big secret that Commiwood is full of, erm, communists - now it's full of treasonous morons. At least back then we were going after them...)