Tuesday, February 28, 2006

CBS poll skewed to the Left...as usual

Currently some 1200 Google News stories about the CBS poll showing Bush's approval rating now at 38%, his lowest yet. Too bad they didn't disclose the blatantly biased slant that isn't part of the story. CBS, and their hatred of Bush is determined to scuttle this president if it's the last thing they do.

Not that these numbers are skewed or anything:

Total Respondents 1018
Total Republicans 272 / 289
Total Democrats 409/ 381
Total Independents 337 / 348

(all the poll numbers here...pdf file)

In Rather think: "just becaused it's tilted to the left doesn't mean it's not true.
.....they still think they're a real news agency.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

WSJ: The war on drugs does more harm than the drugs

Drug policy reform has been around since the end of alcohol prohibition. How we got to drug prohibition is another story, a lengthy one, to be sure.. Let's just say the problems with drug prohibition is no different than failed alcohol prohibition, except for one significant difference: alcohol prohibition was a result of a Constitutional amendment, while Drug prohibition was created by the existing army of booze police, which quickly morphed into the drug warriors after repeal of the 21st amendment.

This is one of those subjects where everyone has a very strong opinion about drug policy reform, but overflowing prisons, police corruption, and laws that do more harm than the drugs themselves, the drift towards reform seems to be slowly moving forward.

WSJ editorial addresses the issue with seldom found candor:

Economist Milton Friedman predicted in Newsweek nearly 34 years ago that Richard Nixon's ambitious "global war against drugs" would be a failure. Much evidence today suggests that he was right. But the war rages on with little mainstream challenge of its basic weapon, prohibition.

To be sure, Mr. Friedman wasn't the only critic. William Buckley's National Review declared a decade ago that the U.S. had "lost" the drug war, bolstering its case with testimony from the likes of Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief in Kansas City, Mo., and San Jose, Calif. But today discussion of the war's depressing cost-benefit ratio is being mainly conducted in the blogosphere, where the tone is predominantly libertarian. In the broader polity, support for the great Nixon crusade remains sufficiently strong to discourage effective counterattacks.


The drug war has become costly, with some $50 billion in direct outlays by all levels of government, and much higher indirect costs, such as the expanded prison system to house half a million drug-law offenders and the burdens on the court system. Civil rights sometimes are infringed. One sharply rising expense is for efforts to interdict illegal drug shipments into the U.S., which is budgeted at $1.4 billion this fiscal year, up 41% from two years ago.

That reflects government's tendency to throw more money at a program that isn't working. Not only have the various efforts not stopped the flow but they have begun to create friction with countries the U.S. would prefer to have as friends.


Milton Friedman saw the problem. To the extent that authorities curtail supplies of marijuana, cocaine and heroin coming into the rich U.S. market, the retail price of these substances goes up, making the trade immensely profitable--tax-free, of course. The more the U.S. spends on interdiction, the more incentive it creates for taking the risk of running drugs.

In 1933, the U.S. finally gave up on the 13-year prohibition of alcohol--a drug that is by some measures more intoxicating and dangerous to health than marijuana. That effort to alter human behavior left a legacy of corruption, criminality, and deaths and blindness from the drinking of bad booze. America's use of alcohol went up after repeal but no serious person today suggests a repeat of the alcohol experiment. Yet prohibition is still being attempted, at great expense, for the small portion of the population--perhaps little more than 5%--who habitually use proscribed drugs.

So what's the alternative? An army of government employees now makes a living from the drug laws and has a rather conflictive interest in claiming both that the drug laws are working and that more money is needed. The challenge is issued: Do you favor legalization? In fact, most drugs are legal, including alcohol, tobacco and coffee and the great array of modern, life-saving drugs administered by doctors. To be precise, the question should be do you favor legalization or decriminalization of the sale and use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?

A large percentage of Americans will probably say no, mainly because they are law-abiding people who maintain high moral and ethical standards and don't want to surrender to a small minority that flouts the laws, whether in the ghettos of Washington D.C. or Beverly Hills salons. The concern about damaging society's fabric is legitimate. But another question needs to be asked: Is that fabric being damaged now?

Mr. Melloan is deputy editor, international of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Chuck Schumer: Let Halliburton Run Ports

Sen. Chucky Schumer, who wrote the book on being a self appointed moonbat, continues to make comments that verify his view that nobody pays attention to anything he says:

Sen. Charles Schumer, who's been a leading critic of the Bush administration's decision to approve a takeover of U.S. ports by a company based in the United Arab Emirates, said Monday that he'd rather give Hallibuton the contract.

"I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now," Schumer told Fox News Channel's John Gibson.

The New York Democrat endorsed a Halliburton port takeover - an idea first floated by radio host Rush Limbaugh - even though his party has spent years vilifying the company because of its ties to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Schumer explained, however, that Democats had previously hated Halliburton because "they made large amounts of profit" from what he said were no-bid contracts.

But if Hallibuton "can do the best job and they get the contract on the merits," Schumer said, "I'd pat them on the back."

Right, he's pat them on the back and then shoot them in the head. Who is he trying to kid. Can you imagine Bush asking Halliburton to take over the ports? The left would rant and rave, stomp their feet, call for another investigation, and certainly insist that both Cheney and Bush resign.

As an aside, just how many actually knew these ports were owned by the Brits? Certainly not most of the politicians in Washington, or, for that matter, 99% of the electorate. Regardless of a complete lack of information on the subject, it's amazing to watch EVERYONE spewing their hard core positions. Verifying the old adage; " by God, I may not know anything about the subject, but I certainly have an opinion"......the very definition of politics!

H/T Hemant

Monday, February 20, 2006

Movie clip chuckle of the day

It's only about 20 seconds long, but will definitly make you chuckle: From Dave Barry

CNN: " Bush makes media look bad"

Like their inability to accept their blatant leftist bias, the media can't even accept just how dopey they look to most of their readers. As usual, they actually blame Bush for making them look like a bunch of clowns.

Don't you just wonder what color the sky is in their world?

On CNN's RELIABLE SOURCES, WASHINGTON POST reporter Dana Milbank fretted that the White House is exploiting the public's growing disdain for the mainstream media. "Of course they succeed, Milbank said of Bush aides. The press always looks awful. They will once again make us look awful.

CNN's Candy Crowley added: "The perception is that we're whining."

White House correspondent Bill Plante of CBS agreed.

"The vice president and the White House have both used the constant press coverage of this story as a wedge,” he told RELIABLE SOURCES host Howard Kurtz. “It plays to the prejudices of the people who are predisposed not to like us, and it's one way to distract attention from what happened.

When fear cows the media

Finally a major American newspaper admits their real reasons for not publishing the cartoons:
Boston Globe:
"....isn't publishing the Mohammed drawings, and in a brutally candid editorial it explained why.''Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is ''fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do . . . Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and . . . could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history"

Everything is "relative"

No doubt Hitler's world looks pretty good, compared with the life under the Islamofacists.
(do you ever wonder how many of these folks actuallly speak English? Or is this just pandering to the western media?...duh)

This photo from a German TV station:

Sunday, February 19, 2006

It just made me chuckle

A West Texas cowboy was herding his herd in aremote pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd,will you give me a calf?"

The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his AT&T cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech,miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, "You have exactly 1586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the cowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the cowboy says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?"

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're a consultant for the National Democratic Party." says the cowboy.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the cowboy. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked; and you don't know anything about my business........ Now give me back my dog."

From Ken

Iran's female police "academy"

This is easily one of the more bizaar movie clips you'll see. These people are truly NUTS!!!

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Friday, February 17, 2006

Why the Democrat's game plan is a road to destruction

Aren't the Dems simply preaching to the choir?

The Heartland Breakout Meme seems like B.S. of the sort that consistently hurts Democrats

Via Winds Of Change
Much of Democratic politics seems to now consist of embracing and fanning similarly comforting, but ultimately deceptive, liberal memes.

Enron has fatally damaged Bush, Abu Ghraib has fatally damaged Bush, Katrina has fatally damaged Bush, Abramoff has fatally damaged Bush, the Plame investigation will fatally damage Bush--you can catch the latest allegedly devastating issue every day on Huffington Post or Daily Kos (and frequently in the NYT).

If you believe the hype--if you don't compare Michael Moore's box office with Mel Gibson's box office, in effect--you'll believe that Democrats don't need to change to win. They just need to push all these hot memes forcefully. If you don't believe the hype--if you think that netroots Dems are too often like the Iraqi Sunnis who think they're a majority--you'll look for a Bill Clinton-like alternative with greater red-state appeal.

Culture of corruption leans more Left than Right

My, my. It seems the Pelosi's " culture of corruption" chant, aimed at the Repubs,, is a term more appropriate for the Dems. based on cash received by lobbyists. Numbers don't lie:
Democrats have taken more money from lobbyists than Republicans during the past 15 years, according to an independent analysis of campaign contributions.

Since the 1990 election cycle, Democrats have accepted more than $53 million from lobbyists while Republicans have taken more than $48 million for their election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Data provided by the nonpartisan group also shows that when Democrats controlled Congress in the early 1990s, they consistently hauled in more than 70 percent of the town's lobbyist money. The group is a leading critic of Texas Republican Rep. Tom DeLay's ties to lobbyists.

"When the Democrats were in charge, they were getting an incredibly higher amount of lobbyist money compared to Republicans," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Now that the tables are turned there is parity between the two parties."

Which only proves that money is the life blood of Washington, also known as the "evil of spending other people's money". Maybe term limits is worth taking another look-see.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

CNN whining over FoxNews Cheney interview

Well, you just have to laugh.

On CNN, commentator Jack Cafferty called the interview "a little bit like Bonnie interviewing Clyde. ... I mean, running over there to the Fox network -- talk about seeking a safe haven."

...as opposed to the oh so fair and balanced CNN? The leftist moonbats continue to deny their blatant bias, which only entertains the informed.

The money quote in the San Francisco Chron article from Cheney, regarding the "delay" in reporting the incident:
"If my e-mail is any guide, and the things I'm hearing from just people in the street that you talk to and people that you know, I don't think much of the nation feels particularly deprived that they found out about this on Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening instead of Saturday night or Sunday morning,"

Cheney vs. Kennedy

You have to admit, watching the MSM froth at the mouth over this story is pretty, humorous. The left is doing what it does best: whine,whine,whine.

Sent to me by Ken

Sunday, February 12, 2006

The war you didn't see

A soldier's commentary on his experience in Iraq, well worth reading.....even though it's in today's LA Times, it's still informative and certainly a condemnation of the media coverage of the war.

The money quote at the end:
While I was in Iraq, I read Walter Isaacson's remarkable biography, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life." I was reminded of the passion and determination of our founding fathers, and of the long years they experienced between independence and the founding of the government we enjoy today. Franklin and company recognized the importance of having a fully informed American constituency involved in making the decisions of government.

When it comes to Iraq, in my experience, that constituency is poorly served.

Friday, February 10, 2006

If al Qaeda phones, tell them we can't take the call.

Is this really the way to regain power? Watching the Dems stand up and cheer when Bush commented on the failure of passage of Social Security reform, at the State of the Union, was frustrating enough, but to now watch them essentially dismantle one of the significant tools to fight terrorism, it's hard to watch...not to mention scary. How is this nonsense going to convince voters that they are the party of national security? They just keep taking the wrong side:


Let's start with the one thing we know for sure about the Bush administration's program to listen to al Qaeda's phone calls into and out of the United States: It's dead.

After all the publicity of the past two weeks, does anyone think that the boys working on plans for Boston Harbor, the Golden Gate Bridge or Chicago's Loop are still chatting by phone? If the purpose of the public exposure was to pull the plug on the pre-emptive surveillance program, mission accomplished. Be safe, Times Square.

At the least, al Qaeda's operatives in Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Hamburg and the U.S. will hold off phoning in the next mass-murder plan until the U.S. Senate finishes deliberating Arlen Specter's proposal to legislatively order up an opinion from the judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, est. 1978, as to whether the antiterrorist wiretap program violates the law that created their jobs.

Surely the Dems are happy now!

Democrats: White House Knew About Levees

So the left is going to hang on to the Katrina story like a pit bull. Convinced they can smear Dubya with the "racist" tag, they apparently honestly believe that nobody really understands how FEMA is supposed to function and the governor and mayor were only bit players.

The fact that most everyone knows that New Orleans is the most corrupt city in the most corrupt state doesn't seem to matter. Or the fact that more whites were displaced than black is a small matter not worth noting, the Dems are convinced they can paint Bush & Company as racists.....and, well, liars, corrupt, and filthy immoral bags of garbage.

Oh, and by the way, the New Orleans fiasco was NOT a "natural disaster", it was man made and happened only because the state and city governments used levee improvement money for "other things" (use your imagination). Regardless, when it comes to blasting the Right with distorted versions of the story simply proves their basic policy of " repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes truth".
How pathetic.
Slander by the Democrats and MSM, by the book:


A timeline of e-mails, situation updates and weather reports, pieced together by Senate Democrats, indicates the Bush administration knew as early as 8:30 a.m. EST about levee failures that would ultimately lead to massive flooding of the city and its surrounding parishes.

Senate Democrats said the documents raise questions about whether the government moved quickly enough to rescue storm victims once they realized the levees had broken.

Democrats said the documents showed there was little excuse for the tardy federal response.

....it is inexplicable to me how those responsible for the federal response could have woken up Tuesday morning unaware of this obviously catastrophic situation."

Apparently the Left believes the Feds should have a virtual army of first responders camped out on the fringes of every American city, just in case something bad happens. To the socialist mind, state governments have no responsibilities in such matters. Big daddy centralized government is the answer to all.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Murder and mayhem can't compare with the horror of cartoons

Who else: Fox&Forkum

Click image to enlarge

Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'

Likely to not be widespread news in the MSM, this report flies in the face of typical reports about global warming and how it's caused exclusively by human activity. Anyone disagreeing with this view is dismissed and rediculed. Regardless, many in the climate change arena believe this story to be the more likely scenario:

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

Monday, February 06, 2006

The enemy of our enemy grows

Death and destruction around the globe all because of some "cartoons"? Hardly. Islam extremists are showing their true colors and, like Iran, have a simple agenda: death to the infidels.

Isn't it fascinating how the media is describing the riots?

Reuters headline today: New protests erupt in cartoon row
A "row", as in a minor disagreement. Has the media no shame? NO

The latest countries on the hit list:
Ukraine became the latest country where papers published the cartoons, joining Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, the United States, Japan, Norway, Malaysia and Australia.
....and their excuse for this insanity:

Speaking from Beirut, Omar Bakri Mohammad, leader of the Islamist group al Muhajiroon which is banned in Britain, called for those who blaspheme against the Prophet to be executed.

"In Islam, God said, and the messenger Mohammad said, whoever insults a prophet, he must be punished and executed,"......

At least the world now truly understands where these people are coming from. It's possible, but not likely, the American left anti-Bush/war crowd may have second thoughts about their positions. Now we'll see what's more important to them: trying to placate these murdering thugs, continue to focus on their hatred of Bush/Hitler, or finally accept that America is at war for a reason. No doubt, Cindy Sheehan has the answers.


Four people have died as demonstrations against cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad intensify.

Three people were killed when police in Afghanistan fired on protesters after a police station came under attack, a government spokesman said.

In Somalia, a 14-year-old boy was shot dead and several others were injured after protesters attacked the police.

....and an update of the hit list:

Demonstrations have also been taking place in India, Thailand, Indonesia, Iran and Gaza.

Somehow the term "demonstration" seems inappropriate. Why not the real description "murdering terrorists"?

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Still defended by the left

Via Fox&Forkum

Not News: Homeless Man Stabbed to Death in Detroit

Why is this NOT news? Because there are over 375 murders, a little more than one per day, every year in the city of Detroit, making Motown the murder capitol of America.

Since the Superbowl has come to town, the media apparently wants visitors to believe that this particular murder is a rare event..... too bad it's not true.

AP DETROIT - A homeless man was stabbed to death early Sunday in downtown Detroit, some 18 hours before the Super Bowl was to be played a few blocks away at Ford Field.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

The Blogosphere reacts to Islam protests

A few observations on the cartoon uproar in the Muslim world and comments from the blogosphere and the hypocrisy of it all:

* Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
* A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
* Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
* Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
* Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
* Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Islam the religion of Peace?

So the Muslim world is incensed over the "offensive" cartoons depicting their religion as the world views them, and this is their response:

...and then there's this aspect, which apparently many around the world have forgotten:

Meanwhile, the State Department denounced publication of the cartoons:

Via PowerLine

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the beliefs of Muslims," State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said when queried about the furore sparked by the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility," Higgins told AFP.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

An interesting idea: freedom of the press "must be coupled with press responsibility." Someone tell the New York Times.

Media vs. Muslims & Christians

Reader Dave sent these interesting observations on the media response to the Islam cartoons:
All we hear from the ACLU, the Mainstream media, and the anti-Christian secularists in America that pound Christians, capitalists, and anti-socialists everyday is the RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH! But now that some European papers have run editorial cartoons showing the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist, or as apologizing to suicide bombers that Islamic Heaven is running out of virgins, what do we hear from the Elite American Media? Nothing. They don't have the courage to reprint these cartoons, which are themselves world wide news, sparking riots throughout Muslim countries, and the US State Department itself has called these cartoons 'insensitive' and warning our media that 'we' should be 'sensitive' to the religious beliefs of Muslims. Huh?

Why isn't the mainstream media in America and Britain not supporting the European papers in Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, and others in supporting their right to print satirical cartoons of Mohammed? After all, our own government calls desecrating the crucifixion of Christ with feces "art" and even gives grants to those that make this 'art'. So, what's up? Here's the deal.

The mainstream editorialists of our mainstream papers, like the ACLU, and the University professors, are all cowards now! They want free speech, but not if it puts their lives on the line! The satirical cartoons of Mohammed in some European papers, and the subsequent outcry and death threats and economic boycotts by Muslims around the world to those countries that have printed these cartoons in their papers have brought to light the real problem the western world faces with Islam: Islam and free-speech are not compatible. And free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. And our own democracy is in danger when the cowards of our secularists show a cartoon of President Bush as a Nazi, call Osama a freedom fighter, but not one of the bunch has the guts to stand up for the right of free speech when it comes to a satirical depiction of Mohammed.

To those in Europe that have had the guts to hold their ground against the outcry of the Muslim world, you are true hero's! You are the freedom fighters of this new world reality. To those elite liberals in America, go pick on some little Christian like you usually do, and continue hiding under the table like Bernard Shaw when it comes to sticking up for free speech when the Islamic world tells you to stop! What cowardly bastards!


Via Winds of Change:

CNN: Craven News Network Shows Its Colours Re: Mohammed Cartoons

Not that I'm surprised. I mean, they kept silent about atrocities in Iraq to preserve their access to Saddam's country. Selling out is what they do. But doesn't this just snap everything that's wrong with the left-liberal mentality into brutally sharp focus. Via Mark in Mexico:

"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."

Res ipsa loquitur.

Now the spineless leftist pile 'o crap, The Boston Globe spews out this nonsense. It seems their reporters really don't read their own crap, as they regularly demonize American Christians and distort Israel's defending themselves from the extremists.
Just as the demand from Muslim countries for European governments to punish papers that printed the cartoons shows a misunderstanding of free societies, publishing the cartoons reflects an obtuse refusal to accept the profound meaning for a billion Muslims of Islam's prohibition against any pictorial representation of the prophet. Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance. That is why the Danish cartoons will not be reproduced on these pages.
(Bush/Hitler is OK, though.)

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Quote of the day

From PJ O'Rourke:

"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

Truth hurts!

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: The Star Spangled Banner Is For Sheeple

It's really hard to believe that so many on the far left just hate this country. This from RightWingNews, about how some feel about the Star Spangled Banner and how it represents the world's most disgusting country. I'm not linking to the source of this tripe. No sense giving them free traffic.
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.

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.

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.

There are dozens more of the same view.

Never underestimate the power of the press.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?