So True, So True

Some words from President:

If you say that government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong… How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny. How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes... There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities.

Such wise words for today’s times. Oh by the way, it wasn’t President Bush who said them, it was President Clinton. And well he wasn’t chastising Democrats, but rather Michigan. Don’t worry, he doesn’t believe a word of it.

Al Gore Not so Dumb After All

The Nation provides coverage of Al Gore’s MLK Day speech to the Daughter’s of the American Revolution. It’s pretty much what you expect from a bitter Al Gore, but he did have one interesting thing to say:

“A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.”

On a related note, The NY Sun Reports that:

“President Clinton will be eligible this week to reclaim the law license he gave up as a consequence of the inaccurate responses he gave under oath…”

Clinton Reminisces About Her Life Growing Up on the Plantation

For the NY Sun:

Martin Luther King Jr. fought four decades ago to free black Americans from the legacy of slavery. Yesterday, Senator Clinton compared the Republican leadership of the current House of Representatives to the very idea the civil rights leader dedicated his life to fighting.

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run - it has been run like a plantation," she said. "You know what I'm talking about."

Oh, I sho’ do Massa’ Clinton. Thank you for warnin’ us at da slave house… Ok, but seriously, if I recall correctly slavery was made illegal by the 13th Amendment in 1865. So anyone born on a slave plantation would be like 140. So much for anyone remembering life on the plantation. And she thinks you are buying her act as a moderate...

Democrats Fear Victory in Iraq

So you don’t think there is a defeatist attitude among the Left? Rep John Murtha, opens his mouth and convinces us otherwise.

Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."

Of course he doesn’t really mean it. When actually held to task on his stance when Republicans brought up a resolution for immediate withdrawal, recall that he voted against it.

WSJ's Best of the Web also points out, that Moran isn't completely credible either. In 2003, they noted:

A Democratic congressman who opposes the liberation of Iraq is blaming the Jews for threatening Saddam Hussein's hold on power. "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this," the Connection newspapers of northern Virginia quoted Rep. Jim Moran as saying last week. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."

Democrats support our troops. They just don’t want them to win.

Liberal Math: II

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called for the resignation of Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday, one day after the government dropped Las Vegas from a list of cities considered potential high-risk targets eligible for special anti-terrorism grants.

Reid, D-Nev., joins Clark County Sheriff Bill Young in calling for Chertoff to step down as a result of the decision jeopardizing millions in additional federal funding that Nevada currently receives as a result of being considered a potential terrorist target.

"Anyone who can't see that Las Vegas is a high-risk area doesn't deserve to serve in a position like that," Reid said.

"We had more visitors on New Year's Eve than they had in Times Square and we're not a high-risk area? For heaven's sakes."

Well duh. Las Vegas is a city and Times Square is, uh.. a square. Anyone who can’t see that you can’t fit an entire city into a block doesn’t deserve to serve as a Senator. Well, unless they are from California.

Murtha Takes a Bold Stand

Reuters reports:

Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today.

That’s a relief. Plus I don’t think the military would want a 70 year-old anyway.

ACLU Takes One in the Jimmy

On December 20, a three-judge panel from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld a public display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse.

6th Circuit Judge Richard Suhrheinrich wrote in the unanimous decision: “The ACLU makes repeated reference to the ’separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.”

To recap for liberals, this is how the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note no mention of the words “church”, “separation” or “state”.

The opinion explained that the "reasonable person" remark is particularly important because the legal standard requires the court to determine whether a "reasonable person" would believe a display endorses religion, not whether it offends someone in the community.

So to recap: the Court deems the ACLU to be unreasonable, tiresome and constitutionally ignorant. That about sums it up.

Why You Shouldn’t Send Your Kids to Public Schools

Reason #1: They are run by brain-washing hippies who will exploit their professional status to use your kids as pawns for their own political propaganda.

Front Page Mag reports that at Frank Allis Elementary School in Madison, Wisconsin, third graders we told to “write letters to their congressman and various media outlets calling for an end to the war in Iraq.”

Parents were sent a letter justifying this political indoctrination as a social studies lesson. “The Frank Allis third grade will be writing letters to encourage an end to the war in Iraq,” the letter explained. “The letter writing will teach civic responsibility, a social studies standard, while providing an authentic opportunity to improve composition skills and handwriting. If the war has not ended by the 12th day [of the letter writing campaign] we will start the whole sequence over again, writing to students in middle school, high school, and college.”

By “civic responsibility”, they mean serving as their political drones. Even though this exercise violated at least two district policies: one that bans teachers from promoting their personal political beliefs to students; and another that requires teachers to address opposing views when presenting controversial topics, it never occurred to administrators that this might be a bad idea.

Liberal bias and indoctrination in schools? Nah!

Vote Democrat: We're Smarter Than You

Every now and then, I like to see what the enemy is saying. Check out this post from the Democratic Underground:

What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed

This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.

I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.

#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

I've heard it said that the reason that Clinton's sex scandal resonated so strongly among "the people" was because it was a scandal that the average American understood. The average person can't understand a financial scandal.

In addition, people of average or lower intelligence tend to not be as logical or reasoned as those of higher intelligence - they deal with emotion. Therefore they are more likely to get riled up about someone burning a flag rather than a illogical tax cut.

#2 - The majority of people do not read the newspaper OR listen to the news, CNN,
etc. Therefore -they get their news from the Tonight Show, Letterman, Oprah and Saturday Night Live. Or, they get their news from talking to their co-workers at the water cooler.

Also, for the few people who DO listen to the news - who do they hear it from? Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are the most popular. Most newspapers and media outlets are owned by Republicans.

THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses.

My guess is that is that “normal” Americans don’t vote Democrat because they think they are a bunch of elitist a**holes. But what do I know, only being in the lower 80 to 99% of the bell curve?

Also check out these responses in the thread:

I would prefer 20%-25% voter turnout!!!! There are very few people on either side of the aisle who understand the issues!

The masses can be so easily mislead that they really should not vote!

I know - maybe they should start giving tests to voters

You know, just like they used to do in the South when it was heavily Democrat.

I'm baaaack

After a long hiatus the Burque Boy is back. Now back to solving the World's problems...

Liberal Math

Found this by means of Best of the Web. According to the Seattle Public Health Office - and I’m just paraphrasing here, condoms are “at least 90%” effective, while abstinence has “a contraceptive failure rate of 26%”.

While I am only aware of one recorded event of conception without sex, apparently it is more common in the Pacific Northwest. Just so you don’t think I am making it up, here is the full quote:

A 1988 National Survey of Family Growth found abstinence to have a contraceptive failure rate of 26% when not practiced consistently. So, in abstinence, as in condom use, consistency is key.

So their definition of abstinence involves having sex, which really isn’t abstinence at all. But who am I to question their logic? If you recall, this is the same political idealology that had problems defining “sex” and “is”, so you can see the confusion over "abstinence".

Democrats "Win" Again

In absence of any sort of victory over the past 5 years, Democrats have relegated themselves to celebrating defeat:

Democrats on Wednesday celebrated a closer-than-expected loss in a special House of Representatives race in Ohio and called it a warning sign for Republicans entering the 2006 congressional elections.

Jan Schmidt, a former state representative, beat Democrat Paul Hackett by 3,500 votes out of more than 112,000 cast in the conservative and heavily Republican district, where no Democrat in decades had won or even managed 40 percent of the vote.

"Every Republican in Congress should consider himself put on notice," Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said of Tuesday's results.

Emanuel continued, “Because we plan on losing even more elections by potentially smaller margins, and we won’t give up until we have no more elections left to lose.” Even Hackett was quick to congratulate himself on a race well lost:

"Tonight was a victory for democracy," Mr. Hackett, 43, told supporters at a downtown Cincinnati theater. "People had a real choice." Mr. Hackett has said he expects to sign up for another tour of duty in Iraq, possibly next summer.

So true, brother Hackett, so true. People did have a choice, and well...they chose Republican. With continued victories like this, the Democratic Party will be extinct in no time. As expected, the Democrat’s more prominent election losers rallied to his support:

Among those offering congratulations to Hackett were Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee [and loser 0f the 2004 Democratice Primary], and 2004 presidential nominee [and 2004 election loser] John Kerry, who said in a statement that Hackett "talked about the issues that really matter and he wasn't afraid to speak the truth about his experiences in the war in Iraq."

Of course Kerry applauding anyone for telling the truth about their war experiences is like Lil Kim patting Rafael Palmeiro on the back for his great testimony. At least one Democrat is tired of all these “victories”:

Al Gore still holds a $9 million surplus from the 2000 election that is his and his alone. John Kerry holds a healthy un-spent balance (estimated at $25 million) and minor candidates, all Democrats, are now millionaires as a result of their failed runs for the presidency in 2004. It's true and it is a fact of life.

Howard Dean's pleas for bucks are beyond me anymore. He can call himself "Governor", or he can call himself "Doctor", he can even call himself "Chairman"; but in reality he is nothing more than another huckster trying to fleece a sucker. I am like too many other Democrats, tired of being that sucker. Howard Dean needs to understand it and so do the other so called leaders within the Democratic Party.

Our money needs to finally buy an agenda and a victory - any victory! The agenda needs to come first. We are far from that ever happening. Without an agenda, meat the voters can sink their teeth into, we are no better off today than we were in 2002 when the final shoe dropped and we lost the Senate.

Definition: Tartuffery

On my way into work today I noticed a demonstration against America’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And I thought to myself: that’s interesting - Germans protesting America’s treatment of another culture during World War II.

The ACLU: Making the World a Safer Place for Terrorists

The New York Civil Liberties Union plans to file a lawsuit today challenging the legality of the Police Department's new policy of randomly searching bags and packages in the subway system.

The lawsuit, to be filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, contends that the searches are "virtually certain neither to catch any person trying to carry explosives into the subway nor to deter such an effort." It also says that many riders have been selected in a "discriminatory and arbitrary" manner, creating the potential for racial profiling.

Of course they are right. The problem here is that random searches will not be very effective because cops will be forced to search 12 year-old girls and 80 year-old grandmas in order not to appear racially profiling. “I’m sorry we let the guy with the bomb get through. I know he was wearing a turban, an excessively large and bulging overcoat, and carrying a duffel bag that said ‘Death to American Infidels,’ but he was the 4th passenger, and well, we only check every 5th.”

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department's chief spokesman, said the searches, which began on the evening of July 21, were both effective and legal. Under the search policy, officers are to use an essentially random criterion - stopping every 5th, 12th or 20th passenger carrying a bag or package. Selecting riders on the basis of race or national origin is prohibited.

Let’s not parse words here. Terrorists are Muslim, male, and in their late teens to 30’s. And until there is a white octogenarian suicide bomber, we have no reason to think otherwise. Cops profile all the time. How do you think you they catch bad guys? “We are looking for a suspect. About 5-foot-8. Can’t give you any other information, because that would be unfair to other people of their race and gender. Now go bring him or her in!”

The suit is to be filed on behalf of at least four people, including two men whose bags were searched on July 22, at subway stations in Manhattan and Queens. A third man, a lawyer who works in Midtown, entered the Times Square station on July 26 but then walked out when he saw that officers were searching bags. A fourth man is described in the suit as a "political activist, writer and media critic" who is worried about being harassed if the police notice the political materials he carries.

There’s an old saying – if you throw a rock in a pack of dogs, the only one who barks is the one who gets hit. Ever notice that when a measure is enacted to deter crime (i.e., security cameras, searches, three-strikes laws), it is always the liberals that are worried? Think about it.

We Have No More Bananas, We Have No Bananas Today

I’ve always liked Cat Stevens music. It’s too bad his new religion does not allow him do so any more, because he is one crappy political activist. According to him, the problem with the world is that there is not enough Islam:

Education is crucial. Here in Britain, the education system has been slow, at best, in allowing Islamic teachings to be taught in their full breadth. There is a lack of commitment to the rigors of traditional learning. In the West, where Islam is denigrated and prejudice abounds, where headlines designed to shock and mesmerize dominate people’s minds, the real teachings of the faith are left for people to fall upon by chance. In terms of spiritual and moral nourishment, it has been left to largely irregular and inadequate models of religious education to deliver the goods.

An hour-long mosque sermon, once a week — which most Muslims attend — or a lecture by a visiting scholar who barely speaks English and has little understanding of British and European life, are never likely to deliver the balanced curriculum necessary to build the conscientious believer, one who not only knows his duty to God but also to the society and world he lives in.

The July 7 bombers attended state schools in Britain, not faith-based schools. Some of them, we are told, briefly visited madrasa schools in Pakistan. This may or may not be relevant, but it suggests that they felt they had had insufficient Islamic education in Britain. By going abroad, they laid themselves open to influences outside normal scholastic parameters.

You know more Islam for the kids, just like in this Australian school:

The teacher could not believe what he overheard. The “visiting” imam was launching into a tirade against the Jews and Americans that bordered on the ludicrous.

But then came the clincher, he recalled. “The imam told the students that the Jews were putting poison in the bananas and they should not eat them.”

The imam was told to ease up on the inflammatory language after staff objected.

"Why We are Pathetic Losers": A Frenchman’s Introspective

Don’t consider me anti-Frenchite, because I’m really not. I love the French, their fries, bread, onion soup, kissing, maids… But their Government is, how do you say… “le Crap.” Even they think so:

The President of one of the world's biggest advertising agencies has issued a damning state-of-the-nation assessment that describes France as being in steep decline and his countrymen as "narrowed and stunted".

Maurice Lévy, the head of the media giant Publicis, whose company owns Saatchi and Saatchi and has offices in 100 countries across six continents, said France had failed to get the 2012 Olympics because the world now saw it as a nation of perdants - "losers".

For good measure, he described the 35-hour week as "absurd" and the wails of complaint that followed Paris's loss of the Games to London as "pathetic"…

"What I wrote was hard, but true. France is not in a crisis, it's worse than that. A crisis is usually sudden and short, while we are in an endemic situation," he said. "I've just had enough and wanted to say what I felt."

In the article, Mr Lévy said the French had only themselves to blame for losing the Olympics, and that the country needed a wake-up call. "We have narrowed and stunted ourselves and we paint ourselves as losers, and no one wants to be among the losers. It's time we opened our eyes wide, took an icy shower and looked reality in the face: we are in decline, going down a slippery slope…

"…when it was necessary, alas, to make redundancies, the compensation was set at 90 per cent, therefore allowing those made redundant to earn yet more without working. Why in that case, make any effort to find a job? In doing this, trying to avoid any difficulties for them, we have turned the French into children.

"The final straw has to be the absurd decision to introduce the 35-hour working week when we were told repeatedly that we could work less and earn more. How on earth in this context can we expect the same French people to accept necessary reforms?"

Work less and earn more?! Right. But the real question here is will they smell any better?

America's Greatest President

Ok, but seriously if Jimmy Carter speaks and no one listens, is it still idiotic? It appears Jimmy Cater is on furlough from his nursing home and is talking to anyone who will listen:

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," Carter told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter calling anything a “disgrace” is like Charles Manson calling someone a lunatic. Also, note the use of the liberal “BUT”: There is no justification for terrorism BUT Guantanamo Bay justifies terrorism. I am patriotic, BUT I think America brought 9/11 on itself. I like Jimmy Carter, BUT he is a spineless ass clown trying to make a legacy for himself. Get the idea?

Ok, so if Carter, Democrats, and other persons who hate the United States believe Guantanamo Bay “excuses” and “justifies” terrorism (You know, just like Attica justifies rape and murder), then what was the justification for this?

This…

This…

This…

And oh by the way, this…

If liberals had their way, this is how the U.S. would interrogate terrorists.

1. Ask “please”
2. If that doesn’t work, ask “pretty please”
3. Ask “pretty please with sugar on top”
4. Promise to be their best friend
5. When all else fails… boycott the Olympics

Carter uses liberal speak in order to make it appear that he does not believe there is a justification for terrorism, even though he just said there was:

Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

The irony of all this is that it was during Carter’s administration that terrorists realized the soft underbelly of the US is the feebleness of a liberal administration. Al-Jazeera, of course, was quick to take yet another sound bite from a liberal; except they left out that useless part where Carter says “terrorist acts could not be justified”. Which he doesn’t believe anyway.

I think NYT writer Thomas Friedman has a better idea:

We also need to spotlight the “excuse makers,” the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow “understandable” is outrageous. “It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism,” Rubin said, “and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them.”

So how do you identify the “excuse makers”? Oh, that’s easy:

1. Liberal use (literally) of the word “but”
2. They claim to just be “expressing their First Amendment rights”
3. They have to remind you they are patriotic and against terrorism
4. They are quoted in Al-Jazeera
5. Their biggest response to international aggression involved boycotting a sporting event

Spot the Trend

This from the WSJ:

Last Friday, [California] Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez told reporters during a conference call that he wouldn't consider canceling the special election unless the governor's office pledged in the future not to back any attempts to reform the state's budget process or restrict the right of public employee unions to spend member dues on political causes without written permission.

If you recall, a few days ago I pointed out California liberals desire to take legislative power out of the hands of the people and place it the hands of the few (presumably liberal) who know better than you what is in your best interest. Now they think union leaders (presumably liberal) should not be accountable to their members in determining which political causes (presumably liberal) to support.

This is rather interesting in light of what is going on at the AFL-CIO. It seems as though the Teamsters and Service Employees Union don’t think the AFL-CIO is acting in their best interest, but apparently Nunez never got the memo.

Bob Schieffer Outted as Racist, Gay Bashing Nazi

Here’s a good site. A liberal organization monitoring media bias. That’s a lot like John Gatti keeping crime in check, but needless to say that they’ve only been able to uncover conservative bias. Like this nugget, unearthing conservative bias at, (ahem) CBS.

In the July 21 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist Gail Shister quoted (registration required) CBS chairman Les Moonves: "That's not the end-all, be-all, but obviously the White House doesn't hate CBS anymore with [Bob] Schieffer in the anchor chair."

But far from hating CBS, the White House has reason to embrace the network and its selection of Schieffer to serve as interim anchor following Dan Rather's departure as anchor of the CBS Evening News. Schieffer has previously described his "golfing friendship" with President Bush "during the 1990s" and has said, "It's always difficult to cover someone you know personally."

Following the announcement that Schieffer would moderate the third and final presidential debate last year, Media Matters for America noted several statements Schieffer had made that raised questions about his objectivity.

Moreover, Shister wrote: "Moonves says Schieffer is looked upon kindly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because his brother, John Thomas Schieffer, was ambassador to Australia (he was posted to Japan in February), and was partners with the future President Bush in the Texas Rangers."

I don’t know enough about Schieffer to assess his political inclination, but the case for him being a Conservative mouth piece is a bit thin. As far as I know, Mary Matalin, who also worked for the President, is sleeping with James Carville, but that certainly does not make Cue Ball a Republican. I mean jeez, it isn’t like Schieffer was Jimmy Carter’s speechwriter, or I don't know... say, Lyndon Johnson’s Press Secretary. I mean trying to pass him off as unbiased under those cirumstances would be downright criminal, right?

California Judge Bars Vote on Change in Redistricting

A California judge has ordered the removal of a measure on California’s November ballot that changes districting and procedures around the state:

The judge, Gail Ohanesian of Sacramento County Superior Court, said supporters of the measure had violated the California Constitution by submitting a version of the measure to state officials for the ballot that was worded differently from the one signed by nearly 1 million voters.

"The differences are not simply typographical errors," Judge Ohanesian said. "They are not merely about the format of the measure. They are not simply technical. Instead they go to the substantive terms of the measure."

Supporters of the measure, who argued in court that the differences were both unintentional and inconsequential, said they would seek to have the judge's ruling stayed by the Court of Appeals as early as Friday or Monday.

Democratic California Attorney General Bill Lockyer says its not politics, he’s just doing his job. His spokesman stated, "The judge's ruling was well reasoned, well considered and correct. It basically stands for the proposition that the California initiative process isn't horseshoes and isn't hand grenades. Close is not good enough."

Sounds like a battle of semantics and technicalities, but isn’t this telling of how differently Democrats and Republicans view legislation? Whereas Republicans want to get this proposal into the hands of the voters and let them decide, Democrats are content with a single judge determining what is best for California.