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.

News Flash: U.S. Cities Scarier Than African Jungles

Seems as though West Virginia's Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd likes the President’s pick for Supreme Court:

"One's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities," writes Senatro Byrd. "In my judgment, much of the problem has been brought about by the mollycoddling of criminals by some of the liberal judges who have been placed on the nation's courts in recent years."

Mr. Byrd essentially endorsed Mr. Bush's primary stated strategy for picking Judge Roberts and other judicial nominees. "The high court's share of the responsibility for our increasing lawlessness lies in two areas -- its zeal for bringing about precipitous social change, and its overconcern for the rights of criminals and its underconcern for the rights and safety of society," he writes.

I wonder why Byrd thinks the jungles of Africa and America’s cities are so dangerous? In case you missed the connection, here is a picture of Sen. Byrd in his more youthful days of indiscretion.

Make sense now?

The NYT Still Dancing

Remember this post? When a NYT editor slipped in some verbiage into a Military Officer’s op ed making it sound like he was involuntarily mobilized on very short notice, when he in fact volunteered for Iraq and knew for quite some time about it.

Well the NYT is still trying to dance around it. According to them an editor slipped it in to “clarify” the piece and make it “stronger”. And by clarify and stronger, the NYT means like, you know… make it more liberal.

When the Officer saw the changes, he threatened to pull the article. Except the problem is that the editor somehow “forgot” to pull the changes when the article went to print.

Not saying they did it on purpose. But it does give one a little insight on their agenda.

Speaking of Prisoner Abuse

Looks like the inmates at a Spanish prison have their own ideas how terrorists should be treated:

Inmates on Friday beat up Imad Yarkas, a suspected al-Qaida cell leader jailed on charges he helped plot the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, breaking his jaw, nose and a tooth and injuring one of his eyes, Spanish officials said.

So this just goes to show that not all Spaniards are spineless weasels. This of course leads me to rethink my stance on Gitmo. I say close the place down. Send the terrorists to Brazil.

NYT Uncovers More “Abuses” at Gitmo

These abuses include lap dances, getting perfume rubbed on their arms, a neck and shoulder massage, and whispering in the ear. And to think American men have to pay 100 bucks an hour for this kind of abuse.

Sounds like a Scrapple Face article, but it is an NYT Op-Ed. Granted that all of the above is very old news, but NYT feels the need to reframe it in the context of the American military and intelligence community “prostituting” its female members:

There are countless reasons to be outraged about the abuses of detainees at American military prisons. But there is one abuse about which there can surely be no debate, even among the die-hard supporters of President Bush: the exploitation and debasement of women serving in the United States military. This practice must come to an immediate end, and the Pentagon must make it clear that such things will never be tolerated again.

So the real question here is what does the NYT know about “die hard supporters of President Bush”? Ok, but seriously, lets be honest here. NYT’s real aim here is to embarrass the American military and the White House. They tried it by reporting so-called prisoner abuses, but the problem is that no one really cared how terrorists are being treated, save the terrorists, the Democratic party and Chuck Hagel.

So now they reframe the issue in a way that think will garner more sympathy. The problem is that this is not a forced prostituion camp, but rather trained professionals willing to do dirty deeds in the name of patriotism.

Karl Rove was right and Ace Of Spades sums it up best:

They're not serious. They are against war even in the most dire of circumstances, and they're against any of the dirtier parts of intelligence-gathering. They cannot come right out and admit they oppose war and covert operations on principle, so they simply object to every conceivable part of warfare or covert ops or interrogation in their details.

Then they can claim they are not reflexively anti-this or anti-that, they're just very outraged by this particular practice.

Trouble is, they're outraged by every particular practice of war or intelligence-gathering. It's like saying you have nothing against Western omelets, except you despise eggs, loath ham, destest green peppers, and find onions gob-smackingly vile.

And also-- you're not too crazy about the toast and orange juice they give you on the side. And that you frankly find toast and orange juice "unAmerican" and "contrary to the spirit of our living Constitution."Let's stop talking of eggs and ham and such and just admit you're anti-omelet.

The Enemy Without and Within

The Football Fans for Truth hit a home run:

In the war on terror, the West has its hands full challenging psychotic Islamism. Multinational forces battle remnant Taliban in Afghanistan while the United States, Britain and others try to mold a cohesive, functioning Iraqi society amidst constant terror by disaffected Sunnis and imported jihadists. While it can be fun to identify the buffoons who characterize all attempts to fight terror abroad as mere smokescreens for the Bush Reich, the undeserved attention on a Michael Moore, Al Gore or George Galloway tends to obscure the fact that there are true villains during this time, and they are men of consequence.

I nominate four.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero: After 9/11 and before London came Madrid. Hundreds massacred on Spain's rail lines, followed by a direct note of extortion from al Qaeda - get out of Iraq or we'll keep killing you. Zapatero, newly elected as prime minister in part because of his predecessor's shifty handling of the bombings, promptly supplicated himself to the Islamofascists. "Wars such as that which has occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate," Zapatero lectured. To be fair, Zapatero ran on a promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. Nonetheless, by promptly capitulating to terror (two months later, Spain was out of Iraq), Zapatero instituted protection payments as national policy and paved the way for 7/7 in London.

Kofi Annan: Not because of his duplicity during the U.N. resolution process or because of his scummy involvement in the Oil-for-Food program, but for his cowardly leadership in the early days of the Iraqi occupation, especially after the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Approximateley 600 U.N. employees were stationed in Iraq before 2003 bombing of the U.N.'s Baghdad office, which killed 22 people, including the chief UN envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello. Did the U.N.'s flag still stand tall, uncowed by the brutal attack of a suicide bomber? Within a month, U.N. personnel staff totalled a few dozen. The U.N. turned tail and ran.

Ted Kennedy: His partisanship was so rank that it paved the way for the excesses of his party, from the drumbeat of "Bush lied" to Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention to the entire Democratic leadership treating Abu Ghraib as akin to beheadings to Kennedy's colleague, Senator Dick Durbin, likening American forces' handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to the atrocities of Pol Pot.
Kennedy's calumnies are worth repeating:

* "This [the war] was made up in Texas, announced in January [2003] to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."

* "The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed."

* "The President's war has been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless."

* "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

Kennedy's attacks, which are really no more than a reprise of his vicious excesses during the Vietnam war, underscore that at its heart, the American left is more comfortable waging war on its political opposition than on the likes of al Qaeda and Saddam.

John Kerry: He matters little now, but as the standardbearer for the opposition party in the last presidential election, Senator Kerry had an opportunity to offer a cohesive and responsible anti-terror and Iraq opposition policy. Instead, Kerry was either incoherent or destructive, communicating to Iraqis, the Middle East, and allies a significant fissure in American resolve. For example, prior to the war, Kerry voted for its authorization, wisely stating "We are facing a very different world today than we have ever faced before. September 11 changed a lot . . . We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past."

Kerry added "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations."

But in fighting off a challenge from the left during the Democratic primaries, Kerry disavowed his intelligent pre-war stand. In its place? A haphazard, desperate and shrill attack masquerading as policy. Kerry voted against funding the troops. He called the war he voted to authorize a "colossal error in judgment." He accused the president of lying to him personally. He degraded the particpation of other nations in Iraq as a "coalition of the bribed." Kerry's spokesman even called the Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi a "puppet," adding "and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

Kerry could have beaten Howard Dean, who ended up being a self-destructive paper tiger, by taking an approach that did not rupture bipartisanship on at least the basics, as opposed to the prosecution, of the war. Instead, Kerry panicked, and the effect (coupled with the contributions of his party's leadership) metastasized the malignancy in the Democratic party. Under the Kerry campaign, the Iraq war became no more than a tool to demolish the administration.

Zapatero and Annan demonstrated that swift kicks to the soft underbelly of a coalition member and the world's premier international organization would result in an immediate retreat. In short, if the terrorists struck, Spain and the U.N. would cave to their demands come hell, high water, greater goal, or the needs of the newly liberated Iraqi people.

Kennedy made the entire endeavor political, thereby ever-cheapening American efforts, which soon degenerated to the gutter. As Kennedy charged on the Senate floor after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we became Saddam. Last month, Senator Durbin informed us that we became worse than Saddam, an amlagamation of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Kerry institutionalized Kennedy's defamation. What should have been rejected as bizarre and dangerous was embraced as mainstream.

All four men have done incalculable damage to the fight against terror, the efforts to stabilize Iraq and the image of the West in this fight against al Qaeda.

If it Smells Like a Duck...

The BBC can’t quite seem to bring itself to refer to use the word “Terrorist” when referring to those who murdered 50 people in London.

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.

Unless of course they are referring to Israel and/or America.

USA Today has no problem applying this standard. Columnist Julianne Malveaux had this to say to Sean Hannity:

"Terrorism in the United States is as old as we are. You want me to give you a litany of terrorism? You want me to start with what's happened to the Indian population? You want to go on to what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921?"

"C'mon now, Sean," Malveaux told Hannity. "We are terrorists."

Asked point-blank if the U.S. was a "terrorist nation," Malveaux shot back: "Oh, Absolutely."

"George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control."

The Grey Lady Shows It's Colours

An interesting “correction” in the NYT:

The Op-Ed page in some copies of Wednesday's newspaper carried an incorrect version of the below article about military recruitment. The article also briefly appeared on NYTimes.com before it was removed. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.

Now I know what you are thinking here: Another case of liberal bias at an Old Media stalwart. I don’t think that could be farther than the truth. This story was obviously planted by Karl Rove in a pathetic attempt to embarrass a, ahem... well respected news institution. For examples of NYT’s proven history of strong journalistic integrity, click here, here, here, here, and here.

Of course this is not nearly as clever as when CNN and Netscape posted a graphic of the President and the First Lady and titled the image assho… Well, I can’t go into detail here because me mum reads this site, but you can read all about it here.

In God We Fail

A California community college student is given an “F” for using the “G” word 41 times in an essay:

[Bethany] Hauf's teacher approved her term paper topic — Religion and its Place within the Government — on one condition: Don't use the word God. Instead of complying with Victor Vally Community College adjunct instructor Michael Shefchik's condition. Hauf wrote a 10-page report for her English 101 class entitled "In God We Trust.""

He said it would offend others in class," Hauf, a 34-year-old mother of four, said. "I didn't realize God was taboo."

"I don't loose my First Amendment rights when I walk into that college," Hauf said. She is demanding an apology from the teacher and that the paper be re-graded.

Mrs. Hauf has enlisted the help of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a conservative Christian legal foundation. A letter from the ACLJ to school officials also indicates that Mrs. Hauf posted her paper on an on-line blackboard for “review and comment from other students”. Shefick had it removed the next day.

So let me get this straight: A political ideology that thinks the public should fund an art project that involves urinating on a crucifix, thinks people might get offended by the use of the word “God”? These are the same people who throw feces on the Virgin Mary, but call handling the Koran without gloves torture.

You want to know what torture is? Listening to liberal yay-hoos tear this Country down everyday for their own political gain. Stuff like this:

“When the vice president absurdly claims the insurgency is 'in its last throes,' he insults the common sense and intelligence of the American people, and diminishes our stature with France, er the world, I mean,” Said C student, John Kerry.

"We just don't have a clue," Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat obviously speaking about his own party.

“YEEEEEAAAARRRRGGGGHHH!”, Howard “Screaming La Vida Loca” Dean.

You know what? Karl Rove was wrong. Liberals are not preparing indictments and offering therapy. They are taking up arms and like the Vichy French are marching along with the enemy.

Kerry Offers Presidential Advice

A guy named John Kerry offered the President some advice on what to say in his speech on Iraq:

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

Too many sarcastic comments running through my head. Pick one below:

A) That John Kerry is a smart guy! I bet he did well in college.

B) Sure! It makes perfect sense for the President take advice from someone who is 1) not on his side, and 2) has never been President.

C) John Kerry really knows how to connect with the American public. He ought to run for President someday.

GITMO Put into Persepective

Retired Green Beret LTC Gordon Cucullu gives his first hand observations on Guantanamo Bay. The last sentence surmises it well. Here are some excerpts, but I recommend reading the whole thing here.

After speaking with soldiers, sailors, and civilians who collectively staff Gitmo, I left convinced that abuse definitely exists at the detention facilities, and it typically fails to receive the press attention it deserves: it’s the relentless, merciless attacks on American servicemen and women by these terrorist thugs. Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell another: “One day I will enjoy sucking American blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable….” These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being “non-compliant.” They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food.
…
There is a good reason these unlawful combatants are being confined. They are evil and dangerous individuals. Yet these thugs are treated with an amazing degree of compassion: They are given ice cream treats and recreational time. They live in clean facilities, and receive a full Muslim religious package of Koran, prayer rug, beads, and prayer oils. An arrow in every cell points to Mecca. The call to prayer is played five times daily. They are not abused, hanged, tortured, beheaded, raped, mutilated, or in any way treated the way that they once treated their own captives – or now treat their guards.

You are right to worry about inhumane treatment taking place at GITMO. But your concern should be for the dedicated, well-trained, highly professional American men and women who are subjected to a daily barrage of feces, urine, semen, and spit hurled at them along with vile invective as they implement a humane, enlightened system of confinement on men who want nothing more than to kill Americans. These quiet professional Americans, who live under the motto “Honor Bound for Defense of Freedom,” deserve our utmost respect and concern. Shame on anyone who slanders or disrespects them for short-term and short-sighted political advantage.

Apologitis

Ok, we saw this coming too. Democrats are shocked and chagrinned by Karl Rove’s comments and want him to apologize and/or resign. I can hear the cries now. “Durbin had to apologize, so should Rove, you… you… you Nazi!” So I say, (1) Durbin did not have to apologize, (2) he did not apologize, (3) how can you even compare the two? (Durbin called American Soldiers: Nazis. Rove called Democrat politicians: liberal.)

John Kerry said, "don't dare question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction." Duh, he wasn’t. He was questioning the patriotism of Democrats.

Howard “Living the American Scream” Dean said, get this, President Bush should "condemn Karl Rove's desperate and divisive attempt to help the Republicans regain their political footing. YEEEEAAAAAAAARGH!"

Hey Dean, there’s a phone call for you. It’s the pot. He says you’re black. Just be thankful he didn’t accuse you of being a white Christian.

When asked by reporters whether President Bush will ask Rove to apologize, White House press secretary Scott McClellan replied, “Of course not."

Now all this causes me to wonder, when did it become socially acceptable to demand an apology? If you have to demand it, is it really an apology? Take my Uncle Fred, he’s half retarded and has Tourettes Syndrome. You won’t see me demanding an apology every time he calls me a name. And frankly, I don’t need it. I have come to expect that from him ‘cause that’s they way God made him.

As well, Republicans should just accept it when a Democrat starts vomiting their rhetoric. After all, most Democrats suffer the same afflictions as my Uncle Fred, well at least the half retarded part. And if Democrats don’t like what Republicans are doing, get over it and do something useful once in a while other than giving Al-Jazeera sound bites.

Update: Some may believe my above remarks crossed the line. There’s usually a quote by Abraham Lincoln that you can turn to in moments like this. If Lincoln we’re alive to day he would say, “Get me outta here, get me outta here,” while clawing desperately at the lid of his coffin. In the end I don’t want anything in my blogging career to detract from my love of this country. Again I offer my apologies to Tourettes Syndrome patients and retarded kids everywhere for comparing them to Democrats. As for the rest of you, you really know where I am coming from, right?! Mr. President I yield to the floor.

Karl Rove Tells it Like it Is

At a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State, Karl Rove had this to say:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers"…

Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble."…

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked [regarding Dick Durbin’s statements]. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
liberals."

What the?... Karl Rove, I just have one thing to say. And please don’t take this the wrong way… I love you.

News Flash: Some People Offended by Men in Feather Boas and G-Strings

Yesterday, Jerusalem city officials announced that they will “ban the annual gay pride parade set for next week, claiming the march would offend many of the holy city's residents”.

The city council, including the mayor, decided "it is not right to allow the march or other planned activities to take place in the streets of Jerusalem, fearing that it will create an uproar, offend a wide sector of city residents and out of fear of public disturbances," Eitan Meir, director general of City Hall, said in a letter to organizers.

Well, we all knew this was coming. For years liberals have been banning Christianity (and Jada Pinkett) from classrooms, government and the streets on the basis that it might offend people. Take this 2004 Christmas parade for example:

In the latest skirmish over Christmas in America, a Christian group is not allowed to participate in Denver's annual Parade of Lights, because church members sought to sing yuletide hymns and proclaim a "Merry Christmas" message on their float.

However, the event, now in its 30th year, will include homosexual American Indians, Kung Fu artisans, belly dancers and, of course, Santa Claus.

Looks as though turn about is fair play. Granted, this was Israel and not the United States, but American liberals have already laid the ground work for forbidding so-called offensive events. But then again, liberals have a warped sense of values – Nativity scene: offensive, Smearing feces on the Virgin Mary: art.

Now don’t get me wrong, the Burque Boy loves a parade, and a gay one at that - particularly if the participants look anything like Neve Campbell and Denise Richard ala Wild Things (unfortunately most of them look like Richard Simmons and Barney Frank.)

Dick Without a Pair

Dick Durbin needs to (as the Spanish say) find his cajones. These are not the words of a man, much less a sorry man:

Some may believe my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies. There’s usually a quote by Abraham Lincoln that you can turn to in moments like this. Maybe this is the right one. Lincoln said “If the end brings me out right what is set against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong ten thousand angels swarming at his right won’t make any difference.” In the end I don’t want anything in my public career to detract from my love of this country, my respect for those who serve it, and this great Senate. I offer my apologies for those who were offended by my words. I promise you that I will continue to speak out on the issues I think are important to the people of Illinois and to the Nation. Mr.President I yield to the floor.

They are the words of a spineless weenie who is not sorry and is only apologizing because he feels he has to. Again, I don’t care what Dick said, I don’t care if he apologizes, but I had much greater respect for him when he was digging in his heels and refusing to apologize. At least he was standing up for his true warped feelings.

I feel like Don Corleone slapping Johhny Fontane around. “You can act like a man! What's the matter with you? Is this how you turned out? A Hollywood fannuchio that cries like a woman.”

News Flash: PETA Are a Bunch of Lying Phonies

Two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have been charged with animal cruelty after dumping dead dogs and cats in a shopping center garbage bin.

Police found 18 dead animals in the bin and 13 more in a van registered to PETA. The animals were from animal shelters in [two North Carolina] counties, police said.

Investigators arrested the two workers after staking out a garbage bin where animals had previously been dumped, police said Thursday.

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said the workers were picking up animals to be brought to PETA headquarters for euthanization. Veterinarians and animal control officers said the PETA workers had promised to find homes for the animals rather than euthanize them, according to police.

Of course this is nothing new. PETA has killed over 13,000 cats and dogs since 1998 according to this web site. Hold on, I’ve got to sneeze. Ah... ah... achoohypocrites... achoohypocrites. Sorry, now where was I?

Dick Apologizes (Sort of)

I tried to stay away from this, because I really could not care less about what Dick Durbin thinks. In all honesty, I don’t even think he should resign. That is between him and the good voters of the state of Illinois. But then came his apology:

“My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this administration, which add to the risk our soldiers face. I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration, and total support.”

Note that he is not sorry for his statements, he doesn’t even regret them. He regrets that simplistic stupid Christian rednecks do not understand his complex emotions.

Is it just me or is the line that separates the thoughts and words of American liberals and the propagandist lies of Al-Jazeera slowly blurring.

Of course the real irony here is that Dick slurs same soldiers that protect his ability to freely emit his delusions.