Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion 'violence never solves anything' is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay...They pay with their lives and their freedom. -- Starship Troopers
RWN will return on Monday -- with a Judge Charles Pickering interview. Until then, consider this an open thread, click on a few advertiser links if you're so inclined, and enjoy the links below.
* You can purchase a 468x60 banner ad on RWN for $60 a month. The banners appear on every page of RWN. If you're interested, send $60 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. There are 3 of these ads currently left.
-- A mini-meme that has begun developing is that, "Conservatives are taking a 2nd look at McCain." That seems extremely doubtful. As the Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (2006 Edition) poll showed, McCain is despised by much of the right side of the blogosphere and is even less popular than he was in 2005, so it's hard to see how he could be getting more popular with conservatives on the whole.
-- There are apparently a few people on the right concerned because Alito broke with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas in his first case. They shouldn't be. Although the conservatives on the court usually agree on the big issues, they don't always vote in lockstep. Plus, the reason Alito was such a great pick was because he had a long record that let conservatives know exactly where he stood. That's why there's no need to worry.
-- Sony has a kid's movie coming up later this year called Open Season which features a bunch of cutesy animals banding together to attack human hunters and drive them out of the forest. That may be the first children's movie ever where I'll be rooting for the protagonists to get shot and hung on someone's wall.
-- The Libby trial isn't going to start until January of 2007? Wow. Liberals have to be hating that because the mainstream media would have loved nothing better than to cover every detail of the trial so they could use it to smear Republicans all the way through the 2006 elections. Now that's off the table.
Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the publications as a "horrific action."
But in remarks posted on his Web site, al-Sistani referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community whose actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."
Understandably, he's not happy with the cartoons, but he is also ripping radical jihadis. Not bad!
-- One other thing about the Danish cartoons that people should keep in mind is that Muslims who are upset, unhappy, angry, and calling for boycotts over these cartoons are not bad people. Certainly those of us who are Christians sometimes do the same things when we get offended. The point of publishing these cartoons was to show the bad actors out there, the radical Islamists, that they can't intimidate the press with threats. As you follow this story, it's worth keeping that in mind so that Muslims -- who aren't acting much differently than we Christians would under similar circumstances -- don't get painted with the same brush as the thugs.
-- Hillary's stock has dropped enormously in the last year. A year ago, she probably had 80%+ chance of wrapping up the Democratic nomination in 2008. Now it seems like she's below 50% and still dropping. Just look at this poll at the very influential Daily Kos. Hillary is tied for 7th place with John Kerry and Bill Richardson at 3%. Granted, the views of that crowd aren't uniform across the Democratic Party, but there are a lot of grass roots libs who work on campaigns, donate money, and vote in the primaries whose opinion it does represent. Of course, most of them are a little kooky, too, but they still have pull and they don't like Hillary at all.
-- Speaking of Kos, isn't it a little ironic that John Kerry very publicly delinked the Daily Kos from his website when he was running for President because he thought it might lead to bad publicity, but now he's actually posting there? On second thought, isn't that actually typical of liberals? They move to the middle when they run for office and then when the election is over they slice way back to the left.
Just look at this hilariously over-the-top response:
"This is THE MILITARY DIRECTLY THREATENING A NEWSPAPER on behalf of the Republican Party. This is WAYYYY beyond unprecedented. This is past "find a safe refuge in Canada" time. This is a serious WATCH YOUR BACKS!!!!"
"WATCH YOUR BACKS", huh =D?
Well, for once, the libs were right because that was Dave's last post on Seeing the Forest. You see, shortly after that post was detected by a super secret NSA program designed to root out dissent, Dave was whisked off to Guantanamo Bay where he was stuck in a cell with 3 large, angry Jihadis responsible for a decapitation in Iraq. Unfortunately, mere hours later, the Jiahdis claimed Dave's constant cries of, "Save me, Howard Dean," constituted torture and in order to shut them up, Dave was moved into a cell with Barbra Streisand and Noam Chomsky.
Now, you might be surprised to know that Noam Chomsky and Streisand are both at Gitmo, but they were both rounded up as part of the new, "Freedom, Patriotism, Mother, and Apple Pie," Act which was passed in the dead of night, two days ago with 55 Republicans voting, "aye," and no Democrats present.
Under the, "Freedom, Patriotism, Mother, and Apple Pie," Act, all liberals are to be rounded up and tossed in "Freedom Camps" run by National Camp Director Ann Coulter. All liberals lucky enough to be sent away will be exposed to blaring videos featuring clips of Ronald Reagan speeches, Pat Robertson sermons, Patriotic Music, the Left Behind movies, and the Dr. Laura show until they become more of what we like to think of as, Freedomillicious!
Now some of you may be wondering why the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy waited this long to start rounding up liberals. Well, there were two reasons. We had to wait until the conservatives took over in Canada, so they could capture any liberals who fled there. Also, it took longer than expected to get lists of all the registered gun owners in America.
Oh, but why do we need the lists of registered gun owners? So we can arrest everybody else! Ok, that's an exaggeration, but it was a good starting point...well, at least that's what Emperor Bush said this morning after all the Republicans in Congress elected him dictator for life. Of course, the emperor gave a speech after his election and the highlight of it was that now that conservatives are in charge, there will be a few changes....particularly in geography, since we nuked Iran, Syria, North Korea, and France off the map this morning.
Make sure to tune into Fox -- which is on every station now -- for more details about this exciting new era of American liberty in between the liberal gladiator fights. What happens when we put Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, & Sean Penn in a room with 12 tigers we haven't fed in a week? Find out live at 8 PM tonight on Fox!
* Note that this post is satire, designed to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, as Rush might say. What I just described? It's probably not all that far from what liberals like Dave think conservatives would really like to do -- if we had the chance. Of course, that's not true at all (well, maybe the gladiators thing is a little true. I would pay good money to watch prominent liberals fight hungry tigers in a battle to the death ;)
West Bank Protest Delayed By Lengthy Search For Danish Flag To Burn -- Satire By Potfry
An angry protest in the West Bank over an unflattering cartoon of the prophet Mohammed was extensively delayed today when the angry mob realized they had no idea what the flag of Denmark looked like or where to find one.
Indeed, while flag burnings are as common as random gunfire in the West Bank, this marked the first burning of the Danish Flag, according to Qasim Batkela, a local historian who keeps copious documentation of all flag burnings, and presents a popular slide show each quarter to West Bank residents recapping the top burnings of the past few months.
Batkela realized he had his work cut out for him when he first heard about the cartoon.
“At first, we figured Denmark was a U.S. state,” he explained. “Then we found out it’s actually a country, with a flag and everything. We went down to Faruk’s Flammable Flags, and he had never heard of it. So we burned his evil store, praise be to Allah. Finally, Munsif Babar got through on his internet dial-up, and found the Danish flag. He got so angry at the sight of it that he set fire to his computer before we could print a copy, and we had to burn Munsif and his family as punishment, praise be to Allah. While many things were burning, the day was not going well.”
Finally, according to Batkela, a Danish flag was painted on a piece of cardboard and set afire, satiating the angry crowd.
Batkela watched the burning from afar, taking digital photos and making notes in a dog-eared notebook, and offering broader perspective on West Bank flag burnings.
“Israel and the United States are obviously our most popular, well-attended burnings,” explained Batkela. “We also have weekly burnings of the flag of Barbados because Abdul Shaneen went there for his honeymoon and lost his wallet. After that, strangely enough, we really like to burn the Swiss Flag, because it totally freaks out the Swiss if anyone is angry at them. Have you ever yelled ‘Death to Switzerland?’ Try it. The ironic juxtaposition is rich.”
But today’s flag burning marked a first for Denmark, a small nipple of a country whose major exports are lip-corroding chewing tobacco and Lars Ulrich of Megadeth. The country is best known for their Emmy-Award winning turn as a speed bump in World War II, when they set a record by surrendering to Germany in 3 hours and 12 minutes. After that, Denmark’s history is relatively quiet until Danish actress Brigitte Nielsen’s poignant 1985 portrayal of Ludmilla in Rocky IV. Indeed, the small, wet welfare state is not accustomed to the spotlight, but that all changed today.
This satire was used with the permission of RWN advertiser, Potfry.
While it should be a priority of the Republican Party to try to invite more black Americans in, it's a waste of time to try to reach out to black voters through the NAACP. In fact, the NAACP should be treated like persona non gratis by everyone in the GOP. That means Republicans shouldn't say anything nice about them, should frequently criticize them, shouldn't meet with them, and certainly shouldn't be willing to give speeches at their events.
If you don't buy that, just look at NAACP Chairman Julian Bond's latest comments:
"Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."
"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.
Calling President Bush a liar, Bond told the audience at the historically black institution that this White House's lies are more serious than the lies of his predecessor's because Clinton's lies didn't kill people.
"We now find ourselves refighting old battles we thought we had already won," he said. "We have to fight discrimination whenever it raises its ugly head."
He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft. He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban."
Let's call it like it is: Julian Bond is a crackpot and the NAACP is full of race hustling poverty pimps who are only still powerful and influential today, more than 30 years after their glory days have passed, because they help convince black voters to pull the lever en masse for white, liberal Democrats.
That's the unvarnished truth about the NAACP and more Republicans should be willing to say so.
Why It's Important To Post The Danish Muhammad Cartoons
Initially, I didn't intend to post any of the Danish cartoons that have started such an uproar with Muslims across the world. That's not because I was worried about some Jihadi wanting to saw off my head, but because I wanted to be respectful to Muslims. We Christians certainly get aggravated when we feel that people are taking shots at our faith and who could blame Muslims for feeling the same way?
However, the Radical Islamic thugs out there are really getting out of hand:
"Outrage over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad escalated in the Arab and Islamic world Thursday, with Palestinian gunmen briefly kidnapping a German citizen and protesters in Pakistan chanting "death to France" and "death to Denmark."
Palestinian militants surrounded European Union headquarters in Gaza, and gunmen burst into several hotels and apartments in the West Bank in search of foreigners to take hostage.
The protests spread to Indonesia on Friday, with Islamic hardliners barging into a building housing the Danish Embassy and burning the European country's flag. The Indonesian government had earlier condemned the drawings, as did Afghanistan."
Because of that, I think the need to stand up for free speech has become more important than the desire not to needlessly offend some people. With that in mind, here's my favorite out of all the Danish Cartoons:
If you're a Muslim and you don't like it, I understand, because I've been offended by Kayne West posing as Jesus, Mark Morford sneering at Christians with big families, and Tookie Williams being compared to Jesus among many other things.
But, being offended is part of the price you pay for living in a free society and it's vitally important that freedom be defended.
John Boehner Is The New Republican Majority Leader In The House
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio defeated Roy Blunt to replace Tom DeLay as the new Majority Leader in the House. Here are the details of how the vote broke down:
"Blunt's position in leadership had made him the front-runner, but he ended seven votes short of the necessary majority on a first-round secret ballot. He had 110 votes and Boehner had 79. Shadegg received 40 and Rep. Jim Ryun of Kansas, who was not an announced candidate, got two votes.
After Shadegg and Ryun dropped out, Boehner won his second-ballot victory."
Shadegg was the biggest reformer, which led to his getting enormous support in the blogosphere and from conservatives online. Unfortunately, Shadegg got in the race late, after a lot of congressmen had already made commitments to Boehner or Blunt and in the end, that may have been what kept him from winning.
On the other hand, even though Shadegg lost, he can still hold his head high. Like Mike Pence before him, he has now built a name for himself as a principled conservative and more importantly, he made a big difference in this race. Not only did his candidacy undoubtedly force both Boehner and Blunt to promise more ethics and spending reforms than they initially intended, had Shadegg not gotten into the race, turned the whole thing into a "reform-off," and peeled off those 40 votes, Blunt would have likely won in a walk on the first ballot.
As for Boehner, he was the middle-of-the-road guy. He didn't get the rock star's welcome that Shadegg did, nor was written off as a "more-of-the-same" candidate like Blunt. While personally I endorsed Shadegg and would have strongly preferred him as the new Majority Leader, I think Boehner may make some much needed changes in the House and has the potential to be an excellent Majority Leader.
So let's hope Boehner gets out there, does what he has to do, and turns out to be a huge asset to the GOP.
"In the most expensive Turkish movie ever made, American soldiers in Iraq crash a wedding and pump a little boy full of lead in front of his mother.
They kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv.
"Valley of the Wolves Iraq" - set to open in Turkey on Friday - feeds off the increasingly negative feelings many Turks harbor toward their longtime NATO allies: Americans.
The movie, which reportedly cost some $10 million, is the latest in a new genre of popular culture that demonizes the United States. It comes on the heels of a novel called "Metal Storm" about a war between Turkey and the U.S., which has been a best seller for months.
...The movie's American stars are Billy Zane, who plays a self-professed "peacekeeper sent by God," and Gary Busey as the Jewish-American doctor."
So we have an anti-American film that assassinates the character of our soldiers in Iraq. Well, it's not as if we should try to start an international incident over that -- given that Hollywood has been sliming the troops for years as murderous, unstable drones who'd happily kick their own mother down the stairs if they got an order to do so.
But, the fact that Gary Busey & Billy Zane would participate in the film is bothersome. There was a time, back in WW2, when Hollywood was less liberal and more patriotic, where they actually wanted to do what they could to support the troops and war. However, today, in a time of war, we actually have actors going overseas to help shoot foul Anti-American propaganda.
It's sad to see that they've sunk so low, but unfortunately, it's hardly a surprise given the behavior of so many Hollywood stars over the last few years.
Mike Malloy, "a former news writer and editor for both CNN and CNN-international," is a radio host on the US' most prominent liberal radio network, Air America. He was also the focus of a puff piece on the Democratic Underground, one of the popular web pages out there today.
The piece on the DU was interesting because of some of the incredibly vitriolic and borderline insane quotes from Malloy that were included. Here we have a popular liberal website doing an article about a popular liberal radio host and here are some of the things that the writer obviously thought would appeal to their very liberal audiences:
"...(T)he truth Malloy tells is raw, straightforward, stripped of all spin -- every word shoved right in the faces of those who have seized power to destroy the democratic safeguards of the U.S. Constitution, to steal elections, to abandon society's most vulnerable, and to slaughter their own citizens as a pretext for war.
...Each night, Malloy exposes the Bush administration for what it is -- a murderous, evil, lying, fascist regime. Each night, I am amazed that he has somehow managed to slip through enemy lines yet again to shout truth to power. He asks no quarter, and gives none, regardless of the consequences.
...Like most progressives, Malloy is disillusioned with the state of the Democratic Party, but maintains he will always be a "traditional" Democrat. Republicans accuse him of being nothing but a "Bush basher" or a "left-wing nutcase," but Malloy's late-night "Paul Revere" cry emanating from Air America comes straight from a man who is angrily committed to ousting the criminals who are hell-bent on destroying all that is good and decent not only in this country, but throughout the world.
Considering the wounds inflicted on this country in the last five years, Malloy has concluded that the Republican Party is now the American Nazi Party, and most of its members are vile deceivers.
"Republicans are liars, cheats, and sneaks; they are deceivers," he said. "They are immoral, and they have no ethical structure whatsoever...If they are Republicans, they are thugs. They have abondoned whatever moral sense they ever had, if any. They support mass murder. They support the destruction of this country."
Malloy is not known for pulling punches when addressing the administration or the Bush Crime Family either. "I hate you to the depths of my soul," he said. "I will hate you when I'm dead. I will hate you a million years after I'm dead...My hate will be a star in the firmament that will shine down on your Republican *sses forever. That's how deep my hatred is, because of what you're doing to this country."
This, folks, is the sort of spew that will today get you a radio show on a liberal network, cause flattering articles to be written about you on liberal websites, and cause lefties all around the country to flock to your banner. This sort of wacky, caustic, tinfoil hat rhetoric is now completely acceptable in liberal circles. It's part of the mainstream for them.
The left has kept their mouths closed about kooks like Moore, Malloy, and Sheehan and it's really coming back to bite them in the behind. These loons absolutely appall the vast majority of Americans and the more their power, influence, exposure in the Democratic Party grows, the number of people willing to vote for the Democrats shrinks. One of these days, unless they want to go the way of the Whigs, the power players in the Democratic Party will realize that and step up and do something about it...
Bloggers should pay a lot of attention to this story because if Google were to go down in flames, we can expect to be the next target on the list:
"A group of newspaper, magazine and book publishers is accusing Google and other aggregators of online news stories of unfairly exploiting their content. They are demanding compensation from search engines.
Gavin O’Reilly, the president of the World Association of Newspapers, which is co-ordinating the campaign, said on Tuesday: “We need search engines, and they do help consumers navigate an increasingly complicated medium, but they’re building [their business] on the back of kleptomania.”
The group of publishers, which includes the International Publishers’ Association, the European Federation of Magazine Publishers and Agence France Presse, is seeking meetings with Charlie McCreevy, the European Union’s internal market commissioner, and Viviane Reding, the commissioner responsible for media. It would not rule out legal action to enforce copyright or “collective action”, Mr O’Reilly said. “Ultimately, the aggregators need the content providers.”
Services such as Google News link to original news stories on the home pages of newspapers and magazines and display only the headline and one paragraph of the story. “That’s often enough” for readers browsing the top stories, Mr O’Reilly said.
...The growth of online news aggregators has coincided with an acceleration in the long-term trend of declining readership for print newspapers and a shift in advertising spending from print to the internet, much of which is not being captured by the newspapers’ own sites.
“The search engines are increasingly aiming their strategic efforts at traditional content originators and aggregators like newspaper publishers,” Mr O’Reilly said. “The irony is that these search engines exist, largely, because of the traditional news and content aggregators and profit at their expense.”
The WAN, which represents 18,000 newspapers and 73 national newspaper associations, said it would examine whether new standards and policies could be drafted to create a commercial relationship between publishers, search engines and content aggregators."
Note that what they're complaining about is Google posting a single paragraph of a story with a link back. Bloggers do that all day, every day, and worse (There are 7 paragraphs quoted here for example). Imagine having to pay the New York Times, WAPO, and every other newspaper in America $5 to quote a single paragraph from one of their stories -- and it could happen if this went to court and Google lost. Were that to happen, it would certainly change copyright law and at minimum, it would seriously hamper online growth. At worst, it's possible that it could drive all but the biggest bloggers and mags online out of business.
On the upside, Google has the money for top notch lawyers and because of the First Amendment, it seems unlikely to me that Google could lose this case, if it came to that, in the US. But, when you're talking about powerful members of the media, with enormous influence, and practically unlimited bankrolls who are desperate to shut down the competition that's slowly eating them alive one bit at a time, you never know what might happen.
Europe's Editors Support Danes, Heads Start To Roll By Mark In Mexico
European editors of various newspapers and magazines began to publish the 12 cartoons of Muhammed (shown here) in a gesture of support for the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. The cartoons, all or in part, were published in France by the newspaper France Soir; in Germany, the conservative Die Welt printed one image on its front page; in Italy, the Turin daily La Stampa and Milan's Corriere della Sera published the 12 cartoons; in Spain El Periódico published the 12 cartoons; in Switzerland, the Swiss newspaper Blick published two of the cartoons; in Norway, a small Norwegian evangelical magazine, Magazinet, published the cartoons last month; and the editor in chief of Switzerland's Tribune de Genéve said he planned to publish the cartoons tomorrow.
Jacques LeFranc, editor in chief of France's newspaper France Soir was fired by the owner of France Soir, an Egyptian, Raymond Lakah, who said he fired LeFranc to demonstrate "respect for the intimate beliefs of an individual." Apparently that only includes religious beliefs and not those silly ideals of liberty, freedom of speech and freedom from Islamofascist extortion.
Msr. LeFranc had stated that France Soir had published the cartoons, "not because we like provocation but because they are the object of a worldwide controversy where nothing less is at stake than the balance between the respect for religious belief and the freedom of expression." Msr. LeFranc had that stake replanted through his heart.
In Copenhagen, the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Carsten Juste, said he regretted his paper's decision to run the caricatures, saying the "costs were simply too high" given the current boycotts and threats against Danes. He also said, resignedly,
My guess is that no one will draw the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark in the next generation, and therefore I must say with deep shame that they have won."
And in the United States? Well, the faint hearted cowards at CNN showed, without any sense of decency or fear of reprisal, the Washington Post cartoon of a wounded veteran in bed with both arms and legs amputated that drew a letter of rebuke and protest signed by all 6 members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You can see the despicable cartoon and the Joint Chiefs' letter at Michelle Malkin's. Then, 30 seconds later, CNN reportedly showed the 12 cartoons of Muhammed but blurred the images making them indiscernable. CNN said the Muhammed images were blurred, "so as not to offend some members of the audience."
This content was used with the permission of Mark in Mexico.
Even Unions Don't Want To Pay Union Wages By Betsy Newmark
Tom Elia at The New Editor links to a story in the Detroit News that notes some union hypocrisy. Imagine that. Unions are hiring homeless people to picket non-unionized employers for not paying employees more and not providing more health benefits. But, guess what?
In Washington, Baltimore, Atlanta and elsewhere in the country, union organizers are scouring shelters and recruiting homeless people to staff their picket lines, paying just above minimum wage and failing to provide health benefits.
The national carpenters' union, which broke from the AFL-CIO four years ago in a bitter dispute over organizing strategies and other issues, is hiring homeless people to stage noisy protests at nonunion construction sites.
"We're giving jobs to people who didn't have jobs, people who in some cases couldn't secure work," said George Eisner, head of the union's mid-Atlantic regional council in Baltimore.
The carpenters who belong to his union, Eisner explained, are gainfully employed. With homes and offices being built or renovated and real estate booming in many urban areas, he said, the union carpenters are too busy to join the picket lines.
Sure, it's a crummy job and they're not getting health benefits for picketing, but at least they're treated right on the job.
The union organizers allow the hired protesters to take two-minute breaks, Howards said, but dock their pay for the time off.
Oh, the humanity of those unions!
Tom Elia has some more examples of harsh union working practices.
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
Will The Troops Be Pulling Out Of Iraq In June Of 2007?
In order to achieve victory in Iraq, we need to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government capable of handling its own internal security. That's why the progress of the Iraqi military is so important. As Bush has said many times, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Well, there's interesting news on that front that has scarcely been covered. Republican Senator James Inhofe, the "second-ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee," had this to say about the progress of the Iraqi troops and when our troops will be off the streets of Iraq:
"Nobody will answer the question [of when the United States can withdraw the bulk of its forces] ... well, I’ll answer it,” Inhofe pronounced in a presentation entitled "Grading National Security.”
"We have 220,000 Iraqi troops now,” the lawmaker explained. "By the end of the year, we will have 300,000. All the experts agree that it will take 10 divisions of Iraqi troops to do the job – that’s 325,000. At the present rate, we will be at that level in June of 2007.”
"The number of our troops will go down to just an administrative level” at that time, he added."
That means we'll probably see significant American troops withdrawals this year and then, by the middle of next year, the Iraqis will be policing their streets and we'll probably be aiding them with special forces, air support as needed, and logistics.
Now, because this is based on doing what needs to be done to win the war instead of a political timetable, there's no guarantee that things will play out exactly like this -- but it sounds about right.
It's doubtful that the insurgency will be completely destroyed by then, but, it doesn't have to be. Once the Iraqis are steady enough on their feet that we don't have to worry about the terrorists destabilizing the country and taking over, the insurgents are doomed.
What all this means is that the US effort in Iraq is slowly starting to wind down and we're putting the finishing touches on a big victory. Because of our efforts there, a hostile, anti-America, terrorist supporting dictator, who had used WMDs in the past, and had ties to Al-Qaeda, has been replaced by a Democratic government that has the potential to help inspire Democracy to flower across the region.
It hasn't been easy nor quick and we still have work left to do, but going into Iraq was a smart move and those who have supported this war all along will be shown to be on the right side of history once things are all said and done.
"President George W. Bush vowed on Wednesday the United States would defend Israel militarily if needed against Iran and denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "menacing talk" against Israel.
..."I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said.
"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well," he added.
Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."
The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: The Star Spangled Banner Is For Sheeple
You know that horrible feeling you get way down in your gut when you hear the Star Spangled Banner? Oh, you don't? Well, then I guess you must not be a liberal who frequents the forums of the Democratic Underground:
in_cog_ni_to: Has this ever happened to you? The Star Spangled Banner use to bring tears to my eyes. I would always choke up with pride when I heard the anthem. (before I learned how bad this freakin' country is) and last night at my son's wrestling meet, the school we were at played the Star Spangled Banner (that's never happened at any other meet) and I found myself.....ANGRY BEYOND BELIEF! I WAS P*SSED THAT THEY PLAYED IT. P*SSED THAT I HAD TO LISTEN TO IT AND P*SSED THAT THE SHEEPLE STOOD THERE WITH THEIR HANDS ON THEIR HEARTS as if this country is something to be proud of. I was SHOCKED by my gut reaction. I was FURIOUS. It was so unexpected. Have any of you ever experienced that? It's been YEARS since I've been at any event where the SSB was played and my reaction was so visceral. I-was-angry.
MADem: I am permanently sickened by GOD BLESS AMERICA, myself. I used to like it, the odd time I would hear it, in Kate Smith style. Now, it makes me physically ill, frankly.
Rabrrrrrr: I no longer sing it. I refuse to sing it. I will stand when it is played, but I will not join in. I will not say the pledge of allegiance, either.
BoneDaddy: I can definately relate. I work in a school and every morning we are "forced" to say the Pledge of Alligience. Back when I had some pride regarding being an American I would participate in the pledge with some gusto, now I find it empty and meaningless, some collection of impotent words with no real relationship to what is occuring in this country.
There is a right wing woman I work with who, like some kindergarten child who just proudly learned the words, stands up, hand over heart and loudly says the pledge like a good sheep should. It makes me sick.
Senator Jim DeMint: The Democrats Say Anything - Do Nothing Agenda (January 30, 2006)
After the cloture vote on Alito, I was still watching C-Span when Senator Jim DeMint came on and gave one heck of a great speech. Unfortunately, it wasn't available online, so I called DeMint's office and they emailed a copy of his remarks out to me.
It would be great if more Senators were willing to unleash the sort of deadly accurate barrage that DeMint fired at the Dems in this speech:
"Mr. President, today the democratic minority leader, Harry Reid, gave what was billed as a prebuttal to the president's upcoming State Of The Union. I am frankly astounded that he would criticize a speech so harshly that hasn't even been given yet. I'll let the president speak for himself when he addresses the nation tomorrow night but this misleading partisan rhetoric put forth on this floor by the Senator from Nevada cannot go unanswered, rhetoric that unfortunately further proves Democrats will say anything but do nothing.
Today we heard many of the same tired cliches from the minority leader. He talks about a credibility gap. Well, the largest credibility gap in american politics is between what Democrats say and what they do. Democrats promised months ago to bring forth their own legislative agenda, but the nation is still waiting. Day after day the Democrats launch attack after attack on republicans and our agenda, but how are we to take them seriously when they cannot articulate a clear plan of their own?
(The presiding officer: The Senate will come to order. The Senator may proceed.)
Thank you, mr. President. They will say anything to get a media...sound bite, but when it comes to solving today's challenges, Democrats do nothing. It has been four years since 9/11, and after all their rock-throwing, Democrats still have no plan for victory in the war on terror. In fact, they have undermined the war effort with partisan attacks on the president. They've complained about the economy since President Bush took office, but almost everything they do makes it harder for american businesses to compete. Democrats spent the last year criticizing Republican efforts to strengthen social security, but still offer nothing to fix this system in crisis. They even refused to guarantee benefits for today's seniors and blocked a bill that would have stopped Congress from spending social security dollars on other government programs. They have decried looming deficits but offer no map to a balanced budget, instead calling for higher taxes and more spending programs. How are we to take seriously a party that has no legislative agenda, that has no solutions or ideas to solve americans' greatest challenges? In stark contrast to the Democrat's invisible agenda, the republicans have clearly articulated and delivered a bold agenda to secure america's future. And while we've had some victories in recent years, the truth is that Democrats have fought bitterly to block progress for America every step of the way. Then these same Ddemocrats come to this floor and...blame inaction on Republicans.
To give one example, Republicans have been working for decades to secure America's energy independence. However, Democrats at the behest of extreme environmental activists oppose real solutions to high energy prices like increasing production of domestic oil and natural gas supplies and removing barriers to oil refinery investment, such as onerous permitting requirements and the proliferation of fuel blends. Just last month Democrats blocked energy exploration and production on the coastal plain of the arctic national wildlife refuge which would provide millions of barrels of oil a day or about 4.5% Of the current U.S. Consumption with no significant environmental impact. And it's not just in Alaska where Democrats oppose efforts to access our nation's energy resources. It had been estimated that enough natural gas lies under the outer continental shelf and in the interior western states to supply 27 years' worth of natural gas consumption, the primary fuel used to heat Americans' homes. Yet, Democrats support policies that have closed these areas to exploration and production. The administration has attempted to cut regulatory red tape, reduce regulatory costs and streamline regulatory processes to allow more sensible use of the nation's energy resources while maintaining environmental standards, efforts that have been largely rebuffed by Democrats in Congress. The obstacle to america's energy independence is clear: it is the blockade formed by the Democratic party in seeking to appease far-left interest groups. Democrats have blocked republican efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and have needlessly allowed energy prices to climb higher and higher for american families.
Senator Reid likes to say Democrats can do better. I think he's right. Democrats should do better. They have been conducting a war of rhetoric for years without offering anything positive to the public debate. Americans are rightly frustrated with the Democratic Party that will say anything but do nothing. Now let me address what has become the favorite sound bite of the Democratic Party. Senator Reid said it today and many times over the last week what he likes to call the culture of corruption. Apparently Democrats believe that this media strategy will carry them to a sweeping electoral victory in November. Well, I've got news for my Democratic colleagues. The problems of outside influence on Congress is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan problem and requires a bipartisan solution. And for those hoping to usher in a new Democratic majority in Congress on a media sound bite, history teaches us that elections are won on ideas, not rhetoric.
Americans are far too smart...and today's challenges are far too serious for Democrats to expect they can coast to a victory in November with no solutions and no ideas. Republicans learned this lesson long ago from one of our greatest teachers, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan always talked about ideas that still resonate with Americans today -- limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and peace through strength. Republicans did not win on rhetoric in 1994. We won because Americans agreed with our solutions -- lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, traditional values and strong national defense. President Bush has connected with the American people because he has run his campaigns on ideas. He promised to lower taxes and he has. He promised to aggressively fight the war on terror to protect American families and he has. He promised to nominate judges that will follow the law instead of creating it and he has.
Yet as Senator Reid demonstrated today, Democrats still do not understand that Americans want solutions, not more partisan rhetoric. I know there are some Democrats who do have some good ideas and desire to work together to improve the lives of Americans. I've talked to many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who do seem to understand the reality, but their leadership refuses to allow them to break from party line. I urge the Democratic Party to think long and hard about the war rhetoric they're waging. It is poisoning the atmosphere in the United States Senate, and it is turning off Americans from the public debate. The consequences of these actions will be fewer and fewer Democrats returning next year. This has been proved out during the last elections. As and my fellow Republican freshmen Senators can testify to. If Democrats want the opportunity to lead again, they have to abandon the say anything-do nothing stance and put forward some ideas and solutions. Regardless, the Republican Party will not wait around. We will continue to secure america's future with a bold positive agenda."
Right Wing News got a mention in a Time article about Rudi Giuliani's chances of taking the GOP nomination in 2008:
The conservative blog, RightWingNews reported last week that while Condoleezza Rice was the top choice of 230 conservative bloggers for the Republican nomination, Giuliani came in second, beating out U.S. Senator George Allen and Newt Gingrich.
Unfortunately, there was no link to the poll, so I didn't get any traffic from it. Furthermore, I emailed 230 bloggers, but only 58 responded.
Anyway, that's the 2nd Time mention of that poll if you count Andrew Sullivan's link last week.
In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. Now, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can now tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.
Here's the list for January...
12) Weezer: Beverly Hills
12) Our Lady Peace: 4 AM
12) Nickelback: Someday
12) Green Day: Boulevard of Broken Dreams
12) Eve 6: Beautiful Oblivion
9) Papa Roach: Last Resort
9) Nine Inch Nails: Only
9) James Marsters: Rest in Peace
6) Chemical Brothers: Galvanize
6) Snow Patrol: Run
6) Ok Go: Invincible
5) Saliva: Always
4) Johnny Cash: Hurt
2) Seether: Out of My Way
2) Fall Out Boy: Sugar We're Going Down
1) John Cena: Bad, Bad Man
"She apparently was in the gallery and unfolder a banner. Which isn't looked kindly upon. If true, she was asking for it. Which is oh-so-shocking."
Sheehan can't go 5 minutes without making a spectacle of herself (9:12)
-- Nice Coretta Scott King comment. The idea of her reuniting with MLK in heaven was a wonderful sentiment. (9:13)
-- Oh, I liked the little broadside there to Burma and Iran and the others. Wish he had mentioned China too. (9:17)
-- Few too many platitudes for my taste so far. (9:18)
-- There is no peace in retreat and there is no honor in retreat. Excellent (9:19)
-- A lot of Democrats stayed sitting for "We are winning (in Iraq)". No big surprise there (9:23)
-- Slap at defeatism. 2nd guessing is not a strategy. Like that! Cut and run sends Iraqis to prison, gives Bin Laden Iraq, and proves we don't keep our word. Like it! (9:25)
"What we have done in Iraq is worth any sacrifice. Why? Because it was our duty. That sounds simple. But all of us have a duty. Duty is defined as a God given task. Without duty life is worthless. It holds no type of fulfillment. The simple fact that our bodies are built for work has to lead us to the conclusion that God (who made us) put us together to do His work. His work is different for each of us.
Mom, yours was to be the glue of our family, to be a pillar for those women (all women around you), Dad, yours was to train and build us (like a Platoon Sgt) to better serve Him. Kristie, Kim, Katy you are the five team leaders who support your Squad ldrs, Jodie, Robert and Richard. Lisa you too. You are my XO and you did a hell of a job. You all have your duties. Be thankful that God in His wisdom gives us work. Mine was to ensure that you did not have to experience what it takes to protect what we have as a family. This I am so thankful for. I know what honor is. It is not a word to be thrown around. It has been an Honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. This is as close to Christ-like I can be. That emulation is where all honor lies. I thank you for making it worthwhile."
-- Hamas: disarm, accept Israel, support peace you terrorist slime! Good message. (9:29)
-- Liberty is the future of EVERY nation in the Middle-East. Love it. (9:30)
-- Speaking directly to the citizens of Iran. Liked that, but he didn't talk enough about nukes. He should hinted that military action was on the horizon (9:31)
-- Reauthorize Patriot Act. Good. Defending his NSA wiretaps. Better. He's not apologizing like the Democrats want, he's saying at the biggest high profile speech of the year that we won't sit back and wait to get hit again. This is probably the high point of the speech so far. It's political akido at its finest. (9:36)
-- The isolationism theme running through the speech is interesting, but he's not doing enough to tie it into the Democrats (9:37)
-- More than Japan and European Union combined? Wow, that is a lot of jobs. I hadn't heard that figure before, but it is impressive. (9:38)
-- 4 years of uninterrupted economic growth. Not bad. (9:40)
-- Make the tax cuts permanent. Glad he said it, but here we are in 2006 and they're still not permanent yet. Anytime now ya know... (9:41)
-- I want more on deficit reform...oh yeah, earmark reform! Line item veto! There ya go W. (9:42)
-- The President Clinton joke was funny. (9:42)
-- Right back at ya you irresponsible Dems who want to fiddle while Social Security burns. But, on the other hand, is a committee really the solution? Since when do blue ribbon panels solve anything? (9:44)
-- Stronger immigration enforcement and border protection, love it. Guest worker program, don't love it. Because the pols will implement the guest worker program and then forget about the rest. Pretty unimpressive on that issue. (9:46)
-- Health Care savings accounts. Portable health coverage. Better costs for small businesses. Medical liability reform to cut into legal costs (few Dems even clapped for that one). Good suggestions, but more specifics would be good (9:48)
-- Nuclear energy and clean coal are great. Solar and wind, not so great. That's probably wasted money just to impress the greenies. Six years on ethanol...OK. To replace oil imports by 2025? Hmmm... if you say so. If it happens, I doubt if the government will be the driving force behind it. Somehow, this part of Bush's talk reminds me of Carter's Malaise speech a little too much. (9:51)
-- A bunch of expensive, mushy programs for education. How about vouchers? Vouchers anyone? (9:53)
-- Lots of good news on fronts (crime, welfare, etc) that no one is talking about. (9:54)
-- We must never believe we're in decline? Who says this except depressed liberals. Malaise again? (9:56)
-- Go Alito! Go Roberts! Go textualists! (9:56)
-- Cloning this is worth mentioning, but again, not exactly a hot issue. (9:58)
-- Helping America's Youth Initiative? Does anyone know or care about this? (9:59)
-- 85 billion for Katrina, huh? Oh and now we're not just going to fix everything that occurred during and after the hurricane, we're going to fix all the problems that were there before. Sure, that'll happen (10:00)
-- Strong, inspiring ending. We will finish well... (10:02)
Overall Grade: C-. There were a few high points, but he didn't deliver up enough specifics or enough popular programs. He's also still taking that mired-in -- that whole Big Government Conservative/Compassionate Conservative mindset that's so frustrating for Reagan conservatives who expect more out of a Republican controlled government.
"Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.
Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.
Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.
"I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."
Earlier tonight, I was fortunate enough to get in on a rolling conference with 5 different Republican Senators sponsored by the Senate Republican Conference. Moreover, probably because the subject line of the email gave the impression that the event was in Washington, there were only a handful of other bloggers on there.
The general idea was supposed to be that the Senators talked about Bush's upcoming State of the Union speech, but we just asked them about whatever came to mind when it was time to ask questions. Here's a quick and dirty rundown from my notes of what was discussed.
Jim DeMint
We opened up with a Senator who's quickly becoming one of my favorites, Jim DeMint.
He said that every American would support the NSA program if they understood the program.
Furthermore, he noted Democrats are going to try to block almost everything Republicans do and try to cause us to fail. We have to keep that in mind with the legislative agenda.
On illegal immigration, he said that the President understands many conservatives are unhappy with his illegal immigration stance because the GOP Senators have told him so. He said the GOP has got to convince Americans we'll secure the border and stop illegal immigration before we start talking about a guest worker program.
I asked the Senator if he supported Tom Coburn and John McCain's plan to challenge every earmark in the Senate. He said that he did and furthermore, he said he'd like to see more money sent in block grants to the states instead of letting the Federal government dole it out.
Chuck Grassley
He said the economy grew more in the last 4 years than any time during the nineties and tax cuts brought this about along with increased government revenue. But, the President's poll numbers on the economy are bad because the liberal press never gives Republican Presidents credit for good economies.
He said immigration is the #1 issue with his constituents
#2 is health care
Last, he said Bush should address Iraq.
He also thought the President should brag more about his accomplishments.
In reference to Alito, he said that Republicans may not be as tolerant of liberal judges if there is a democratic President because of how the Democrats have behaved with judges during the Bush administration.
I mentioned that Mike Pence said, after the RSC retreat, that their top priorities were budget reform, marriage amendment and lobbying reform. Do you think a marriage amendment is a key priority this year and if so, do you think it has any chance passing?
Grassley said he would vote for it, but, that isn't something that comes up a lot at town hall meetings. Education & the high cost of medical care are the ones that come up a lot at those meetings.
He also pointed out that illegal immigration is a hot issue. Iowans believe in the rule of law and resent people crossing the border illegally. Even recent legal immigrants say that.
Rick Santorum
Senator Santorum gave some generic remarks about the President's upcoming State of the Union speech and seemed a bit distracted by a loud noise on the line.
I asked him about Casey being up 10 points on him and how he intended to catch up? Santorum said the MSM has had 5 years to tell their story, "I have a year to tell mine." He also pointed out that he beat Casey by a million dollars in fund raising last quarter and has a 3 1/2 million advantage.He said his plan was to get around the filter of the MSM and go directly to his constituents. He also pointed out that he has won twice before, and thinks he will do it again.
John Cornyn
He complimented bloggers because they are an important check on the MSM who tend to be rather undisciplined without someone keeping their feet to the fire.
In response to a question I asked, he said we would like to have small permanent bases in Iraq.
Jim Talent
In regard to the ethics problems, he said he thought the problem wasn't the system as much as the people who broke the rules.
Talent also talked about health care and said he favored allowing small businesses to pool together for health care (good idea).
He then added that the deficit could be more accurately referred to as a healthcare containment crisis.
That inspired a question from me. The Medicare Prescription Drug program is a big part of deficit problems. Did he favor changes to the program or means testing?
He does not. He said he hoped that this would blaze a path for broader Medicare reform and that the government has some responsibility to provide the basics for seniors.
So much for the healthcare containment crisis, huh?
That's it. Thanks to the Senate Republican Conference for setting this up. It's great to get an opportunity to question so many US Senators.
Happy Samuel Alito Has Been Confirmed Day Everyone!
58-42. We win. They lose. That's exactly how it's supposed to be!
*** Update #1 *** See? I told you so...
"Now, let's imagine that Bush asks Harriet Miers to fall on the sword because of conservative opposition. After that, he gives a press conference, tells everyone that Harriet would have been fantastic, but unfortunately her nomination has been withdrawn. Then, a couple of weeks later, he nominates Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito or some other justice who sets conservative hearts aflutter.
What do you think would happen?
Wouldn't the very same people who are ripping Bush up one side and down the other today, be cheering him then? Wouldn't many of those same people, after seeing Bush prove himself by taking a top notch choice, start to trust his judgement a little more? Don't you also think those people would be considerably more forgiving towards Bush and the GOP if, in the end, they got a nominee they could love for the Supreme Court?
That's what Republicans should keep in mind: this can still be a win for conservatives, a win for Bush, and a win for the Party if a nominee other than Miers is selected.
Given that this situation can still be turned into a win for the GOP, albeit a messy one, how much sense does it make for George Bush to pigheadedly try to win a Pyrrhic victory over his own base when he could have them marching by his side into battle for another nominee? It doesn't make any sense, which is why George Bush should do the right thing, the smart thing, the politically savvy thing, and pull the Harriet Miers nomination." -- From an October 5, 2005 RWN post called Why Pulling The Harriet Miers Nomination Would Be The Best Move Bush Could Make
"When George Bush selects a new nominee, almost all of the "Pro-Miers" folks will get behind that nominee for the same reasons they supported Miers. If you're going to tell me that after we have a Karen Williams, Michael Luttig, or Priscilla Owen on the Supreme Court, the conservatives who were backing Harriet Miers are going to honestly wish that she'd made it through instead of the next nominee that Bush selects, well, I just don't believe that.
...Last but not least, there is a glorious moment that all conservatives should be waiting for: When Bush's next originalist nominee, the replacement for "swing vote Sandra," is actually confirmed. You know why that is going to be such a great day? Because that will be when it finally dawns on the Democrats that they've been completely and utterly hosed. Little miss flipping coin, Sandra Day O'Connor, will be gone and in her place will be a rock solid originalist who'll be up there for decades. It'll be enough to bring a smile to a conservative face and a tear to a Democratic eye..." -- From RWN on October 28, 2005
*** Update #2 ***: If you're conservative, this is a day worth celebrating for 3 reasons...
#1) Given that the Supreme Court has managed to slip its tentacles into almost every facet of American life, Supreme Court Justices are incredibly important. That's why getting two conservative judges like John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who both respect the Constitution, onto the Supreme Court qualifies as the greatest accomplishment on the domestic front of the entire Bush presidency. Just think about the alternative: President Kerry appointing two liberals instead of Alito and Roberts.
#2) Conservatives really snatched victory from the jaws of defeat to get Alito on the court. Had we not fought Harriet Miers tooth and nail, Alito would have never gotten his shot. Ms. Miers may be a very nice woman and I think few conservatives hold anything against her, but she's also not in the same league as Alito and everyone knows it. When you consider what might have been, then it becomes clear that conservatives are very lucky indeed to now have Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
#3) Finally, after all this time, we've exorcised the demons of the Bork hearings because another clearly qualified, textualist nominee, with a long record on the bench has made it through the confirmation process. That means that stealth nominees whose greatest asset is that they have no records on the bench are no longer needed or desired as Republican Supreme Court nominees.
So folks, enjoy today because we have won an enormous victory that will be good for the Republican Party and for the country.
Today, I was invited to a teleconference with Senator Tom Coburn, the biggest deficit hawk in the Senate. Coburn is getting ready to go to war on earmarks (Think pork) and he wanted to make sure that the right side of the blogosphere had his back and would be on the look-out for wasteful spending he can cut.
Coburn said he was just talking to Donald Rumsfeld about the 9 billion dollars of worthless earmarks that had been shoved into the defense bill. Of course, even that pales in comparison to the 100 billion dollars worth of fraud and abuse, much of which is STILL ONGOING, that was discovered in hearings.
Currently, Senator Coburn said that McCain was the only Senator working with him publicly to block earmarks, but he hoped others would sign on later. He also said that by challenging these earmarks, he hoped to publicly identify the Senators placing these earmarks in bills and force votes on them.
To make a long story short, Coburn is one of the real "good guys" in the Senate who's really working hard to make sure our tax dollars aren't wasted. In fact, I expect that Coburn will PERSONALLY be responsible for knocking down countless billions of dollars worth of spending in the coming year and other Republican Senators, especially those with higher ambitions (I'm looking at you, George Allen), would be wise to partner up with Coburn.
...I asked RWN's readers to come up with some lines that they wouldn't be surprised to see in the book. Here are the top 10 they came up with:
"Mommy, how come you take half my paper route money away and give it to the lazy kid next door who just watches cartoons all day?" -- CavalierX
"If you are ever killed in a war started by evil republicans, Mommy will take pictures of herself sleeping on your grave, alienate the rest of the family, take pictures with mass murdering communist thugs and totally sh*t on the memory of everything you fought and died for...all for fifteen minutes of fame..." -- alemus
"OK, Mommy - but that's STILL better than making me Bill Clinton's intern!" -- CoolCzech
"Mommy, I mean you mommy Betty, not you mommy Susan..." -- Poppanole
"Mommy why are those two sheepherding cowboys fighting and groaning so loud in that tent?" -- AlexinCT
"Mommy, why don't you and I wear pants?" -- Kingfisher
"Mommy, when we went to the Art Museum, we saw where a man peed into a cup and stuck something in it. Why is that art? Cause, when I peed on your couch, you told me I was bad." -- StanW
"Mommy, why do Democrats say that dissent is patriotic, but when you go to one of their blogs and dissent, they ban you?" -- JannyMae
"Mommy is a democrat, because the most sacred right in the entire universe is her right to murder you in the womb if she had felt like it." -- alemus
"Mommy, if you're a real Democrat why didn't you abort me?" -- smitty
Quote Of The Day From a Recommended Diary at The Daily Kos
The Kossacks are not taking Alito's imminent confirmation very well.
Here's a quote from one of the "Recommended Diaries" at the Daily Kos last night by a Maryscott OConnor. It's so over-the-top it's funny...
"...I don't know what to DO with this list (of Democrats who voted for Cloture), not yet -- but I know for GODD*MNED sure I won't be VOTING for any of them, lt alone sending them any godd*mned MONEY.
Frankly, right now I'd like nothing better than to torpedo the entire lot of them. Just dump them like so much worthless, leaden, VICHY MOTHERF*CKING BALLAST.
I got nothin', folks. Don't look over here if you want comfort or a nice, uplifting LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY speech.
I'M DONE WITH THEM. They are DEAD to me.
Yeah. CANTWELL and BYRD and LANDRIEU and BINGAMAN and every last motherf*cking one of them, I'm DONE with them.
I'm registering Independent tomorrow. You're welcome to join me."
San Francisco Shows What Much Of The Left Really Thinks Of The Military
Despite what they say at election time, much of the left is deeply hostile towards the military. They don't like what soldiers do for a living, they don't like that they tend to be conservative, and they're not particularly happy that members of the military are held in such high esteem by most of the American public.
Although lefties who dislike the military usually hide their true feelings for political purposes, sometimes the truth slips out, like it has in San Francisco of late. San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities in the United States and therefore, naturally, there is no big political price to be paid for being anti-military.
So, if you want to see how the military would be treated if the left were as ascendent in this country as it is in San Francisco, then just look at this column by Cinnamon Stillwell called San Francisco Declares Itself a Military-Free Zone and you'll get a pretty good idea of where the left really stands on the military:
"Everyone knows that San Francisco is a focal point for anti-war sentiment. Protests, civil disobedience and other acts designed to show opposition to the war in Iraq are standard fare in these parts. But now it seems that San Francisco anti-war activists have taken their opposition to the war in Iraq a step further.
Not content with simply protesting the war, they've trained their sights on all things military. In an apparent effort to rid the city of any semblance of its military history, various leftist groups, and even some city officials, are trying to erase the military's presence altogether. In short, San Francisco has declared itself a military-free zone.
Following on the heels of their success in sometimes violently shutting down job fairs that include military recruiters on college campuses, the counterrecruitment movement is now looking to broaden its influence. Instead of merely protesting the existence of military recruiters on campuses, the movement wants to ban them altogether. Proposition I, a measure that will be on the ballot this November, seeks to do just that.
Put together by a group called College Not Combat, the initiative of the same name talks tough on the surface. But it doesn't have any teeth. The nonbinding measure simply asks that individual schools and colleges consider banning military recruiters and denying recruiters access to their student directories, which would violate section 9258 of the No Child Left Behind Act. In the process, these schools could very well have to forgo federal funds. Given that such institutions are unlikely to want to get off the federal gravy train, it's doubtful they will choose to take this action.
...(O)ne can always rely on the majority of San Francisco residents to support these symbolic measures, and so the College Not Combat initiative may succeed. If it does, San Francisco voters will have blindly exercised their anti-military prejudice with little thought for the motivations of those behind the measure in question.
...Continuing their crusade against the military, anti-war groups have asked San Francisco radio station KMEL-FM not to accept sponsorship from the Navy for its annual Summer Jam concert in Mountain View. Despite the fact that the Navy has sponsored the concert for at least 10 of its 19 years, these groups are demanding that it suddenly stop doing so now.
Their rationale is based on the ever-present canard that minorities are disproportionately recruited for the military. They claim that the station is "using hip-hop to promote the military to young people of color," as if the mere presence of a Navy booth at the concert offering young people another choice in life is evidence of a sinister agenda.
...Probably the most blatant example of San Francisco's anti-military bias was displayed last month by the city's Board of Supervisors when they voted 3-8 against docking the WWII/Korean War-era USS Iowa as a floating museum at the Port of San Francisco. This was after the local Congressional delegation secured $3 million to move the Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco because a study had shown the ship would bring in 500,000 visitors a year.
But regardless of the benefits the Iowa could have brought to the city in increased tourism revenue, the supervisors, in typical knee-jerk fashion, wouldn't allow it in San Francisco. Instead, the ship may go to Stockton, a port city whose officials are obviously much more sensible than their counterparts in San Francisco.
...San Francisco's attitude toward the military is evident in other areas as well. A group that calls itself the Bay Area Peace Navy has been on a quest to rid the city of Fleet Week and the spectacular, albeit loud, air shows of the Blue Angels. So far they've been unsuccessful, but give it time.
The relatively paltry funding for San Francisco's Veterans Day Parade and Memorial commemoration also speaks volumes about where the city's priorities lie. When the Board of Supervisors renamed Army Street "Cesar Chavez Street" in 1995, it was yet another not-so-subtle jab at the military."
"Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children's book, but it definitely isn't just for children. With numerous subtle and (not so subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican Party, Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!"
Do you think there are really adults who are going to be sitting around thinking, "That children's book rips on Smirky McBushHitler! I can't wait to buy it, dude!"
Stranger things have happened, right?
On the downside, there's not a lot of sample dialogue from the book, so I'm just guessing when I say that it probably goes something like this:
"Now what has momma told you about shouting "Cut and run! Cut and run!" at uncle Murtha? You know he doesn't like that!"
"Mommy? Why do you always tell me not to ride in the car with Uncle Teddy?"
"You're doing so good at learning new words! Now repeat after momma: George Bush is a fascist and Republicans are evil!"
"Guess what Mommy? I had the best time on Halloween with uncle Byrd! He made me a ghost costume and we carried a big burning cross. I figured it stood for Trick or Treat!"
Come up with some more in the comments section and if they're good, I'll add 'em in.
