mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

January 31, 2006

Hahahahaha ***UPDATED***

Fox News reports that Cindy Sheehan was led out of the House gallery in handcuffs.

~~Apparently she tried to unfurl a banner.~~

This from Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of U-S Capitol Police.... Cindy Sheehan was arrested in the gallery of the house floor tonight and charged with demonstrating in the Capitol--a misdemeanor. ...Sgt. Schneider says she was wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it and was asked to cover it up. Sheehan did not cover it up and she was arrested. ....She is being processed at Capital Police hd and is expected to be released at some point tonight. The misdemeanor charge carries one year in jail.

What a pity she wasn't armed.

UPDATE:

Heh:

Liberal activists -- among them graying leftovers from the Vietnam-era antiwar movement -- plan to gather near the Capitol tonight, banging pots and pans to drown out President Bush's State of the Union address.

SHUT UP, BEDWETTERS, I CAN'T HEAR THE PRESIDENT!!!

Anyone else having a problem hearing?

UPdaTE 2:

Thank you Howie, for posting the transcript.

Due to the cacophonous din of moonbattery banging pots and pans 2000 miles away, I was unable to hear a word of tonight's SOTU. Cursed rabble rousers, they ruined my SOTU drinking game. One shot for every time the Democrats sit while the RethugliKKKans give a standing 'O'. Two shots for every close up of a Hillary "I just ate a raw lemon dipped in Bill's semen" look.

So I'm still sober, dammit.

BTW, did anyone notice the absence, albeit one small reference, of any real mention of North Korea?

Any ideas why? I haven't a clue, to be quite honest.

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:53 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Liveblogging The Democrat Response

No, not that Democrat response.

This Democrat response.

Tinfoil hat mandatory

UPDATE:

Good lord, I'm doing lots of updates tonight.

UPDATE 2:

I just clicked on that link and saw this:

We've squandered the goodwill of the nations of the world with the Iraq debacle. How exactly does President Bush propose to engage the nations of the world in combatting this threat? The occupation of Iraq has galvanized radical Islamists in their hatred of the United States, providing a regrettable and powerful recruiting tool to those who would do us harm. How does the President propose we reach out to the Muslim world to build the bridges we must have to become "the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran"?
Our own armed forces are stretched nearly to the breaking point, understaffed and under-equipped because of the Iraq debacle. How does the President propose we rebuild our armed forces to combat the threat Iran poses?
The largest cost of the Iraq debacle is likely to prove to be our inability to respond to the threat of Iran, diplomatically or militarily.

Hey, STUPID! Can you read a freakin' GLOBE? Do you have any idea what country sits between Iraq and Afghanistan? IRAN.

The armed forces you claim are stretched too thin are sitting within spitting distance of the country you claim we can't deal with militarily.

And of course you can't deal with Iran diplomatically, they're under the thumb of a bunch of undiplomatic 7th Century theocrats who believe that once they get DA BOMB, the 12th imam will appear in all his righteous glory.

How about this ignorance:

How does the President propose we reach out to the Muslim world to build the bridges we must have to become "the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran"

Gee, could saving Kosovo be a start? Oh, that was your boy Clinton. How about extending aid after the earthquake that killed 20,000? Tsunami aid? Pakistan earthquake aid?

If anyone wonders why the Daily Kos is so popular, all you have to do is look at the success of Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Or the Darwin Awards.

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Leftist Idiots on Parade

Via TC Leather Penguin, this from the Washington Times:

"I'm old enough to remember an op-ed you wrote in March 1974 which appeared in the New York Times, saying the military should intervene in getting rid of Richard Nixon," one gray-haired woman told Mr. Raskin. She spoke about "criminals, gangsters and thugs" in the Bush administration.
Mr. Raskin seemed confused. "I don't think I wrote it," he told the gathering. "I'm not in favor of military coup d'etats."
Mr. Clark, the Vietnam-era Democratic attorney general who is an attorney for former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, spoke for 10 minutes.
His voice faltered, and he seemed to lose his train of thought. "President Bush is the greatest threat to peace and human rights," Mr. Clark told the crowd, calling for Mr. Bush's impeachment, which drew applause.

Of course, the moral implications of Clark's words are, if they are taken seriously, that one ought to support a military coup. Because if one believes that Bush is 'the greatest threat to peace and human rights' the one ought to support getting rid of him. With any means necessary.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:33 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

1 What does it say about the New American Left when they have to drag out Vietnam-era relics like Clark n' kind as front men?

Posted by: hondo at January 31, 2006 01:07 PM (3aakz)

2 says it all, is what it says. They got nuthin'.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at January 31, 2006 01:22 PM (ItXz2)

3 Nothing but treason and sedition, that is.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 31, 2006 01:45 PM (0yYS2)

4 How lame is that? Really? A big ass bag of empty.

Posted by: dick at January 31, 2006 01:48 PM (XlQVK)

5 Damn Maxie! you get sooooo worked up with "Treason and Sedition"! - especially when the thing they (the Left) hate more than anything else is being laughed at!

Posted by: hondo at January 31, 2006 01:52 PM (3aakz)

6 I would laugh if it weren't for the gravity of the situation. These people should be rounded up and executed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 31, 2006 02:37 PM (0yYS2)

7 I'm still finding the idea Rusty reads my crap--and references it-- kinda ... well ... weird.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at January 31, 2006 02:59 PM (ItXz2)

8 Ramsey Clark is traitor he has choosen to be the defense lawyer for SADDAM and frankly he should be deported to live on a asteriod far far away from earth

Posted by: sandpiper at January 31, 2006 03:38 PM (uTBPj)

9 I find that dream amazing. The dream for a military coup d' tat. What makes the lefties think the military would install Howard Dean as the next president?

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at January 31, 2006 03:53 PM (Ox5i9)

10 Leftists are proof that narcotics are harmful to ones mind and have everlasting effects. If you ever wanted an anti-drug message to pound that home, just video some of these leftards in action. You would be suprised how incoherent they really are. Not to mention neurotically violent to anyone who disagrees with them or to a "cause" that they are "passionate" about. Need proof? Just look at the WTO meetings these leftards go to, just to be violent sociopathic morons at. Nuff said.

Posted by: Andre at January 31, 2006 05:03 PM (bQ3vG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If Jessica Alba Was a Danish Free Speech Activist (Updated)

What would happen if instead of the global warming, Hollywood celebrities took on the cause of free speech in Denmark?

UPDATE: Remember, if you don't buy Danish the terrorists have already won!

Photoshop your own. Bonus points for any photoshop including Angelina Jolie.

Another update: I ask, Aaron delivers. If Angelina Jolie was a hot Danish free speech activist.

UPDATE: What if Nicole Ritchie was a free speech activist instead of a hasbeen socialite that never was? more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:25 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 2 kb.

WaPo Sinks to New Lows: Terrorist Editorial

Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. Nevertheless, the Washington Post feels it appropriate to let a convicted Hamas terrorist editorialize in their pages. Isn't there something in the USA Patriot Act against giving material support to terrorists? Isn't giving them free advertising material support?

Mousa Abu Marzook in the Washington Post:

A new era in the struggle for Palestinian liberation is upon us. Through historic fair and free elections, the Palestinian people have spoken.

Yes, they have, and what they have said is 'we hate J-O-Os'.

Accordingly, America's long-standing tradition of supporting the oppressed's rights to self-determination should not waver.

No it should not. We should support the tiny liberal democracy of Israel which is surrounded and oppressed by a billion Muslims eager to drive them into the sea.

The United States, the European Union and the rest of the world should welcome the unfolding of the democratic process, and the commitment to aid should not falter. Last week's victory of the Change and Reform Party in the Palestinian legislative elections signals a new hope for an occupied people.

New hope? Oh, yes, "We really hope that the final solution will finally be implemented correctly."But here is the choicest part

Our society has always celebrated pluralism in keeping with the unique history and traditions of the Holy Land. In recognizing Judeo-Christian traditions, Muslims nobly vie for and have the greatest incentive and stake in preserving the Holy Land for all three Abrahamic faiths.

Right. Is this the same Hamas which has vowed to drive the Jews into the sea? Is this the same Hamas that makes it impossible for Jews to live in the West Bank or Gaza, both of which have become Jew-free zones? Is this the same Hamas that has vowed to implement Iranian style sharia law? Is this the same Hamas that has been terrorizing Arab Christians for decades?

Whether or not Hamas gets rid of corruption in the Palestinian Authority is a secondary concern. Populist movements are often shouldered under the auspices of 'reform'. A 'transparent' PA which supports terrorism is no prize to the civilized society.

Give me a corrupt PA that doesn't support terrorism over a clean PA that does, any day.

Via Captain Ed who has more.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:25 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

January 30, 2006

Smooth Operator

Wow. Look at Venezuelan Socialist strongman and number one fan of Fidel Castro put the moves on newly-back-on-the-market anti-war shrillster Cindy Sheehan. I haven't seen Latin suave done so well since Ricardo Montalban. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:21 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Oh how she has broadened her agenda! Even the MSM has started to treat her like a leper. The left will never figure it out. If you think you have a point to make - don't make 30 points - if you got excess "baggage" - hide it in the closet and not put it on display.

Posted by: hondo at January 30, 2006 01:43 AM (3aakz)

2 Holy shit this just keeps getting better and better! Hahahahaha!

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at January 30, 2006 02:03 AM (3smJS)

3 Any particular reason why Cindy doesn't take her anti-war world tour to the streets of Bagdad or Kabul? She is an advocate for peace, isn't she? - and that's where the action (WAR) is! NO ONE IS STOPPING HER - SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Posted by: hondo at January 30, 2006 02:35 AM (3aakz)

4 CINDY! GO TO IRAQ! ESTABLISH A "DIALOG" AND TALK TO THE SUNNIS, THE SHIA, THE KURDS, THE SADDAMIST INSURGENTS, THE ISLAMIC EXTREMIST FUNDAMENTALISTS, TO AQ, TO THE TALIBAN ... GIVE PEACE A CHANCE HONEY! GET OUT THERE WHERE ITS REAL! MAKE A DIFFERENCE! Yeah! Right!

Posted by: hondo at January 30, 2006 02:57 AM (3aakz)

5 Those two kissing should be banned for safety reasons. Smash those noses together and you'll trigger some kind of devastating nuclear reaction.

Posted by: Graeme at January 30, 2006 04:23 AM (VOCa6)

6 I read about her bid to run against DiFi yesterday morning. I'm still laughing. Does she know Dianne got 70% of the vote last cycle? Does Cindy have any ideas on how to balance California's billion dollar debts, how to solve serious districting issues, how to enforce the border with Mexico? What are her plans for education, drugs, abortion, environment, gun control, infrastructure? What's she gonna do ... cry for votes and make peace signs with her fingers?

Posted by: Oyster at January 30, 2006 05:23 AM (YudAC)

7 Well, at least she's looking good.

Posted by: Thirdee at January 30, 2006 08:02 AM (BH9sQ)

8 Can we not revoke the citizenship of this bitch and make her stay in Venezuela with her new beau?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 30, 2006 08:44 AM (rUyw4)

9 I think he is pokin her whiskers

Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 30, 2006 08:50 AM (5ceWd)

10 I hope Cindy runs and wins; she, the dhimmicraps, and Mexifornistan deserve one another.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 30, 2006 08:59 AM (0yYS2)

11 I think I just threw up.

Posted by: Brian B at January 30, 2006 11:36 AM (rGfpg)

12 I wonder if CINDY SHEEHAN will get her picture in the museum in HO CHI MIN CITY there in veitnam just like HANOI JANE and JOHN KERRY has

Posted by: sandpiper at January 31, 2006 03:52 PM (uTBPj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 29, 2006

ACLU Having Another Cow

Jay at Stop the ACLU is covering the latest hissy fit and innuendo campaign from the champions of brave jihadi babyhunters everywhere, cross-posted from ACLU Watch/Republican Voices.

It seems that in one or two cases, the wives of terrorist insurgents were taken in for questioning as possible accomplices and/or material witnesses. The ACLU is trying to conflate this into some sort of organized campaign to kidnap innocent Iraqi women, and has managed to plant a story in that other bastion of objectivity and patriotism, the LA Times:

WASHINGTON Â— U.S. forces in at least two cases have detained wives of suspected insurgents in Iraq in an attempt to pressure the men into surrendering, documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union confirm.
"This is not an acceptable tactic," ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said Friday.
In one instance, members of a military task force seized a mother of three young children "in order to leverage" her husband's surrender, according to an account by a civilian Defense Intelligence Agency officer.

"I certainly had no idea what Mahmoud was doing with those batteries, wires, digital watches, and 155mm artillery shells. He's always loved to putter around in his workshop. And he said that the AK-47s and SAMs were for duck hunting."

The ACLU's attempt to portray these women as innocent lambs being roughed up by the Coalition would be laughable, if the consequences of failure weren't so grave.

The only thing that the military has done wrong is to release these terrorists and terrorist enablers prematurely.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 07:51 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The general public has no idea of the depravity of the terrorists. Our military is keeping the dogs off and they don't even care.

Posted by: Chief RZ at January 29, 2006 08:30 PM (i8rIJ)

2 So now they are the American/Iraqi Civil Liberties Union? And what amendment of the Iraqi constitution was violated? Maybe they should have said something when Sadam drained the marshes. Then I would've listened.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at January 29, 2006 08:40 PM (NWGd4)

3 If they are representing a foriegn government they have to register under the foriegn agents act passed in 1933 and still is law to this day. After they do register as foriegn agents they should be disbarred from the ABA and everything they publish be considered propaganda of a foriegn government.

Posted by: Andre at January 29, 2006 08:45 PM (bQ3vG)

4 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00000611----000-.html <-- the law that I speak of. I hope the ACLU gets told to stuff it.

Posted by: Andre at January 29, 2006 08:51 PM (bQ3vG)

5 Attorneys Conflatiig Lies Unlimited .................Camel Poop does not ring true............. "This is not an acceptable tactic," ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said Friday. OR "BDS Attorneys charge that the US Army routinely runs wife snatching torture cells all over the world." ..................*Tactics* *Smacktics*................ The tell-tale kibble & bits Â“leveragingÂ” Â“secretive task forceÂ” Â“locked up the young mothers of a nursing babysÂ” [must be a rookies, they left out Bambi & Bunnies] Â“Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspectsÂ’ houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.Â” LOL! US Army comes up Â“Empty HandedÂ”!! = Full blown agit-prop BS. Â“American Civil Liberties UnionÂ” = Full Blown ENEMIES of the UNITED STATES MSM Â“storiesÂ” and "legends" raise more questions than supply satisfactory answers. Accuracy, context, agendas, facts left in, facts left out, etc. who trusts the ACLU or the MSM anymore? Our Military folks are intelligent, brave, street smart, well trained, well equiped, etc. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THESE ASSHATS CLAIM DIFFERENT! WeÂ’re at war, the WOT. Back here in the States, Police Forces, [local: Fed: State:] sometimes have to exert pressure on Spouses and families in garden variety and famous crime cases. for example: All capitol cases generally involve long interviews with suspects and their families. Serial Killers Dennis RaderÂ’s [BKT killer] wife and family were held for extensive questioning and depositions and called back time and again. Gary Leon Ridgway [Green River Killer], 3rd wife the same. Or the Mafia families etc.

Posted by: Rubin at January 29, 2006 09:40 PM (OfB5J)

6 Terrorists have wives too. I know I saw one on TV after she was arrested, when her suicide belt did not explode in Jordan -- after her husband's killed a vast number of a wedding party guests (Lions of Allah?) Some of the wives are involved in the operations, and as such they should be held. They are not harmed, this is a justified tactic. The only people that can sympathize with this action, is those who feel sorry for the terrorist, who has to make the choice of turning himself in or letting his family sit in jail. Terrorist sympathizers should be in there with them -- in my opinion.

Posted by: dave at January 29, 2006 10:24 PM (CcXvt)

7 Do they not realize that we are watching their acts of treason as they are being committed, and that we will remember these things at a time in the future when the ropes come out? It's almost like they all want to get a hemp necktie.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 30, 2006 12:31 AM (0yYS2)

8 ACLUs only interest is to bring down current administration and hopefully replace it with a leftist leaning one to assist them in furthering their domestic agenda. Iraq - these "wives" - are just available props - which they down really give a damn about anyway. Detain - arrest - same thing ... perfectly legal and acceptable here in USA for spouses of wanted fugitives suspected of providing assistance and obstructing justice. Happens all the time here - just 2 cases there???? You can do better ACLU! Left has failed miserably to date in coming up with a real knockdown issue - has clearly settled for the tactic of "death by a thousand pin pricks". Dream on pinheads!

Posted by: hondo at January 30, 2006 02:02 AM (3aakz)

9 If the LA Times was really interested in this type of tactic/action ... they could have easily taken a trip down to LA County Lock-up for firsthand experience or consulted any halfass criminal attorney! But that's not what this is all about, now is it?

Posted by: hondo at January 30, 2006 02:09 AM (3aakz)

10 Oh.... I'm not Jay.... For the sake of accuracy - Jay added the last two paragraphs to the thread, but this originally appeared on ACLU Watch and was requested that I cross post it to Stop The ACLU.

Posted by: Gribbit at January 30, 2006 02:34 AM (eN1nw)

11 Just noticed something. ACLU (with all its resources) is doing its investigative searches HERE - AND LOOKING FOR DOCUMENTS/PAPER ETC. What! No field work? No office in Iraq? No investigators on the ground? No firsthand interviews, no personal photographs? Always did that in the past. No balls?

Posted by: hondo at January 30, 2006 02:44 AM (3aakz)

12 The ACLU is our biggist enemy this buinch of socialists want it safe for terrorists to be able to blow up a school full of kids and teachers the ACLU is the best freind the terrorists could ever get

Posted by: sandpiper at January 30, 2006 09:23 AM (A2P9P)

13 Gribbit, I've added links to ACLU Watch.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 30, 2006 09:29 AM (RHG+K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 28, 2006

Suicide is Painless...

In a particularly lugubrious piece for the LA Times, breathlessly entitled, "Witch Hunt at UCLA", English professor Saree Makdisi whines:

My colleagues and I are being targeted for speaking out on the kinds of urgent social matters and universal principles that it has always Â— in every society and every age Â— been the task of intellectuals to address.

This sounds admirable and important.

What kind of "urgent social matters" and "universal principles" does Dr. Makdisi address? Many of them seem to be similar to this: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 01:50 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Makdisi is just another classic liberal traitor.

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at January 28, 2006 06:40 AM (tdhAh)

2 Whatelse is new, this type of mind numbing bullcrap has been going on since the 60's.

Posted by: Andre at January 28, 2006 07:34 AM (bQ3vG)

3 True, Andre, but now is the time to put a stop to it. I've had it with these bastards.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 28, 2006 08:33 AM (rUyw4)

4 All in good time JJ. There will have to be another large attack, or perhaps several smaller ones, on our own soil before enough people are willing to do anything about it. Already the tide of opinion is turning though, and people that I speak to who used to be willing to give most muslims the benefit of the doubt just a couple of years ago are now realizing that they are nothing but savages who hate us and want to destroy civilization. They have been at war with us for almost 1400 years, but we keep forgetting that until they once again are at the gates with fire and sword. I'd say after the next attack there will be widespread reprisals against muslims, everything from house burnings to killings, and the government will be forced to choose sides, though I don't have much hope that they'll be on our side, as was recently demonstrated by the crackdown by Australian police on whites, but not muslims, in the recent troubles there. The result will be the people turning against the government for betraying us, with ramifications possibly even up to and including armed rebellion in places. Not soon enough, I say, but I will not start the revolution, because that is something that will have to happen spontaneously, though I damn sure will join it. Along with all this, I'd say the illegal aliens will be shown the door as well, especially with Mexico conducting cross-border incursions, which are acts of war if anyone needs reminded, and it will become very dangerous for anyone who doesn't obviously belong here. I know it sounds far-fetched, but Americans may actually regain control of America some day, and leave it for our children, not those who wish to colonize and conquer us.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 28, 2006 09:41 AM (0yYS2)

5 That's an excellent post IM. We've been in a civil war for quite a while now but the shooting just hasn't started yet. And I'll join it too when it does get real. Like a lot of people, I'm disgusted with our government bending over backward to accomodate every frikkin scumbag that wants to darken our shores and bring their crap with them. They don't belong here. They shouldn't be here. They have overstayed their welcome and need to be politely shown the door. If they don't get the hint, they need to be rounded up. Saudi Arabia is churning out radical imams by the thousands and somehow getting them stationed in mosques all across the US. And we're LETTING them do it. It's also occurred to me that our own government, being infected as they are with the "tolerance" virus, will probably defend muslims' rights to be here. They HAVE no "right" to be here, just as they have no "right" to be in Australia. What the fck are muslims doing in Australia anyway? Better to bring this all to a head sooner than later.

Posted by: Richard at January 28, 2006 09:54 AM (W8EsU)

6 The good news is that when the shooting does start, many of those who don't agree with us, have either banned gun ownership (San Francisco) in their communities or refuse to own one. I'm curious why my original post was denied. The original message said 'o-w-n communities' but said it was blocked for the string "w-n" and "com". (minus all dashes)

Posted by: slug at January 28, 2006 11:09 AM (0YdQw)

7 What's most disgusting about it is that our tax dollars go to this scumbag's salary.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 28, 2006 11:11 AM (XA7De)

8 I can't fathom either why the governments or our different nations seems to be doing everything they can to aid the conquest of our civiliztion, except that leftism is so entrenched as to be actively subverting our efforts to resist in any way possible. Think of this, if George Bush is the best leader we've got, and he still calls islam a religion of peace and refuses to even speak of the ongoing invasion from Mexico, both military and colonial, then it must be up to us to protect our own homes and families. It is not only our right, it is our duty. Individuals standing up for their rights against corrupt and tyrannical government is how our nation came to be. If our government has been taken over by traitors and cowards, and is either refusing to fight the enemy or actively aiding them, then it is time for the people to set themselves against that government and replace it by any means necessary. We must each ask ourselves what we will do when we are under open attack by muslims and others in our own country, and whether we will do what is necessary, even if it puts us in confrontation with the police and military, which it probably will. Because of the subornation of our government by the leftists, the police are not our allies in this, they are our enemies, and if we fight, they will come to take our guns and put us in prison, and the conquest of America by islam will be complete. Make no mistake, it will not be glorious, it will be bloody and brutal, and many innocent Americans will die defending their homes from the muslims and the police, unless we do something now to stop it. Politicians must be thrown out, every one of them who refuses to be loyal to the people and the Constitution must be voted out before the ballot box must be replaced with the cartridge box. The days when we could casually choose between the lesser of two evils to lead us are gone, because we've seen what that gets us. We must have leaders who are willing to fight all our enemies, not just the ones who don't contribute to their campaigns. If we don't fight now, peacefully, we will have to fight violently later, and we just might lose our country if we're not careful.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 28, 2006 11:34 AM (0yYS2)

9 The constant chipping away at the foundation of our society by the so-called intellectuals preaching in our academic institutions has reached a crescendo we cannot afford to ignore anymore. Andre's shrug of the shoulder has been the predominent response to this for far too long. (No slight against you Andre - I'm just using the example.) These intellectuals keep pushing us toward being an androgenous society with no identity and without the will or our own powers of intellectual reasoning to fend off any and all who wish to see our nation crumble. To make us unwilling or unable to stop the pillaging of all we and our forbearers worked so hard for. They do this by interjecting themselves, enmasse, into the most vulnerable among us - our idealistic youth. They already have them sequestered in the colleges away from real life and real people under the guise of "exposing them to a broad array of opinions and culture". Nothing could be further from the truth. They continually hammer away at them with one philosophy and one goal. To indoctrinate our them into becoming the proprietors of a new model of every past failure in history, socialism and communism. They wear Che Gueverra t-shirts, romanticizing his blood-soaked insanity, and look down their noses at the working class. They applaud the ban on DDT which has caused the deaths of millions, yet, demonize a tiny fraction of those deaths caused by a never before matched liberation of whole countries from tyranny. They instill in them guilt and self-loating for every injustice done in the world while they themselves partake gleefully in the very system they attempt to tear down. We're not perfect, but it makes far more sense to fix problems and strengthen what's right rather than outright destroy it all. Some of you may say they have a right to their opinion. Yes, they do. But these one-sided views and opinions preached by so many of them non-stop, while they intimidate opposing views, have no place in institutions which parade, without good faith, a doctrine which states that they "embrace the exchange of ideas". What business does a pottery teacher have in lecturing on Palestinians and Israelis to his students? What business does a coumputer language professor have expounding on the evils of the Iraq war to his students? I've encountered two such professors myself. So the problem is not fictional. Imagine how hard it must be for a student in cultural studies to have to endure hearing about the evils of the US and its bearing on every bad thing that ever happened anywhere. And would Rusty go to the lengths he does to keep his identity a secret for nothing? We're in big trouble. And these students who expose the charlatans in our colleges deserve applause and support. The End.

Posted by: Oyster at January 28, 2006 11:51 AM (YudAC)

10 Where is Hawkeye when you need him?

Posted by: Rusty at January 28, 2006 02:04 PM (JQjhA)

11 The James Fenimore Cooper character?

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at January 28, 2006 02:31 PM (tdhAh)

12 Double entendre (pardon the French). Read the title of the post.

Posted by: Rusty at January 28, 2006 02:39 PM (JQjhA)

13 I really like the arrogance of Makdisi referring to himself and his liberal kin as the 'intellectuals'. Only a pompous fool would refer to himself in that way and, yet, can only counter an argument by making the usual baseless rhetoric - witch hunt, facist, Hitler, etc. When you argue from a position of weakness, just hurl personal insults. That's why the Hollywood far left is nothing but a collection of soundbites made by stringing together several four-letter words and inserting the target of their wrath's name somewhere in the middle.

Posted by: slug at January 28, 2006 02:50 PM (0YdQw)

14 Rusty: Sorry--never liked the film or the TV series.

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at January 28, 2006 03:19 PM (tdhAh)

15 Oyster And they alienate and turn-off significantly more of their own students than they appeal to - which is a big (seldom reported or acknowledged) plus! Spent 7 years working and teaching in that environment (CUNY) - wanna see their impact - don't look in the classroom - look in the cafeteria where real socializing, communication, stratification, and ideological divisions occur and become apparent. The left has a name for it - they call it - apathy. The can not and will not acknowledge rejection.

Posted by: hondo at January 28, 2006 05:29 PM (3aakz)

16 The real dangerous ones are smart - you won't find them on College campuses (That's just and ego trip) - you will find them in Elementary Education - in the classroom - in Admin - in Materials and Resources and on and on.

Posted by: hondo at January 28, 2006 05:35 PM (3aakz)

17 It wasn't a shrug of the shoulder, it was just a biting of the tongue. What I really wanted to say is those professors that banter on with mindless leftist drivel should be tarred, feathered and strapped onto the next batch of cruise missles being manufactured. Or lined up against a wall with their Che Gueverra T-shirts and shot! Not advocating, just venting steam here. Those people are the most maddening idiots around. I can see why they bay about the time America was sterializing idiots like them. They wouldn't be here polluting the minds of the young had their idiot grand parents been removed from the gene pool! BTW, What was the greatest hits in Kent State University? The May, 1970 shooting to death of four scumbags by the national guard after they turned that University into a hoodlum hatchery!!! Too bad the national guard didn't methodically identify and shoot the rest of the rioters on that campus. Something tells me a lot of these leftard professors are graduates of Kent university circa 1970.

Posted by: Andre at January 28, 2006 10:58 PM (bQ3vG)

18 Understood, Andre. Didn't want to assume you were apathetic.

Posted by: Oyster at January 29, 2006 09:29 AM (YudAC)

19 I think things are starting to change just a touch. I was talking to some people yesterday, all but one of whom are acknowledged liberals who never fail to vote democrat as often as possible, (especially in the same election), and even the gay vegan peace activist said it's probably a good time to nuke Iran and let the Israelis have at the paleostinians. Heh.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 29, 2006 09:46 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 27, 2006

ACLU Hearts Terrorists

Steve Emerson of the Counterterrorism Blog:

The American Civil Liberties Union has sent a letter (Acrobat) to Department of Justice calling for the dismissal of the remaining charges against former University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian. Citing Al-ArianÂ’s acquittal on 8 of the 17 charges against him, the ACLU claims that since Â“the two most serious chargesÂ” were thrown out, that al-Arian should be set free, and that such a move would demonstrate that the United States Â“welcomes religious and ethnic diversity.Â”

But there's more:

PIJ is not the only Palestinian terrorist group to find its way onto the ACLUÂ’s docket.
Earlier this month, the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of Abdelhaleem Ashqar, an alleged Hamas operative indicted on racketeering charges along with HamasÂ’ deputy political chief, Musa Abu Marzook. The ACLU is attempting to suppress evidence by claiming that the FBI conducted an Â“illegalÂ” search of AshqarÂ’s home in December 1993.

Stop the ACLU:

The ACLU have opposed every effort our government has tried to fight terrorism, and has defended the enemy at every chance they get. The ACLU carefully walk the line of treason. Many of us think they have crossed that line, and we are sick and tired of nothing being done about it.

Indeed. Via Hyscience.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:05 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

Jimmy Carter Advocating Criminal Acts?

From The Jerusalem Post:

"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.
Carter, who has long supported the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, voiced the hope that the Islamic terror group would act "responsibly" now that it had won the elections.

Isn't President Peanut just the soul of kindness, at least when it comes to coddling terrorists? Unfortunately, as I pointed out earlier here, it's illegal for Americans to provide "material support or resources" to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. And Hamas is so designated by the State Department. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:01 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

1 He has marginalized himself so much (Clinton's trying too) that the only play he get is on foreign stages. Sad actually.

Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 12:26 AM (3aakz)

2 I have to start using the preview! Its "can get", less some eager lil' liberal snicker at my "ignorance".

Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 12:28 AM (3aakz)

3 jimmy carter is the only president ever to have reported seeing a ufo. and remember his killer rabbit episode? ufo's are a fraud. and jimmy claimed he wourld never lie to the voters. i think it was columnist george will reported jimmy is still eating his heart out how PRES. RONALD REAGAN beat him in 1980. and as geo. will said your notes to prepare you for the debates in 1980 wasn't of any value.

Posted by: red state voter living in a blue state at January 27, 2006 12:55 AM (BZHuI)

4 Damn Wabbits!

Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 01:04 AM (3aakz)

5 It's easy for him to say these things at a press conference. If he really believes in his cause, he'll stand in an Israeli pizzaria and say them. For the US Navy: I know it's bad luck to change a ship's name but in this case it's worth taking the risk. C'mon guys, drop the name USS Jimmy Carter for something better. The poor sub probably gets laughed at by all the other subs when it's in port, while they yell "Look! A swimming rabbit!" just to see the Jimmy Carter crash dive and hit it's bow on the sea floor. It's not worth it.

Posted by: Graeme at January 27, 2006 03:51 AM (/fbJO)

6 in the case of jimmy carter we have two reasons to be thankful to big fat slob socialist ted kennedy. when kennedy ran against jimmy in one of the primaries in 1980, jimmy tried to claim he was on the verge of solving the iranina hostage crisis, and did beat fat slob kennedy, and after the primary the hostage situation was still unsolved. and jimmy tried to make the same claim in the fall before the november 1980 elections and the voters did remember this claim used against kennedy and went on to elect PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN. the second thing we have to thank fat slob kennedy for was after jimmy won the nomination at the dem convention, the television cameras showed jimmy chasing fat slob kennedy around the podium hoping fat slob kennedy would stop ignoring him.

Posted by: red state voter living in a blue state at January 27, 2006 05:30 AM (BZHuI)

7 There is no room for a good man anymore. Warrior traits are more important.

Posted by: Dale at January 27, 2006 05:31 AM (6qCfg)

8 well... i may as well close out this thread with a gut check and a complementary pic of JIMMUAH.

Posted by: Rubin at January 27, 2006 06:43 AM (TMQIX)

9 Don't ever do that again, Rubin, without warning. That pic of Teddy shot orange juice through my nose. In both instances, the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is truer than ever. Funny!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 27, 2006 10:25 AM (rUyw4)

10 Red state, I don't think it's fair to use the UFO thing against Carter, because there are many sane, reasonable people who have seen things that can't be easily explained. I myself, along with others with me, have seen on two seperate occasions lights in the night sky which did not behave in a manner typical of any mundane light-emitting object such as an aircraft, planet, meterorite, satellite, etc.. While I'm not wrapping my house in tinfoil just yet, I'm also not ready to dismiss anything I can't explain as the reflection of Venus' light on some swamp gas. The rabbit incident, however, is just too much. I remember seeing the pictures in the paper of how it kept trying to get in the boat with him and he was trying to fight it off with his fishing pole. All I could think of at the time was that it must have been a Soviet plant. These days of course it would be a Rovian minion.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 01:14 PM (0yYS2)

11 carter was americas worse president ever until BILL CLONTON came along he did everything wrong and bumbled it all to then he ends up with the hostage crisis unemployment and what ever now wonder the idiot only lasted one term and rememebr the AMY DEBATES? this nit wit was asking his grade scool duaghter about important things and yes indeed there was the incedent with the rabbit and i,ll bet carter was afraid of bugs bunny from that moment on

Posted by: sandpiper at January 30, 2006 10:01 AM (A2P9P)

12 Actually, the USS Jimmy Carter is one of the most up to date Sea Wolf class subs. It was recently updated with a 'dry room' to splice into underwater cables that are going fiber optic, and harder to do than in the old soviet days with SEALS. (Sucks to be outside a sub in 33 degree water -- I hear). As to Carter's patriotism, when you volunteer to wade into a flooded reactor compartment, in a sub currently at depth, to save the lives of 100+ other crew members, then you can talk more about patriotism. There's a reason a Sea Wolf Attack sub was named after Jimmy Carter. You may not like his politics, but to not respect the man for his deeds is to show your own ignorance. To do this is not conservative; itÂ’s just red necks trying to boast when they have nothing to show for themselves.

Posted by: True Conservative at January 30, 2006 02:45 PM (pUkop)

13 Now here's some news. If you criticise Jimmy Carter, then you are just a boasting redneck who has never done anything. Well, Mr. True Conservative, so much for your support of freedom of speech. If I don't like your speech, then I label you a redneck, and your freedom of speech is null and void. You're no true conservative, but a stupid liberal trying to pass himself off as a conservative. You can never fool conservatives when you pose as one, as no conservative would say what you did. Liberal shit is liberal shit, no matter who says it, and you reek of it, sir.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 30, 2006 03:28 PM (rUyw4)

14 Former President Jimmy Carter showed his true colors at the King funeral. He is a reverse racist, hypocrite, man without a legacy, and frustrated that he only "SINNED IN HIS HEART"!!What a disappointed old man he has turned into! He lost his dignity years ago, so I don't think anyone expects much dignity from him anyway. Unlike Pres. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter did know you put your cigars in a cigar box!!

Posted by: Roalhv at February 11, 2006 10:20 AM (Ffvoi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 25, 2006

A Soldier Answers Joel Stein

The American Thinker has posted a reply to Joel Stein's LA Times column written by serving Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell. Stein, has admitted that he has absolutely no military expertise or knowledge, and thus would be completely incapable of performing LTC Russell's duties. Ironically, LTC Russell is a talented writer, and seems more capable than Stein at setting his thoughts down in a powerful way: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 06:26 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Outstanding piece, Bluto. I thought about writing a piece about the editorial at CT but decided that Mr. Stein probably got enough of an ear full from others. I might send him an e-mail or give him a call.

Posted by: Chris Short at January 25, 2006 08:04 PM (0OCQY)

2 In point of fact, Stein did a better job of using good grammar than Russel. "Cannot" and "Do not" are not sentences unless the writer is working for an ad agency. I'm a veteran. I did 10 years in the navy, so while I've got no better idea of what the Army thinks than Stein does, I have some insight into things military. "Supporting" our troops: I've got no idea what this is supposed to mean. The only support from civilians that I was aware of was financial and involuntary--my paycheck and the $10K repair bill for a new receiver assembly on our CIWS mount, for example. I would have been ticked off if U.S. civilians went out of their way to blame me for our foreign policy, but tying ribbons on trees and waving flags did nothing to encourage me. I joined up knowing my job was to go in harm's way. Catching an exocet was an occupational hazard. A patriotic display by the folks in the states didn't change this. Officer Babble: Anything written by a presently serving comissioned officer over O-3 for public consumption is B.S. Officers do not get promoted for telling the truth to civilians, nor should they. They aren't even very candid with enlistedmen. I thought the least of our officers when they drew us up in ranks and bloviated while we stood at attention stared into the distance. We ignored the propaganda, but I think they knew that. One of the rare and fine things about the U.S. military is that its people don't *need* to be pumped up with propaganda. They train. None of their adversaries do. What the troops want: No one I knew in the military wanted a U.S.O. show or praise, least of all from a civilian. We wanted sex, fun, and money. In dangerous places we wanted safety too, but we were inclined to barter off an alarming amount of it for the first 3 things. Our officers were more interested in our safety than we were. My big disappointment in the Med was being prevented at the last minute from taking a tour of the battleground at El Alamein when we pulled into Egypt (too dangerous!) A shipmate got busted in Israel because, rather than party in Haifa, he went to go see the hellhole of south Lebanon. I don't know what Stein was talking about when he got to morality (the true last refuge of the scoundrel.) Joining the military isn't supposed to be a statement of support for a president or for a given policy. Both could change overnight and you'd still be obliged to serve the successors. If you've got a problem with our foreign policy, the person to blame is the president, not the guys who are hired to enact it.

Posted by: ShannonKW at January 25, 2006 09:48 PM (dT1MB)

3 ShannonKW, you might have noticed that I said Russell was a better writer than Stein, not grammarian. Grammar is the province of editors, and besides, good writers know when to break the rules. An example, from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "...to take arms against a sea of troubles..." This is a mixed metaphor; it's grammatically incorrect. An editor would probably change "sea" to "host", and by so doing, ruin the tone and flow of the passage. Russell's writing is better than Stein's because it has what writing teachers call "truth telling" in the piece. "Truth telling" (I know, I hate that phrase, too, but I didn't make it up) adds power and emotional emphasis to writing. Stein's lacks this power, mainly because he simply didn't know what he was writing about, which he admitted on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Stein's writing also lacks maturity and the wisdom that comes from experience. It's sad that you wasted ten years of your life. Pretty much all of my friends and family in the military understand and value the support they feel from the folks at home. And they don't appreciate Stein's column. Very much don't. I've had to work under some true assholes who were ex-officers (and they always seem to have been light colonels). But I've also met and worked for some damned fine former officers, too. I wouldn't even make as absolute a statement as you did about officers about lefties. Support for the troops is independent of their mission, or the party of the Commander-in-Chief. If you were incapable of being at least somewhat cheered by the thought of average citizens wishing you well and being thankful for your service - going into harm's way, well, you aren't representative of the military people I know, and I have to feel a little sorry for you.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 25, 2006 11:28 PM (RHG+K)

4 I think Joel Stein is making a point about the hypocrisy of most contemporary pacifists and anti-Iraq war critics. He's right you can't both wrap yourself in the flag and criticize the war. He also makes the point that a soldier makes a choice in going to war. If you don't agree with the soldier, its hypocritical to pretend you think he or she is some sort of moral hero. Face your own convictions. I think this war is wrong and the people who enlisted for it were duped. Sorry about that, but it doesn't make me immature, like people are suggesting here.

Posted by: John B at January 26, 2006 02:11 PM (Fk6dh)

5 One doesn't have to espouse a position to illustrate it John. What he said was classic sedition, just like the rest of the libs spout constantly, and for which people used to be executed when this nation was still interested in survival.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:19 PM (0yYS2)

6 John B., a soldier makes a choice in volunteering for the military, not "going to war". What you, and the uninformed Master Stein seem to forget is that all soldiers take an oath, not only to uphold and defend the Constitution, but to obey the "lawful orders" of their superiors. To suggest that serving member of the armed forces pick and choose which wars they'll participate in is...what's the word I'm looking for?...retarded.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 26, 2006 06:05 PM (RHG+K)

7 When Joel Stein sees first hand the fact that an entire race of people has been subjugated by an immoral dictator for at least 35 years, he will see the fact that human beings, much like himself, have hopes and dreams and desires, however, they may not be realized due to the unfortunate circumstance of the country in which they have been born. Is this their fault, hardly. But if noble men do nothing but stand by and observe this, than they are no better than those who have subjugated those whom they (and the rest of us) pity. -- Joel Stein's point is completely invalid about Soldiers' morality until he sees the suffering of those whom have been oppressed by an immoral government against which he himself admits he is afraid to take arms against himself. In fact, he is a moral coward, and I pity him in his ignorance.

Posted by: John Smith at January 27, 2006 10:22 PM (2Uqwd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Why Stop With Ben Franklin?

Because I'm a kind, caring, compassionate soul, I have decided to try and help our lefty friends by coming up with other famous quotes they can place on their nearest convenient protest banner:

Mister, down this wall! - Ronald Reagan

4 score and seven years ago, we perish from this earth - Abraham Lincoln

Read my lips, no taxes - George H.W. Bush

We the order form establish justice - The Constitution

We hold that all men are endowed - The Declaration of Independence

Give or death! - Patrick Henry

A day that will live in the armed forces of Japan - Franklin Roosevelt

I did have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky - Bill Clinton

Posted by: Vinnie at 03:51 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Tin foil Patrol Across The Pond

Yes first we have Cindy, remember Cindy? She reveals herself as a hater of all government including Bill Clinton. No wonder the left has dropped her like a hot rock. Bill is Evil, Bush is Evil the only person she has not accused of evil is the terrorist er us excuse me Â“freedom fightersÂ” who actually killed Casey. Her strategy for defeating terrorist is; just lay there and take it. Well practice does make perfect Cindy. She thinks itÂ’s all mcbillarybusherburtonwardaddyÂ’s fault anyway.

Via Alarming News :And about Bill Clinton . . . . You know, I really think he should have been impeached, but not for a bl*w job. His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush.

Oh but there is more Via NEWSLINKER :

Idiotarianism: Cindy Sheehan has authored a statement of her ideology, called Matriotism. If I tried to explain it, you would think I was unfairly satirizing her position. You have to read it to believe it

Also via NEWSLINKER :

Pork Soup Becomes Political in France: Small groups linked to the extreme
right are ladling pork soup to France's homeless. Critics and some officials
denounce the charity as discriminatory: because it contains pork, the soup
is off-limits for Muslims. Critics view the stew Â— dubbed "identity soup" by
its cooks Â— as a cynical far-right ploy to penetrate the most vulnerable
level of society while masking their intentions as humanitarian.

Yes an evil rightwing conspiracy to feed people who love pork.

Posted by: Howie at 03:38 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Pork soup? Could it be that the French are finally going to start fighting back against the horde of subhuman scum that has infested their land? Hell, if they manage to expel the muslims from France, again, I'll have to stop making fun of them!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 05:34 PM (0yYS2)

2 Could Casey Sheehan have committed suicide to get away from his sick, stupid, idiotic mother?

Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 06:47 PM (YjVDY)

3 I tried to read her "Matriotism" screed. I got to the second paragraph. I think that's a record. The farthest I had ever read any of her screeds was about one sentence.

Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 06:03 AM (YudAC)

4 Do you think CINDY SHEEHAN will have her picture in the war museum there in HO CHI MIN CITY there in vietnam? after all JOHN KERRYS and JANE FONDAS pictures are there

Posted by: sandpiper at January 26, 2006 09:19 AM (U+eLg)

5 DO NOT TOUCH OUR PORK SOUP ! You may have heard about the Identity Soups. These traditional pork soups are distributed in several towns in France and Belgium by Identity associations that are wishing to help their compatriots living in poverty. These de Identity soups have been accused of racism because, since they contain pork, they would exclude Jews and Muslims. Still, pork meat is key to the traditional Gallic art of cooking (Read again the AsterixÂ’ adventures !). It is also the cheapest meat and this is an important factor of choice for non-subsidised associations. And, last but not least, when Jewish or Muslim associations are helping their fellows from the same religion they choose to serve kosher or hallal soups and this does not shock us nor does it shock anybody elseÂ… Now, when Europeans are trying to help their fellow compatriots with pork, why should it then be considered as racism ? January 14th 2006, following a request from the Mayor of Strasbourg (North East of France), the Prefect (representing the French State) has prohibited the distribution of the Identity Soup with the support of the police and has arrested the head of the association organising the soup, named SolidaritÃƒÂ© Alsacienne (Alsatian Solidarity). IN FRANCE THE STATE PREVENTS FRENCH PEOPLE TO HELP FRENCH AND EUROPEAN PEOPLE ! All European nations are concerned by this measure : if we do not react today, tomorrow they might prohibit the croissant as the racist symbol of the European victory against the Turkish Muslim army that was at the door of Vienna in 1683. Or, like a director of a British school did, they may prohibit to tell stories such as Â“The three little pigsÂ” under the excuse that it could heart the sensitivity of Muslim kids. It is now that we shall react ! OUR ARMS ARE THE PHONE AND THE EMAILS ! If you want to protect French and European culinary traditions and especially the freedom of Europeans to live on their own soil according to their ancestral customs, phone, send a email and ask your friends to do the same to : - the Prefect of Bas-Rhin, Jean-Paul FAUGERE : chantal.jaouen@bas-rhin.pref.gouv.fr - tel. (33) 03 88 21 67 6

, - the Mayor of Strasbourg, Fabienne KELLER : fkeller@cus-strasbourg.net - (tel. (33) 03.88.43.65.0

- the MayorÂ’s Ã‚Â« Premier Adjoint Ã‚Â» Robert GROSSMANN: rgrossmann@cus-strasbourg.net - (tel. (33) 03.88.43.65.03), - the local newspaper: redaction@dna.fr (tel. (33) 03.88.21.55.00), - please copy us using the following address (this will be used to count the emails sent) : contact@les-identitaires.com This call is sent in more than fifteen European countries as well as in North and South America, Canada and Quebec. Our objective: that the Prefect, the Mayor and the local newspaper receive each 100.000 emails asking for freedom for Identity Soups. No insult, no threat, no attachment, just these few words as a title : FREEDOM FOR OUR PORK SOUP ! LIBERTÃƒÂ‰ POUR NOTRE SOUPE AU COCHON ! For any information on Identity Soups : http://solidarite-alsacienne.hautetfort.com http://www.association-sdf.com http://www.soulidarieta.org http://www.renaissancesociale.be

Posted by: Identitaire at February 02, 2006 09:42 AM (o8BSM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Essential Liberties

Jay at Stop the ACLU points us to an important post by Michelle Malkin exposing the radical Left's hijacking of Benjamin Franklin's famous, and always mangled, quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

In this photo, you see one of the most popular variations of Ben's words. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:33 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I've got one by Jefferson that says, "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither". That being said the NSA search for information to prevent an attack during a time of war I find entirely reasonable. This info is not used for prosecution just for military protection of the US. Now I'm sure 99% turns out useless but then again they have no idea just where good info will come from. You have to have evidence to take to the judge if you want a warrant not much but at least a smidgen so you could go after acceptable evidence that could be used in criminal prosecution. I would imagine that being around here that my communications are monitored. Gee I sure feel sorry for that guy his job really sucks he must be bored beyond comprehension. So I'm all for liberty and don't really like the Patriot act much I'd rather just fight them. But the NSA stuff don't bother me it's reasonable to me. If the NSA did not look and there was an attack they would blab on about how we should have been looking. Dem-ned if you do and Dem-ned if you don't.

Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 12:00 PM (D3+20)

2 It always kills me how they never plan ahead for their home-made posters. They always have to squeeze in the last few letters and often have to squeeze a forgotten letter into the middle somewhere.

Posted by: Oyster at January 25, 2006 12:12 PM (osKlJ)

3 Oh well, the blanket seems about the same as the original quote, or close enough to be used in propaganda. Well, anyways, I was going through some oldies, and I noticed many people threatening me with viruses and giving out my server infos, and the other Baber tried to Nemesis some pic to me but apparently N. doesn't support umlauts so blaah blaah blaah.... The actual point was to say how very public commenting actually seems to be. Despite threats being seemingly pointless as they certainly haven't shown any actual activity (except some floodbot for MSN Messenger, which I don't even use and probably some e-mail viruses I never read due to hotmails "all in the trash"-option (last time I read my e-mail: spring 2005 or autumn 2004)), I'm shocked at how easy it is to get info just by asking or checking my own temp. files and such with a rather unstable omni-reader. I strongly support selfcensorship, as the Internet is not a private place thanks to "terrorism" and "international security" laws that allow pretty much anyone to gather info on pretty much anything if it seems even remotely anti-system or near-criminal. Especially if you're using a non-Windows-system, you can't even blend in with the mass then. They can even keep a track of what you search if they have even the slightest excuse to do so. So you can't search for porn. =F So see ya, I'm off the Canuck, Brit, Arab and Yankee sites, they're the ones under Big Brothers allseeing eye already. They are after Google now, goodbye freedom to search for "weapons of mass destruction", "Allah kill president" and anthrax.

Posted by: A Finn at January 25, 2006 12:32 PM (lGolT)

4 After reading her comments on DOWDIFYING BEN FRANKLIN, it seems to me Ms. Malkin's largest complaint is not with civil liberty absolutists or Maureen Dowd; it is with the intellectually lazy. The quote generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin--though sometimes attributed to author Richard Jackson--has surely been mangled by the left in their efforts to voice displeasure with the Bush administrationsÂ’ recent eavesdropping revelations. But why be selfish; political discourse is littered with miquotations of this line. As Richard Minsky has stated in researching his upcoming, The Bill of Rights, (www.futureofthebook.com), the phrase has been widely misquoted by Â“libertarians, conservatives, neo-Nazis, and and every imaginable mainstream and fringe group.Â” Sorry, but all in all, her wriitng is a pretty disingenuous --and intellectually lazy--piece.

Posted by: Drew at January 25, 2006 12:37 PM (UHKaK)

5 Of course they miss the irony that the original statement was made regarding capitulating to an aggressor for the sake of peace. Or maybe they don't? Every argument they've made since time immemorial has basically been a version of why we should either pay the Danegeld or surrender outright without putting up even pretense of a fight in either case. Liberals are cowards and traitors and should be treated with all due and proper contempt.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 12:51 PM (0yYS2)

6 Also missed is the fact that the original 1755 writing became most famous for its use in a 1759 book written solely for the purpose of ... you got it; propaganda.

Posted by: Drew at January 25, 2006 01:10 PM (UHKaK)

7 Quotation aside - the entire basis for using it is the left's "what if" exaggerated and hysterical arguement and fears of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE. This is part and parcel of their core fundamental belief systems - the current NSA flap is simply being incorporated into it - they've had these beliefs long before it - and will retain them long afterwards. I don't buy or accept their "what if" arguements or opinion of AMERIKA. I also know the the majority of Americans don't either. That's why I'm not interested in playing this "NSA Debate Game Thing". I know where their heads are at - thats what matters - they need to sell their hysteria and fears to the general population - and they've never been any good at that. What they are good at is alienating the uncommitted bystanders with their idiotic antics, "performance art", and ideological baggage which they invariably drag along. Go to an anti-war protest and what you will see are banners - Free Mumia, Pro-Abortion, Gay Rights, Save The Rainforrest, etc etc etc and a few actually about the War (but often twisted to their own Anti-Amerika rant). They have no clue about presentation or salesmenship! They couldn't sell a bottle a water to a thirty man in the middle of the desert without first giving him a 2 hour speech on the logic of one of the causes - and not notice that he's already moved on to look for water somewhere else!

Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 01:20 PM (3aakz)

8 So successes in politics are just really good sell jobs?

Posted by: wavygravy at January 25, 2006 04:07 PM (UHKaK)

9 Er, Yes wavygravy! That is a BIG part of it - and thankfully - you didn't know that! You can't do jack till your actually sitting in the big seat first! So wavygravy! Go sit on the floor in yoga fashion and hum.

Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 05:10 PM (3aakz)

10 A Finn: (1) doesn't sound like you. Have you reached puberty at last? (2) Do you have a point?

Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 07:06 PM (YjVDY)

11 Thanks for clarifying Hondo. I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy was based upon the merits of said policy,its stated goals, whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their input. I should have been more cynical, realizing it was all about who's the better "salesman." Works for cars and furniture, why not public policy, right?

Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 08:32 AM (UHKaK)

12 Pompous and pretentious, aren't you? Keep on hummin' and chantin'.

Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 01:13 PM (3aakz)

13 Not really; it just seems that way to the ignorant and the ill-mannered. And you keep on sellin'

Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 03:13 PM (UHKaK)

14 "I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy was based upon the merits of said policy, its stated goals, whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their input". The problem, wavy, is that most of us can't agree on the merits of said policy. What you might think is meritorious I might think is downright stupid, such as welfare. I'm not trying to put words in hondo's mouth, but perhaps he was referring to an attempt to get other people to see your side of the argument. And I just used welfare as an example, and I'm not saying I oppose it. j/s

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:36 PM (rUyw4)

15 Sure, I see the point he was making about the necessity of persuasion, i.e. "selling", in policy making and who does it better, but that's what's so maddening---that's almost all it is today. Hondo's sentiments are dead-on with the way vast swaths of the public thinks about government policy in general; he or she who packages the "truth" best and then sells it to the most people is the winner and should be. I like to think there more to defining a policy's merit that that.

Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 05:02 PM (UHKaK)

16 Public policy is based on debate, arguement and functional concensus - you have to talk to people and convince them ... You have to sell your arguement - you have to market your position - anyone who can't see the functional analogy with salesmenship - is a disillusioned fool. When they lose - they look everywhere for an explanation, someone or something to blame - but never self-examination - never themselves. The public is stupid - ergo - they are smarter - which gives them solice. that's cool - I can live with that - I am an illiterate backwoods racist sexist yahoo living in a trailer park with a truck outside parked up on concrete blocks - if that makes you feel better wavygravy (love the handle) - that's absolutely fine with me!

Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:45 PM (3aakz)

17 "I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy ..... whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their imput." WOW! Did you even read what you wrote? - Classic Meritocracy is also Classic Elitism! You spelled it out so beautifully! Others (who are worthy) will decide what serves and whether public imput is required - all for their own good of course! And for a moment, I thought you were smart! You just "advertised" your strongest belief - and greatest weakness! Way to go wavy - I love it!

Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:58 PM (3aakz)

18 The full quote still applies to this situation. I don't know about you guys, but I consider the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights to be an "essential liberty" and I also think the NSA warrantess wiretapping qualifies as providing "temporary safety". Then again, I actually care about the Constitution. Maybe that is my problem?

Posted by: The Disenfranchised Voter at January 26, 2006 07:18 PM (agR1e)

19 Hondo: Yeah, I didn't put that well; the "whether or not" was only meant for the part about serving the public interest, not the part about public input--that is ALWAYS required and not to be left to the leaders to decide. And....I think you're reading way too much into it what I've been saying. Your original post above was something to the effect of Dems being lousy at selling their ideas, that they couldn't sell water to a guy dying of thirst and that's the biggest reason why their ideas never gain traction. My retort was to say that there is a lot more to putting good policy in place then being good at selling it--or at least there should be. Yes, you must get people on your side and yes, you must persuade. But the ideas have to be good ideas in the first place and THAT is what's missing. I think these days some real crap is being well-marketed by politicos of all stripes and either too many people paying too little attention are letting this stuff slip past them or they're letting their partisan loyalties suspend their critical thinking --conservative, liberal and everything in between. The idea that a well-marketed but poorly conceived idea deserves its place in public policy--which I took your original statement to say-- is just bad government. If that's not your position, then I stand corrected.

Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 07:46 PM (oxMjD)

20 What is good - is by its very nature - open to subjective interpretation. I would never advocate (sell) something I did not thing is "good". I do believe in what I say and think (its not an act or con) - You can disagree - fine - but the simple act of disagreement doesn't make my "good" bad - save your own personal interpretation. You still have to convince (sell) others - as I/we must continuously convince same. Things aren't going your way - self-examination is in order - but you don't do that. Your still looking for ways to dismiss the opposition and critize the others (public) for not seeing things your way. Not a winning strategy - winning is everything - otherwise your "good" remains nothing more than unfulfilled wishes and dreams.

Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 08:21 PM (3aakz)

21 Two points of disagreement: not all "goods" are subjective, some are universal. Examples: policies that do not allow for child exploitation and those that permit any race to vote. Second, at the governmental level, it's not really a zero-sum game; I think you'll find more "goods" are typically "won" through compromise than not. Otherwise, you make sense.

Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 09:00 PM (oxMjD)

22 Yep, wavy, their are some things we can all agree on, that's for sure.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 09:17 PM (rUyw4)

23 Your smart - and you knew damn well what I meant about "goods". Of course there are agreed universals - but by even bringing up the obvious (which is not in contention) you achieve nothing but mischieviously sidestepping the issue that much of everything else IS SUBJECTIVE! You want to score a point - fine - but see how meaningless that was - and how the selling (yes! Selling!) of ideas is so extremely important. Would you feel better if I used a thesaurus and used a different word? Compromise goes hand in hand with selling - it is OBVIOUS! (Hell! There even is a political term called horse-trading!) When you have to - you do - when you don't - you don't. But bear this in mind - on compromise you automatically assume two distinct sides - there are not! There are MANY! Some differing from one another by only degrees. To achieve success/compromise you work with that reality and built the consensus for action. I understand what your saying - I'm not being confrontational - I'm actually trying to be helpful (in my subjective way).

Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 10:06 PM (3aakz)

24 Hondo: yes, I did know what you meant and when you boil it all down, you're right -- without the sell, nothing actually ever gets put into action. Like all of politics, it's a matter of degrees. Set, game, match: Hondo.

Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 11:24 PM (oxMjD)

25 wavygravy OK - Oh, welcome to the board if you wish to hang around. You may encounter a few voices who will want to gut you with dull knives and kill all liberals (along with a lot of other things) - but it goes with the territory - take it in stride (and give back and use your head when doing it!). Other than that - join in and try to enjoy - comedy works for me (sometimes satire - there is a difference).

Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 11:33 PM (3aakz)

26 Hondo: yeah, I see you've noticed I probably lean a bit further to the left then the typical blogger here. But what the hell, that's why I came, to try and find good political debate--helluva lot more informative than seeking out an echo chamber of my views. So far, so good. I'll take you up on your offer and drop by now and again. As for those who'll want to hang me, I've found that trying to give their opinions a little respect (when possible of course) goes a long way in disarming even the hardest of the hardcore. And when I'm out-argued, out-foxed or plain out-matched, all the better it be a conservative. Good talking with you.

Posted by: wavygravy at January 27, 2006 12:04 AM (oxMjD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If I Get This Stupid, I'll Be ~~A Government Contractor~~ AP Reporter Too

WASHINGTON (AP) - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

Germany, Spain, UK, S. Korea, Kosovo, Croatia, Japan, do I really need to list all the places where no war is currently being waged where U.S. troops are deployed?

But only Iraq is hindering our abilities?

~~Will anyone admit to hiring "retired officer" Krepinevich?~~

Nice try, Associatedantiamerican Press, but it still won't work. You've been beating this drum for over 4 years now.

Now get back to the real news you're good at. We thirst for all that is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

UPDATE: My apologies to Mr. Krepinivich, wherever you are. It's not your fault the AP is going to take the slightest hint of bad news and run with it.

Anyway, my point is, if the Army is stretched too thin, a large part of the problem is the fact that they're sitting in places where they're not needed to be.

Just what the hell are we still doing in Kosovo anyway? Weren't we supposed to be out of there like, 7 Christmases ago? What are we defending Germany from now? The war's only been over for 60 years.

Posted by: Vinnie at 03:41 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Horn of Africa, Malaysia, Phillipines, Central and South America...it is a global war on terror. Lest we forget. Durand

Posted by: durand at January 25, 2006 03:59 AM (IdRWM)

2 "will anyone admit to hiring "retired officer" Krepinvich? Whoever that lost soul was disappeared on a rendition journey. deservedly LOL, but that won't stop the usual suspects from holding up Krepinvich's still born child all thru out the 2006 election cycle. great site this btw.

Posted by: Rubin at January 25, 2006 04:41 AM (AFNsp)

3 What a tease! Where are the Brangelina pics? Oh well. I'm sure the troops in Iraq agree with this guy. "Oh God, we marines... we just can't TAKE it anymore. Somebody, please, get us out of here! Can't UNICEF handle this?" This is opinion, not fact, but I just don't see it.

Posted by: AbbaGav at January 25, 2006 04:59 AM (5XR09)

4 Haven't we seen throughout history what a broken fighting army looks like: starving soldiers, ragged uniforms, broken down equipment, ammunition and fuel shortages, mass surrenderings, desertions, high casualty rates. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong reports and images, but the US Army doesn't look anything close to broken to me. It makes me wonder how much the Pentagon paid for this study.

Posted by: Graeme at January 25, 2006 05:54 AM (UrtKW)

5 "Germany, Spain, UK, S. Korea, Kosovo, Croatia, Japan, do I really need to list all the places where no war is currently being waged where U.S. troops are deployed? But only Iraq is hindering our abilities?" I wonder what's different between those places and Iraq?

Posted by: actus at January 25, 2006 09:19 AM (TEHSD)

6 Krepenovich is a highly regarded analyst in military and national security policy circles. He's a West Pointer with a Harvard PhD and has written more important books and articles on defense subjects than just about anyone alive today. That doesn't mean that he's right--much less that the AP assessment of what he said accurately captures his report. But he's not just some yahoo.

Posted by: James Joyner at January 25, 2006 09:38 AM (UjbiU)

7 Graeme, I'm with you. I realize that equipment and training are very important, but morale and will are the two most important aspects of victory. Our soldiers have high morale and they intend to win this one in Iraq, so I totally disagree with the study, or how the study has been portrayed by the AP.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 25, 2006 10:05 AM (rUyw4)

8 Vinnie Andrew Krepinevich isn't a fool. His opinions are respected by many which is why he was chosen to do this study. Nor does he say that the army is broken however if we expect to stay in Iraq until the insurgency is eliminated that our army may well be in danger of breaking. He may not be as adept as some in talking points such as "tipping point" but his views do deserve more than a cursory dismissal. You might try reading his Sept 2005 article in Foreign Affairs which is published by the Council of Foreign Relations, which would really be difficult to view as "left leaning".

Posted by: john Ryan at January 25, 2006 10:17 AM (TcoRJ)

9 Damn straight, JJ

Posted by: Graeme at January 25, 2006 10:18 AM (UrtKW)

10 Of course rectus doesn't understand the difference between what's happening in Iraq and every other place where the Army is deployed, so I'll spell it out with small words so he can understand. Rectus, men and women join the Army so they can do do Army stuff, like kill the enemies of their country with all those cool bombs and guns and such. This is fun. This is why most soldiers and Marines volunteer for multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, but very few join the military because they want to do a Kosovo tour where they are consumed by boredom from following the same pointless routine in a long, pointless deployment, instead of fighting the enemies of their country. Let me make it even simpler: Killing jihadis = good, spending 18 months watching North Korean soldiers watching you = bad. I don't expect you to understand, because you're just a whining, snivelling, limp-wristed, bedwetting liberal, and therefore not a man, and so not likely to understand manly things, like war, muscle cars, red meat, cold beer, hot chicks, etc.. War is an act between two groups of people, one of whom is the aggressor and the other the defender, and is usually undertaken because one group wants to control the other, or simply wants something the other has. Of couse this is where you start mindlessly chanting about blood and oil, but you're an idiot, and that's to be expected, but you're still wrong. In case you've been comatose, living in a cave, or liberal for the past few decades, and therefore unable to keep up with things in the world, you might be surprised to learn that muslims have been at war with civilization since they started calling themselves muslims, and have been attacking America and murdering its citizens for the last 27 years, counting from 1979, when Iran, currently the largest burr under our saddle, attacked our sovreign soil, i.e., the embassy, and took Americans hostage, for which they have not yet paid. This is mainly because there are too many whiney liberals like you who would rather hide under the bed than go out and make the bad men go away, like Men are supposed to do. Well, they are basically savages from the late stone age, and therefore are no smarter than you, although at least they have enough balls to face their enemies, suicidal though that course may be for them. You, on the other hand, have probably already bought a koran, a mandress, and a prayer rug so that you can show them what a good little dhimmi bitch you are. Liberals like you offer nothing to the furtherance of civilization, but rather contribute to its destruction at every chance. If your kind aren't stopped, you will eventually have wiped all trace of it from the earth, and will have replaced it with some corporate-branded, neo-tribal, socialist multiculturalism in which the only sin is to be an individual who thinks for themselves. Your kind are the ones who were first in line to join the Nazi's in Germany, and the Fascists in Italy, and the Communists anywhere they were committing their murders in the name of whatever demegogue was leading them. You are subhuman scum and should be taken out and shot, and are only saved by the fact that you are afforded the right to be so by the very system which you seek to overthrow. Liberals should all be killed for the good of civilization.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 11:00 AM (0yYS2)

11 "... the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency." The study is something that should have been done. The conclusions may even be true. But I don't understand why this statement should not have been 'classified' - its release is clearly damaging to the war effort, whether the conclusion is correct or not.

Posted by: Glenmore at January 25, 2006 11:30 AM (h/mwe)

12 The guy is a good officer. This wasn't intended to give aid and comfort to left - but you all should expect something like this to be twisted and used for the anti-Iraq and Afghan crowd. There have been other similar analyses within the military - its all part of a current internal debate revolving around a massive on-going re-organization/direction and utilization within the military initiated by Rumsfeld and his supporters. I'm not one of them. There are "complaints" - there have been "mistakes". Normally we would be able to discuss these "openly" and deal with them - but given the current internal political climate and the nature of the internal opposition - we can't. We are stretched thin and overtaxed - funding is skewered as well as resources. Some of us are looking at three possible corrections. Withdrawl from Korea, the Balkans, and reduction of NATO involvement to a few key airbases and some small troop deployments in Eastern Europe only.

Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 12:16 PM (3aakz)

13 Any anti-Iraq, Afghan anti-war anti admin-adherent who wants to cuddled up we me because of what I've just said - I'll bitch slap ya like a lil' pussy n' go off on ya like a Jersey truckdriver! - And I norally DO NOT converse like that - but I will make an exception this time.

Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 12:22 PM (3aakz)

14 Did I just get bitch-slapped by James Joyner? Sweet! Hey, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, I don't mind being corrected. Except on my own blog. I'm never wrong on my own blog.

Posted by: Vinnie at January 25, 2006 12:51 PM (f289O)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 24, 2006

Cindy Sheehan's Visit to Venezuela: guest commentary by Gary from Team America: World Police

Cindy Sheehan is a p**sy.

Hugo Chavez is an as*hole.

George W. Bush is a di*k.

Update from Rusty: Thanks for joining the Jawa team, Gary. Here is a related story which I got via Professor Chaos. Notice who is paying for Cindy Sheehan's visit to Venezuela?

Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, mother of a US soldier killed in
Iraq, joined more than 10,000 anti-globalization activists in Caracas, where she hailed Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez....
She said Venezuela's foreign ministry sponsored her visit.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:18 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Takes Over Pacifica Radio

Will the lunacy coming out of the Left stop today? First we posted about a Daily Kos writer who plans to march at Ground Zero and place a citizen's arrest on Rudy Giuliani for 'his part in the 9/11 coverup'. If that wasn't enough, a Lefty in a major newspaper says he does not support the troops. Now this. I need some aspirin.

Via the Puppy Blender this from Marc Cooper--who is no right-winger--who gives us the low-down on the new Pacifica radio executive director, Greg Guma.

Most of the country is privileged enough to not have the pleasure of listening to Pacifica radio. Since I grew up in L.A., I was subjected to it from time to time. Pacifica is kind of like NPR, only, if you can imagine this, far to the Left and way more boring (apologies to Marc Cooper, former drive-time host).

Pacifica is the kind of radio network that broadcasts it's own station meetings. I recall listening to one a few years back where angry listeners were protesting the 'corporate' nature of the Pacifica board.

It's also the kind of radio network that seems to have endless supplies of interviews with Noam Chomsky. And no, no one was holding a gun to my head and forcing me to listen to Noam Chomsky drone on and on about East Timor. Call me a masochist.

It turns out that Pacifica's new director, Greg Guma, is a certified 9/11 conspiracy nutbag. Here is what he had to say about David Ray Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11:

Hammering home the point that most of what we think we know may be mistaken, Griffin also points out that even the identities of the hijackers remain in doubt. In the months following 9/11, the London Times, Associated Press, and Saudi embassy in Washington reported that at least five of the 19 men whose photos and names circulated worldwide were still alive.
So, was bin Laden really the mastermind? If he was a player, did he have some help? These are two of the many troubling questions that arise from Griffin's analysis. At this point, we simply don't know, and not much can be said with complete certainty, except that without 9/11, George Bush would not have been able to declare himself a "war president" and there would have been no convincing reason to expand the federal government's power through legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act.
Given the administration's now discredited claims about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's connection to the attacks and weapons of mass destruction, it doesn't stretch credulity to conclude that, based on the considerable conflicting evidence (rather than more comforting assumptions), the public has yet to hear the whole story. For that to change, however, the media's self-imposed myopia will have to end, at last granting Griffin's research a thorough review, and perhaps even prompting a more credible and comprehensive official examination than has so far been conducted.

Ouch. Cukoo!

Posted by: Rusty at 12:35 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I love Pacifica Radio, Rusty! Whenever I need a chuckle a give a listen here in NY. Love their inhouse fighting which usually explodes every 5 years or so - ha ha - leftists angry at other leftists calling each other fascists and Nazis - its hilliarious! Best moment 15 yrs ago - prelude to Desert Storm - they are covering an ad hoc anti-war march/demonstration late at night - they decide to march on Brooklyn Bridge - but never told anyone! Bridge dimly lit and they are walking into on-coming traffic (you can't make this stuff up!) BOOM! 1 killed several injured! Marchers then attack offending car & driver - a black transit worker heading home after a couple of beers with no clue what is going on! Pacifica coverage all solemn in their droll pompous way! The first casualty of the war! Etc Etc. ... All this covered live on radio! it was hilliarious!

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 03:55 PM (3aakz)

2 Damn they sound interesting. All we get here is Rush, Boortz, Hannity, Michael Savage, and Tammy Bruce, all daily, and a local leftard show on Sunday, which gets around a half dozen listeners considering that the same six guys call so regularly I thought they were co-hosting. Not that I don't like conservative talk radio, but I still need my Two Minutes Hate now and then.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 04:12 PM (0yYS2)

3 Here in NY Maxie - I got leftists up the yazhoo! They even gravitate here from other parts of the country. I'd send some your way for entertainment purposes if I could.

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 04:27 PM (3aakz)

4 hondo, how can you stand it? I turn the TV off sometimes and just listen to music so I can get away from the lefty moonbats. One wonders how a person like you can maintain the sanity of yourself and your family in NYC. Frankly, I admire you very much. And here's to sanity, even in a moonbat haven!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 24, 2006 05:11 PM (rUyw4)

5 Google: "Arrest Bush 41" ... My goal is to make polygraph test results admissible as evidence in courts worldwide.

Posted by: David Howard at January 24, 2006 06:28 PM (s7zvg)

6 Who ever said I was still sane?

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 07:29 PM (3aakz)

7 I need target practice more than entertainment, but then, who says the two have to be mutually exclusive? Send 'em down m'boy!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 08:16 PM (0yYS2)

8 >>>"The first casualty of the war! Etc Etc. ..." hahaha! more for the Liberalism is a mental disorder files.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 24, 2006 08:28 PM (XA7De)

9 It was a live broadcast - I was up late at home packing for deployment n' just had the station on to listen to the anti-war loonies. I wish someone had filmed the whole sequence of events - it was totally surreal! I know - shouldn't have thought it funny - some kid did die - but the simple decision to walk into oncoming traffic on a dimly lit bridge late at night as an ad hoc political statement! I swear! I SAW IT COMING AS I WAS LISTENING! Imagine! A bunch of white young affluent wannabe leftys beating up this poor middle-aged black guy just driving home on a bridge at 50mph - he had no clue what was happening! Cops rescued black guy - n' gave him a ticket for expired inspection sticker I think - believe he pressed charges and sued the white kids - white kids claimed at first it was all a govt plot to crush the growing anti-war movement - then they and the story quietly faded away. Probably their parents dragged them home and got lawyers. YA CAN'T MAKE STUFF LIKE THIS UP!

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 10:06 PM (3aakz)

10 Your consolation prize for hearing Noam Chomsky drone on about East Timor is watching leftists squirm and explain that Osama was just kidding when he included the liberation of East Timor on his list of grievances against the West.

Posted by: ConservativeMutant at January 25, 2006 01:10 AM (zdxlm)

11 Bush criticism isn't just for lefties anymore. Many righties like myself also know the truth about 9/11. To say that only lefties know the truth is an insult.

Posted by: Rex at January 29, 2006 04:19 PM (E3mUh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Leftist: "I Don't Support Troops"; Urges Them to Disobey Orders

Newslinker has this L.A. Times article revealing a pretty disgusting sentiment which is all too common on the radical Left. If I was a mainstream liberal I'd be first in line to stone this S.O.B. just to prove that his view is a minority one.

The underlying assumption of this is that wars are fought by Administrations, not by nations. By joining the military a soldier is volunteering as an extension of the Bush Administration. Hence, the soldier is complicit in Bush's alleged crimes.

While Administrations may start wars, they do not fight them. Nations fight wars.

There was no war against the Nazis. We fought Germany. And the Roosevelt Administration did not fight in WWII, America did. America is at war. When did the Left stop being part of America?

This is why the antiwar position is unpatriotic. This is America's war, and to be against it is to be against America.

There is a time to be against a war, and that time is before the war begins. Strategies for victory are legitimate debate, but as long as troops are on the ground then that is where debate should end.

In past wars an article like this would have landed the author in jail. Encouraging troops in battle to disobey commands is worse than the kind of defeatism that FDR would have arrested you for--it is inciting to treason.

Joel Stein in the L.A. Times:

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on...
But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken Â— and they're wussy by definition....
But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives....
But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam...
I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

Wow. Two tin foil posts in one day. Update: Make that three tin foil post.

UPDATE: In addition to fatwas issued below (all worth the read), James Joyner, Michelle Malkin, Rob Port, and Ace

Posted by: Rusty at 11:36 AM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Dr. Rusty, it's not often that I agree with you, and in fact I can't subscribe to every word you said (for instance, I don't believe that opposing an ongoing war is treason -- if one feels that a war is actually a misuse of American forces, or was illegally begun, I believe it is one's patriotic duty to oppose the policy). But the idea of accusing American troops of willingly becoming "tools of American imperialism" is way, way over the line. Maybe it's because I grew up in a military town, and had family and family friends who have served (including two who attended West Point), but as one of those Democrats you spoke of (and a fairly liberal one) I find what Mr. Stein wrote in his LAT piece offensive and repugnant. As you stated, members of the uniformed military do not start wars. They carry out the policies of their civilian government. They are no more responsible for the rightness or wrongness of the policies they carry out than are the companies that produce the MRE's the troops are served in the field. However, it is no longer true, as you say, that nations fight wars. In the all-volunteer military of today, soldiers and their families pretty much fight alone. The rest of us go on with our lives, with nothing much asked of us -- no sacrifices, no war bonds, no limiting our use of gasoline to counteract the escalating price of oil... This administration has failed, not only in divising and executing its policies competently, but also in making the war an American -- rather than strictly a military -- conflict. All their strategists ask of the rest of us is unquestioning personal loyalty to the president, something that would have been an anathema to the other Roosevelt -- Teddy -- not to mention the Founding Fathers, who carried us away from the King. So I agree with you and I disagree. As an American, I worship no president, and I feel no obligation to support his administration's policies when I find them objectionable; war or no war. But I DO support our men and women in uniform, and feel that the line must clearly be drawn at "spitting on them" -- literally or figuratively. That is true both for liberals like Stein who denigrate their service to some sort of hit squad for Dubya, and for conservatives who have argued with me that troops have no right to complain because they volunteered. I believe that in but for a few cases of people who can't handle the pressure or don't follow the rules, our fighting men and women are the bravest, most honorable, humblest and least appreciated people among us. They often deserve better military and civilian leadership, but you know what? I know I wouldn't be brave enough to do what they do, and to do it whether I agreed with the policy or not (I've talked to some who disagree, but who go forward with absolute honor and integrity anyway). They are duty bound to try and make this war work, and they are doing the best job they can. I commend them for that, and for their sakes (and the sake of our national honor) I want them to kick ass and win in Iraq, asap so they can come home. But Dr. S, I will go to my grave believing that the invasion of Iraq was a needless and costly mistake -- perhaps the greatest foreign policy blunder in a generation. You and I clearly disagree about that, but I feel absolute confidence that my opinion makes me as good an American as anybody. Respectfully, Joy Reid

Posted by: ReidBlog at January 24, 2006 11:54 AM (o1EiK)

2 I don't support this guy. I urge anyone to bitch slap his ass open hand kung fu- julie numar style!

Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 24, 2006 11:57 AM (5ceWd)

3 I love it! Its got a kinda 3rd World feel to it - politicalizing the military (which is what this adds up to). Shows you where there heads are at. Got a cool one for the Left - convince some Govenor and State assembly to recall their National Guard components. Should make for some interesting legal mumbo-jumbo over authority and chain of command.

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 11:58 AM (3aakz)

4 (Sorry for the bad English, I'm French Canadian) I live in Quebec, Canada. I went in Bosnia when Canada was needed there. And like a lot of my colleagues and friends, we were sad to know that we wouln't go to Iraq, letting all the US do the work almost alone. I talked to some guys who were about to leave there when I was at Camp Shelby, Mississipi. I was so upset when they said that a lot of people in their own country didn't support them. It was a non-sense to me. And now, I can read something like this article in what appears to be a major publication. What kind of message is been sent to troops?!? Support by the people who don't fight is at least 50% of the war effort. Rest assured that a lot of people are proud in Quebec of what the US do for the rest of the world. Leadership par l'Exemple, Max

Posted by: Max at January 24, 2006 11:59 AM (WM45z)

5 This is humongogigantinormous. Joel Stein isn't some obscure diarist at DailyKos. Imagine, a Time magazine columnist actually coming out on the same side as Michael Crook.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 24, 2006 12:02 PM (RHG+K)

6 Filthy, will a digital bitch slap do? Because I just fisked the guy - and in an Olympian move, only cussed once.

Posted by: KG at January 24, 2006 12:41 PM (eRMCR)

7 The guy's supposed to be a humor writer; I wonder if this is an incredibly misguided attempt at being arch? BTW, I predict that the Lefties will be angry about this column too, over Stein's repeating of the "myth" that soldiers returning from Vietnam were spat upon.

Posted by: Brainster at January 24, 2006 01:42 PM (hEScd)

8 What do you expect? This moron writes for the same idiots at Time who put Ann Coulter on the cover. If they think she's an intelligent commentator, they probably think he's funny.

Posted by: Ed at January 24, 2006 01:50 PM (yfKhZ)

9 Ed, Ann's smarter than you by an infinite order of mangnitudes.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 02:04 PM (0yYS2)

10 Max, Once again I applaud your support. You astound me. I only wish that all French Canadians were like you. I solute you as a brave soldier. (SOLUTE) Joy Reid, You are right to voice your own opinion but you are not respected for them. Remember this; "You should not judge unless prepared to be judged". Sometimes battles don't come out as planned. We lost good men and women on that field (mothers/fathers/brothers and sisters) DON'T GIVE UP ON THEM NOW! By saying you don't believe in this war is just the same as saying you don't believe in them. Your killing the AMERICAN Faith! Each and every soldier INCLUDING BUSH need to be soluted! He lead them in to battle believing for you and me and everyone in America, including the world, that what we were doing is for the better. "SO, maybe the psychic hotline was closed". I didn't hear your voice screaming out; "I KNOW WHO DID IT". So you already condemmed him for being wrong, BUT.... Just a thought, what if Bush was right. What if after 9/11, came more bombings all over the U.S.? What if Bush had waited to act, so that our Generals can ponder on where this attack was originated? What if he had just waited a second longer? Would you have argued that he should have acted quicker? What if he had attacked before 9/11? Would you have told him; "there never was going to be an attack"? You knew as much information as I did. We never said you had to like Bush, but when someone comes to knock a fellow American soldier like Bush to the ground, you had BETTER be there to defend him. (if he is wrong, you punch him for it later) but not in the middle of a fight. I KNOW that any fellow AMERICAN would NEVER let another AMERICAN FALL. WE STAND UNITED, SHOULDER TO SHOULDER. I maybe an ignorant brave AMERICAN, but atleast i'm a BRAVE AMERICAN! And I would NEVER turn my back on another AMERICAN no matter how wrong he is. IF HE IS WRONG, he has me to deal with but I will NEVER disgrace him/her. America is #1 because we all STAND AS 1! the AMERICAN Taco Bandit

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 24, 2006 02:53 PM (MOKXn)

11 >>"I don't support our troops." shocka! No, really. I'm shocked, shocked!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 24, 2006 03:04 PM (XA7De)

12 So why do you assume he's a "leftist"? I've read Stein's mildly amusing stuff (he's supposed to be a humor writer) over the years, and I don't recall him taking an political stand. For all you know he's a closet Pat Buchanan groupie. I'm a REAL Leftist, and I say Stein is not one of us. I have family in the army and I support the troops even if I disagree with the mission. If the mission is wrong it's up to us civilians to put pressure on the government to change it. The troops, who have their lives on the line, can't afford to do anything cute to protest the mission. Stein isn't speaking for the Left; he's speaking for Stein. Keep that straight.

Posted by: maha at January 24, 2006 03:16 PM (k55rZ)

13 Stein isn't speaking for the Left; he's speaking for Stein. Except he sounds so much like so many on the left, it's hard to tell the difference.

Posted by: Brian B at January 24, 2006 03:48 PM (rGfpg)

14 maha He's your baggage - we've got ours - accept it - and deal with it - the Pontius Pilate route doesn't work.

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 03:59 PM (3aakz)

15 Maha, if you're a true leftist, then you can't possibly support our troops, because the core ethos of leftism is to undermine and attack America at every opportunity. You may have swallowed some leftist propaganda about wealth, etc., but if you truly support our military, you're just misguided, not leftist.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 04:15 PM (0yYS2)

16 idiot

Posted by: Thomas at January 24, 2006 04:48 PM (8LwRE)

17 Maxi, I think we have many more misguided people than we have true Leftists. It takes a mental disconnect to actually believe the rubbish of the Left. I remember a time in my life when a professor tried to corrupt my mind with Leftist doctrine, but I could feel in my bones that what he said and advocated was a crock of crap. Most people are not fooled by the stupidity of the Left, confused maybe, but most people eventually see the light, just as I did.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 24, 2006 05:21 PM (rUyw4)

18 Now Now People, I can relate to what you say about the left for most of the population. But, as for some like these two, they say they support our troops and they like America, then that will do. They have nothing to prove until the time comes to prove it. I have a friend from Canada and even he is willing to kick ass for america. I once banged a chick from Canada and she was a nice peace of ass for America. Leave that last part out. The TACO BANDIT

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 24, 2006 05:34 PM (MOKXn)

19 Taco Bandit said, "America is #1 because we all STAND AS 1!" But you don't stand as 1. To an external observer surfing the blogs it looks like you (Americans) genuinely hate each other. The name-calling and general visciousness of the debate is almost stomach churning. You don't discuss issues any more because everyone's mind seems to be made up. "Liberal" and "conservative" are no longer descriptive of a intellectual positions, they're just longer words for "good" and "bad". Like "Catholic" and "Protestant" or "Palestinian" and "Isreali" - and the consequences are likely to be just as stupid, tragic and generational. It's a terrible shame because the world faces many urgent problems and it would be great if the world's wealthiest nation could provide some enlightened and coherent leadership. But that's not going to happen while you guys are tearing each other's throats out. I don't have any magic solutions to the mess you're in but you could start by being civil to your fellow citizens.

Posted by: Barry at January 24, 2006 05:37 PM (VwY0N)

20 Guess they don't have satire on Tatooin (or whatever the fuck planet you live on.)

Posted by: Noodle at January 24, 2006 05:41 PM (9qMLa)

21 Kinda hard to tell at times, but it doesn't matter if it's satire or not. The point I was trying to make remains exactly the same.

Posted by: Barry at January 24, 2006 05:50 PM (VwY0N)

22 Barry, Please don't steal my quotes. I say them because I feel them. And yes, America does stand together. I will take up arms agains the enemy if i have to. Just because what you see here isn't to your liking, doesn't give you the right try and change it. Move your happy ass on to the next blog if you want. Yahoo has a good one on Canadians striking Oil in the Middle East again! GEEZ! Blow it out your ASS! How's that for name-calling visciousness!

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 24, 2006 05:51 PM (MOKXn)

23 Taco Bandit, Thank you for your thoughtful response. It fills me with hope for the future of your great nation.

Posted by: Barry at January 24, 2006 05:54 PM (VwY0N)

24 Nevermind what I said...your right. You see so many people come here and so so many bad things about America, it gets annoying! But, anyways. My bad. Lets be Civil. (Handshake)

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 24, 2006 05:56 PM (MOKXn)

25 Well...I hope that's not satirical...but hey, nice to meet you.

Posted by: Barry at January 24, 2006 06:00 PM (VwY0N)

26 Barry, nope, no mocking intended. I agree, Americans are civil (most) and it shouldn't change here. Nice to meet you too. O.k. I don't want to turn this thing in to a instant messenger. I'm out. later.

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 24, 2006 06:04 PM (MOKXn)

27 This whole Jill Carroll thing is really frustrating me. We went to War to fight terrorism (people who say "if you don't meet our demands we'll commit horrible acts and it's your fault for not heeding our warnings"). Anyway, I'm witnessing for the first time otherwise pro-war Americans question a policy to not negotiate. I've never wanted to be so cold hearted not to listen to a fathers plea, but, so far I've taken the position that we shouldn't, as she was anti-war, out of the green zone and pretty pretty much brought this on herself like we'ld all go running out into 100-mi hr. hurricane to save a reporter standing on a beach selling papers. This one however is pulling at the hear strings which gives light to the fact that Terrorism Pays so they should just keep on doing it, even if we didn't give in...the effect has been achieved with myself and swayed way more Patriots than any little lefty girl out hugging Iraqis could have done with a pen. This is really a difficult position to be in...I feel like to question it would mean my ultimate demise and a true burning in Hell, but, by my nature I must question the facts here. My best friend a former Marine with a daughter like myself is almost coming to blows with me...it's terrible -A no name anti-war "journalist" works for a barely read paper (news organizations would never be dishonest to sell papers)gets kidnapped...everyone knows who Jill is now, her word and ideas are a spreading. -She gets kidnapped by a terrorist org noone has ever heard of in front of a supposed meeting with a arabic leader who wasn't aware of the meeting in grand fashion. -She's been living amongst the Iraqi people outside the Green Zone telling their story for years (thanks for that because us dumb rednecks thought bombs were so smart they only hit bad guys and drop gold coins for good...I had no idea a War zone would suck)...anyway wouldn't it be safer to take her from her home rather than in front of an embasy type setting? -The women were set to be let go anyway! Information a journalist may be privy to. But, now it adds merit to being a terrorist and gives the appearance of negotiation. -I go out to the internet and try to find her recent articles (all I see is old, but, they may be listed way back as so many articles have her name now)...I can however join CSMonitor (bizarre that they are the only news site I've been to that has join and pay as the first article...bet their distribution is up)and see if it's in their archives, but I would never give money to increase their liberal distribution who are obviously desperate to get their point of view out). -I just get the feeling dead or alive Jill isn't getting what she deserves (the lefty premise in calling me a sadist for not thinking we should negotiate), I get the feeling Jill is getting what she wants...whether it be of her own attrition or not. -the people she's been living with strap bombs to their chests and achieve less than she has... It just sux to have these feelings and be in this position morally...Why are some of these people there? It's not like she wrote for ABC or CNN! Why is she putting herself and we the American people in this position and chancing setting US Policy back 100 yrs?

Posted by: Bob at January 24, 2006 06:56 PM (EKMxC)

28 Barry Pity you missed our group Christmas video - great duet of Maxie & actus singing "What The World Needs Now ..." Sure! Some call each other names - but its done with affection!

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 07:36 PM (3aakz)

29 Did you see the MULLET on that boy?!?

Posted by: Aaron's cc: at January 24, 2006 08:09 PM (ov6Vw)

30 Barry, the reason that we seem to hate one another is because we genuinely do. We are not a homogenous people by any means, and all normal boundaries of ingroup/outgroup have been chucked out the window long ago. We are a nation of many different groups with blurry distinctions which collide as often as they overlap, and often within the same group. You can't describe Americans with any sort of a pat label, and must take each of us as individuals. The split comes when you get to the two major groups; those who love America and those who don't. There are things about this country that sicken me, but it's still my country, and I love it, and I have have put my life on the line to serve it, and still would again without hesitation, because that's just the way I am. Likewise, there are those who hate America despite the ease which it affords them to live, yet they refuse to contribute or serve in even the least way, though they also won't leave. We are approaching an unbridgable chasm in our society, and I'm not sure how things will get sorted out, but I am sure of one thing; the fate of the world follows the fate of America. If we fall, everyone loses.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 08:40 PM (0yYS2)

31 That is a beauty, isn't it?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 08:41 PM (0yYS2)

32 "So why do you assume he's a leftist?" Because he sounds like one. I'm pleased that you disagree with him on the rightness of this war, but it seems as if you are a minority on the left. "Stein isn't speaking for the Left; he's speaking for Stein. Keep that straight." Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. He speaks just like an awful lot of leftists. I've been talking to leftists like him for decades. He is NOT some sort of anomaly. Please read Putting Cruelty First: An Interview with Kanan Makiya in Democratiya. He talks about how the left (and non-Iraqi Arabs) attacked him unmercifully for speaking the truth in his book "Cruelty and Silence." This is not a new phenomenon. For generations the left has attacked those who spoke the truth about leftist tyranny. Each generation attacks and attempts to silence the witnesses to murder and cruelty. Then, when the mountains of evidence become too high to ignore, the next generation says "that's old news, mistakes were made, errors of enthusiastic young idealists, time to move on" and then proceeds to do exactly the same thing to the witnesses of their day.

Posted by: pst314 at January 24, 2006 09:58 PM (7cTig)

33 "This is America's war, and to be against it is to be against America." I would argue that Stein's language reveals that he is against the war because he is against America.

Posted by: pst314 at January 24, 2006 10:00 PM (7cTig)

34 I think pst314 just nailed it. America represents everything that Marxism opposes, and leftism is Marxism, plain and simple. One cannot be a leftist and a loyal American any more than one may sit while standing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 10:31 PM (0yYS2)

35 Improbulus Maximus - "We are approaching an unbridgable chasm in our society..." Yep, that's how it looks. Again speaking as an external observer I'm amazed at how determined you all seem to be to keep throwing petrol on the fire. The insistence on framing the debate in us versus them terms can never, ever have a constructive outcome (well, not unless you view an actual war against the "leftists" as constructive). BTW, I'm no airy fairy "love conquers all" type. I love my wife, family and close friends, I mostly tolerate the rest of mankind. That's the best I can do. But one thing OBL and co. would dearly love to see would be the US tearing itself apart internally. Surely that should be sufficient incentive for you lot to put a little more effort into seeing each other's point of view.

Posted by: Barry at January 24, 2006 10:44 PM (VwY0N)

36 thejoelstein@yahoo.com drop him a note, i'm sure he'd be tickled pink.

Posted by: h at January 24, 2006 11:34 PM (flksM)

37 Responses to responses to earlier comment: "Except he sounds so much like so many on the left, it's hard to tell the difference." Not really. He sounds like what YOU IMAGINE the Left sounds like, but you never really listen to the Left. You listen to what Rush Limbaugh tells you about the Left. Yes, the Left has its whackjob extremist fringe, but so does the Right -- white supremacists, for example. I'm sure you'd feel ill used if I called you all Klansmen. "He's your baggage - we've got ours - accept it - and deal with it - the Pontius Pilate route doesn't work." Once again, there's no way to know whose baggage he is. He is a humorist. He doesn't usually express political opinions in his columns. For all we know he's a lifelong Republican. Remember, lots of Republicans (the Pat Buchanan faction comes to mind) opposed the Iraq War. "Maha, if you're a true leftist, then you can't possibly support our troops, because the core ethos of leftism is to undermine and attack America at every opportunity. You may have swallowed some leftist propaganda about wealth, etc., but if you truly support our military, you're just misguided, not leftist." Again, you have no idea what the Left believes. You've just swallowed propaganda yourself. There IS a whackjob extremist fringe that would like to bring down the government (e.g., International ANSWER, which most of us disown), but there's a whackjob extremist fringe on the Right that wants to bring down the government also (Tim McVeigh types). You judge the mainstream Left by the fringe. If I assumes you were all just like Tim McVeigh you'd probably be insulted, wouldn't you? ""So why do you assume he's a leftist?" Because he sounds like one. I'm pleased that you disagree with him on the rightness of this war, but it seems as if you are a minority on the left." Here is the majority opinion of the Left, to which I subscribe: Invading Iraq was one of the most colossaly stupid things this country has ever done. I supported fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan; indeed, I think we should have gone into Afghanistan quicker and harder. We blew opportunities in Afghanistan, let bin Laden get away, etc. But invading Iraq should have been a much lower priority than the Bush White House made it. Saddam Hussein was a long way away from being a threat to the U.S., and the money, lives, and resources wasted in Iraq could have been put to better use elsewhere. As I said in the earlier post, the Iraq war is wrong, wrong, wrong. But the burden of finding solutions to the mess there falls on us civilians, not the soldiers. I believe most of the soldiers are working very hard to help establish a secure Iraq and come home safely. That's enough on their plates. THAT, sir, IS the majority opinion of the Left. There are some who opposed invading Afghanistan, but they are a small minority. ""Stein isn't speaking for the Left; he's speaking for Stein. Keep that straight." Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. He speaks just like an awful lot of leftists. I've been talking to leftists like him for decades. He is NOT some sort of anomaly." Once again, you take one brick and assume you know what the whole building looks like. And in all the "decades" you've been talking to "leftists" I doubt you've encountered a representative cross-section. "He talks about how the left (and non-Iraqi Arabs) attacked him unmercifully for speaking the truth in his book "Cruelty and Silence."" If you ever want to be attacked unmercifully, just try being a leftie in America speaking out against the Bush Administration. I've actually received obscene and threatening phone calls from you righties because of opinions I have expressed. So don't give me any whiny crap about how nasty lefties are until you clean up your own act.

Posted by: maha at January 25, 2006 07:23 AM (k55rZ)

38 Guess Who showed up in Orlando, Florida! @ the TD WATERHOUSE Centre today. Zig Ziglar <- What a name!> Steve Forbes Bobby Bowden Suze Orman Tom Hopkins Phil Town Gen. Colin Powell Rudolph Giulliani Appears they are giving MOTIVATED SEMINARS about success (speeches are listed above, right of their name) @ only $225.00 a person (WOW!) and let me tell you, the roads and highways were packed! Since I'm poor and my trailor got repoed, leaving me to this BOX behind my parents house (the dog gets to sleep inside) talking to you guys on my Apple 1 computer and watering down my last beer to make it last longer, I might as well attend. Anyone have some money than can fax me?

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 25, 2006 07:46 AM (MOKXn)

39 LOL Taco, In French we say: "Ou il y a de la vie, il y a de l'espoir!" (Where there's life, there's hope!) Max

Posted by: Max at January 25, 2006 10:26 AM (aPkwd)

40 Rough week for Stein. He even made Atrios' Wanker of the Day.

Posted by: Cynical Nation at January 25, 2006 10:53 AM (vC1jc)

41 >>>You listen to what Rush Limbaugh tells you about the Left. Not really. That's what *you* IMAGINE Rush Limbaugh says to us. But you never really listen to Rush. Us rightwingers are all racist, sexist, warmongering pigs, greedy, hate the poor, religious wingnuts. But you Lefties are all a picture of moderation-- except for that one Leftard out on the margins. Riiiight. >>>Again, you have no idea what the Left believes. You've just swallowed propaganda yourself. Right again. We have "no idea" what the Left believes. roflmao! No matter that many of your greatest foes have been Lefties for most of our lives, and we're onto you. Yup, you Lefties are a great mystery wrapped in an enigma inside a riddle. You're all very shy about your beliefs, apparently. You're totally misunderstood. See, that's your problem. You just haven't gotten your message out! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 25, 2006 11:25 AM (paKD6)

42 Us rightwingers are all racist, sexist, warmongering pigs, greedy, hate the poor, religious wingnuts. But you Lefties are all a picture of moderation-- except for that one Leftard out on the margins. Riiiight. This describes the looney Right fringe. Does it describe you? I take it you don't think so. I accept that; the mainstream Right is not racist, sexist, etc. So why is it you (and Michelle Malkin, who is the worst offender these days) insist that the looney Left fringe represents the mainstream Left? It does not. And I still have seen no evidence that Joel Stein is anything but an asshole with no particular political agenda.

Posted by: maha at January 25, 2006 12:02 PM (k55rZ)

43 "And in all the 'decades' you've been talking to 'leftists' I doubt you've encountered a representative cross-section." How kind of you to put 'decades' and 'leftists' in quotes. Since you "doubt" what I wrote, let me be more specific: In my youth I was on the left, and most of my friends were liberals and leftists. I have over 30 years of adult interactions with such people, ranging from academics in various fields to union activists and ordinary individuals. Their incomes ranged from upper-upper middle class to on welfare. They ranged from blue collar to white collar. Their ranged all over the political spectrum, from Hubert Humphrey liberals to every sort of leftist you can imagine, including Wobblies, Maoists, Trotskyites, Fidelistas, Spartacist Leaguers, Wobblies, social democrats of various sorts, and so on. I have books in my library by various liberals and leftists, and have read others, including, for example, some Marx and Lenin. One brick? I've seen hundreds. One phenomenon I noticed across much of the left was, as I mentioned before, an inclination to defame and denigrate refugees from Communist tyranny, in an attempt to silence any criticism of leftist thugs. And of course to do everything possible to deny assistance to those fighting such tyranny. Was this universal? No, of course not, but it was very common. Kanan Makiya wrote of how he was betrayed by his "comrades." The same thing happened with the boat people of Vietnam, refugees from Cuba and Nicaragua. And of course, it happened earlier with refugees from the Soviet Union and from China. The left has still largely failed to face up to this shameful legacy of betrayal. Oh sure, you can find a principled leftist here and there who discusses the issue honestly, but too much of the left wants to either explain away and excuse, or just pretend it didn't happen. But don't take criticism of the left too personally: Just because many of the people posting here see the left in in general is deeply pathological, that does not necessarily reflect on you. Our opinions of you will largely depend on the opinions you express here. But if you insist on denying history we'll have difficulty taking you seriously. As for "don't give me any whiny crap" well, even back in the 60's and 70's I was noticing how comfortable ordinary leftists were with harassment and assault on people they disagreed with. Furthermore, who's whining? Do you have trouble handling disagreement? Well, you wouldn't be the first leftist I've met who blew up when faced with dissent from dogma, not by a long shot.

Posted by: pst314 at January 25, 2006 12:08 PM (OA547)

44 Oh--as for Rush Limbaugh, sorry, wrong again. I don't listen to talk radio much. I've heard maybe 20 minutes of him in my entire life. I got my opinions of the left by speaking with leftists and reading what they wrote.

Posted by: pst314 at January 25, 2006 12:11 PM (OA547)

45 pst314: As a 55-year-old myself, what I've observed over the years is that when you argue with a Leftie you may be cursed and insulted, but when you argue with a Rightie you are asking for physical assault. The blogger David Neiwert at Orcinus documents hate speech coming from the Right, if you want to check it out. Here's just one example. Righties are far more likely than lefties to threaten to eliminate people who disagree with them. I spend a lot of time on the blogosphere, and one finds rightie bloggers and their commenters who fantasize about doing physical harm to, even killing, the opposition. This is more rare on the Left. Lefties hurl insults, yes; but they don't threaten to kill people at nearly the same rate righties do. So don't give me any crap about how you poor righties are so reasonable and lefties are so nasty. Also, regarding "in my youth I was on the left" -- I run into this a lot. Inevitably, with a little digging, I find out that the individual was either a committed Marxist who did a complete flip (David Horowitz comes to mind) or was some fairly apolitical kid who considered himself to be a "leftist" because in the 1960s that's what young people were supposed to be. If in your youth you were seriously knowledgable of and committed to liberal/progressive ideals and values and then changed your mind, you would be most unusual.

Posted by: maha at January 25, 2006 12:25 PM (k55rZ)

46 Maha, As your Canadian population grows and winter hits, you guys seem to magically appear in and around America. Why? Righties must not be that bad. I would say more lefts go right than rights go left. Is that Right or not right? You put your right foot in, You put your right foot out, you put your right foot in and you shake it all about. You do the Hokey Pokey and you turn yourself about......That's what it's all about....

Posted by: Taco Bandit at January 25, 2006 03:30 PM (MOKXn)

47 >>>If in your youth you were seriously knowledgable of and committed to liberal/progressive ideals and values and then changed your mind, you would be most unusual. That's why people tend to be more Liberal when they're young and stupid-- because they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. And then as they grow older and wiser, they turn more conservative. Especially when they start raising a family. To quote Churchill, if you're not a Liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're still a Liberal at 30, you have no brain. I thought myself very clever back in my young Lib days. Very, very clever indeed. Now I can only look back at myself and shake my head in amusement. What was I thinking. But I was a full-on Lefty, and committed enough to put my money where my mouth was. I travelled several times to Nicaragua to support the Sandinistas, I was at all the protests, and stopped traffic on numerous occassion during our "die-ins" to protest the warmongering Reagan. I could argue your ears off on Lefty dogma. Today Reagan is my hero! hahaha! Now you Lefties don't have a bigger enemy in the world than me. And unlike most rightwingers, I've been on the inside. I know you better than you know yourselves.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 25, 2006 03:52 PM (FBm0F)

48 ...well, you may have "bigger" enemies than me, but certainly not more committed ;-)

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 25, 2006 03:55 PM (FBm0F)

49 This is ridiculous. The article had self deprecation and sarcasm all through it. And everyone missed the point. All he says in this article is he doesnÂ’t feel you can separate supporting the troops and support for the war. He says he doesnÂ’t hate them as people; donÂ’t spit on them and so on. He just means he canÂ’t and doesnÂ’t see it as correct to say you support the troops and donÂ’t support the war. He even goes on to say that it would be ok to fight for real issues like genocide. And the whole article is more about a liberal saying they are for the troops but against the war. Whether I agree with this article or not doesnÂ’t matter. I think everyoneÂ’s outrage is ridiculousÂ…encouraging troops to disobey orders, please. I think this whole country needs a giant enema. Oh and I find it funny that this site has a quote by Thomas Mann in its title. Many people wouldnÂ’t understand, be appalled or highly disagree with his works with gay and sexual undertones, support for socialism, communism and other issues many would disagree with. People should think before they just pull quotes they think fit their views.

Posted by: qwerty at January 25, 2006 04:37 PM (Zg8jo)

50 maha, if you think that the left is so much less prone to hate speech or threats or even violence, well, the kindest way I can put it is that you are deluding yourself. And the left has a record of excusing and condoning it. Hey--look at the unrepentant terrorists and terrorist aiders who were eagerly given tenure by major universities, and lauded by liberal journalists. But even a hint of violent past for someone on the right is a career-killer. As for your assertion that I "would be most unusual" well, again you are wrong. Oh, and by the way, the pervasive intolerance of dissent is one of the things that drove me away from the left. I have found it much easier to debate issues with conservatives. (Although one should remember that "conservative" today usually would be better called "classical liberal".)

Posted by: pst314 at January 25, 2006 08:16 PM (7cTig)

51 Barry, all of nature is "us versus them", and war is indeed the only meaningful way to solve major societal problems with any finality, only most people are too gutless to admit it. If it weren't for the righteous employment of warfare, the Nazi's and Communists would still be fighting over the scraps of the world, but we big bad Americans put a stop to them, with no thanks from those we saved, by the way. If problems can be solved by means other than war, then they mostly are, and people do it all the time, but sometimes we run into problems that just can't be resolved peacefully, such as muslims wanting to enslave or murder everyone, for example. This is dealbreaker among civilized humans, and unless one is a spineless liberal, one is inclined to resist such efforts by the savages who commit such acts. The only solution to the muslim problem is to kill them until they get tired of it and slither back to hide under the rocks whence they emerged, or be exterminated like the vermin they are. They cannot be reasoned with. They don't want to negotiate. They just want to conquer, murder, rape, and pillage, because they're unevolved primitive savages, and that's what they do. Anyone who would make apologies for them should be shot along with them for betraying humanity and civilization.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:04 AM (0yYS2)

52 I wouldn't go so far as to describe all of life as "us versus them" but I would maintain that there is nothing wrong with condemning seditionists. Some things are beyond the pale. (Of course much of "progressive" talk has been aimed at making nothing, no matter how vile, beyond the pale--except for disagreement with those tolerant, peaceful progressives.)

Posted by: pst314 at January 26, 2006 09:07 AM (OA547)

53 Mr. Stein is right. Soldiers are not bound to obey immoral or illegal orders. I think the Nuremberg trials made it clear that "I was just following orders" defense, does not absolve guilt. Just remember, Germans supported their troops too! "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."- Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: Jason at January 26, 2006 01:59 PM (mgKhS)

54 Ah, now I understand. America is like Nazi Germany because we brought down a fascist regime that was and continued to be a menace to the region and to the world. Thanks for explaining that.

Posted by: pst314 at January 27, 2006 12:14 PM (OA547)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Kos Kids to March at Ground Zero in Protest of 9/11 'Conspiracy'

The tin foil brigades will march on President's day to protest the 9/11 conspiracy. And by conspiracy they mean that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. They will also attempt to arrest former Mayor Giuliani for his part in the conspiracy. Which is odd because Rudy isn't, as far as I know, a J-O-O.

The rally is being organized by Daily Kos writer and conspiracy nut Greg Nixon. A guy who thinks the Bush Administration was behind 9/11.

Indy Media Watch has more.

Indeymedia: March for Truth:

The rally will conclude at the office of former N.Y.C. Mayor Giuliani in Times Square, where we will deliver citizenÂ’s warrant for his arrest for his role in the attacks at The World Trade Center and criminal complicity in removing evidence from a crime scene. Civil disobedience will then be encouraged by protesters in an effort to call on fellow Americans to speak out against the colossal crimes being committed in the name of a fraudulent Â‘War on TerrorÂ” and to demand the U.S. Government be arrested for treason and mass murder....
Please spread the word to any and all to come to Ground Zero on February 20th and make their voice heard that this frame-up on humanity in the name of Â‘The War on TerrorÂ” Ends now. March for Truth N.Y.C. 2006!

It would be funny if these people were indeed as marginal as I would hope to believe. As it is, I believe their march constitutes a legitimate 'fighting words' defense.

UPDATE: If Kos is now the Democratic kingmaker, what does that say about the Democratic party?

Posted by: Rusty at 09:40 AM | Comments (50) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Alright. Who lives in NYC that can take pictures of this circus for us? Marginal doesn't even begin to describe these whack jobs.

Posted by: Oyster at January 24, 2006 09:54 AM (osKlJ)

2 Somebody who lives in NYC needs to throw a stink bomb in the crowd. Oh, never mind, who would notice?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 24, 2006 09:58 AM (rUyw4)

3 Protestdriod: "We are here to serve a CITIZEN'S WARRANT and arrest the Ex-Mayor!" Officer Mulligan: "Sure y'are, laddie. But I'm afraid it's not going to happen. Move along now, there's a good little moonbat. Don't be makin' me and the boys thump yer pointy little heads."

Posted by: mojo at January 24, 2006 10:04 AM (kvY5N)

4 In all fairness, nearly every commenter following the post is laughing at him. Some are pretty damn funny. A couple tried to defend him and came off just as looney.

Posted by: Oyster at January 24, 2006 10:10 AM (osKlJ)

5 "We will then confront the media organizations The Nation Magazine, Democracy Now, The New York Times, and A.N.S.W.E.R as symbolic targets of de facto complicity with their silence and neglect of journalistic duties" When you've started to think that The New York Times and ANSWER have become too soft, perhaps it's time to do a self-examination of your mental health.

Posted by: Graeme at January 24, 2006 10:16 AM (svnaF)

6 An examination of the mental health of these people would be quite interesting, actually. I would be curious to know the medical term for the mental illness that afflicks these people. It's good for them, I suppose, that mental illness no longer gets you automatically confined to an institution, and good for the taxpayer also, as the numbers of these idiots has climbed over the years.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 24, 2006 10:30 AM (rUyw4)

7 Where can I sponsor one of these kids? Every time one of these freaks are spotted a bell rings and a New Yorker votes Republican.

Posted by: Gordon at January 24, 2006 10:39 AM (JwR1N)

8 >>>A.N.S.W.E.R And I thought is was merely a mental disorder. These people have veered off into full-fledged madness.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 24, 2006 10:50 AM (paKD6)

9 Who puts this consperacy crap into the heads of this kuds? they should be hung

Posted by: sandpiper at January 24, 2006 10:54 AM (U+eLg)

10 "Rudy isn't, as far as I know, a J-O-O." Well his name is JOO-liani! What further proof do we need? "When you've started to think that The New York Times and ANSWER have become too soft, perhaps it's time to do a self-examination of your mental health." Since when do crazy people admit they're crazy?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 11:12 AM (0yYS2)

11 Greg? Hmmm.

Posted by: Howie at January 24, 2006 11:17 AM (D3+20)

12 Name the punk band: Here are a couple of lines of the lyrics. I'm not crazy (institution) You're driving me crazy (institution) Taking me to an institution, telling me it's the only solution Hint: "All I wanted was a Pepsi"

Posted by: Rusty at January 24, 2006 11:18 AM (JQjhA)

13 Rusty - Suicidal Tendencies of course.

Posted by: scarletbegonia at January 24, 2006 11:27 AM (z77r4)

14 I operate in NYC and would be extremely happy to take pictures, even video, of these wing nuts.

Posted by: Agent Meatball at January 24, 2006 11:32 AM (30FRH)

15 Suicidal Tendancies?

Posted by: Howie at January 24, 2006 11:33 AM (D3+20)

16 Institutionalized- Suicidal Tendencies.

Posted by: disgruntledinca at January 24, 2006 11:34 AM (IpG/2)

17 You all win thes valuable prizes.....

Posted by: Rusty at January 24, 2006 11:38 AM (JQjhA)

18 I think the more media coverage the better. There has to be an archival photo somewhere of one of their leaders arm in arm with Hilary, Dean or Gore. Fox could have a field day pasting one of these photos up while running the story of the 9-11 conspiracy nuts Â“day off in New YorkÂ”. If weÂ’re lucky, they may even bring up the weather machine, fake moon landing in 1969, or bombing of the NO dikes. Give them rope, plenty of rope.

Posted by: Brad at January 24, 2006 11:51 AM (3OPZt)

19 I love this! Here in NY the left is pulling out all stops to alienate .... marginal liberals! Cannibalism on parade! If I got some time, I'll try and check it out. Should be some really cool Performance Art stuff on view - they really like that stuff - and its often amusing in a bizzaro kind of way.

Posted by: hondo at January 24, 2006 12:06 PM (3aakz)

20 Hondo and Agent Meatball - I beg you, PLEASE, get pictures. I need a really good laugh. Oh and if you see inflatable scrotum guy, pass him up, okay? [shudder]

Posted by: Oyster at January 24, 2006 01:43 PM (osKlJ)

21 That Greg Nixon guy is also a member of impeachbush.meetup.com/ Still looking ...

Posted by: Oyster at January 24, 2006 03:30 PM (osKlJ)

22 He's even posted his screed on the History Channel site. On the same message board there are a whole slew of TFH wearing kooks. He lives in Burlington VT. I have his email too.

Posted by: Oyster at January 24, 2006 04:03 PM (osKlJ)

23 It sounds like they chose sides. heh.

Posted by: newc at January 24, 2006 04:40 PM (HUiqh)

24 Who is behind this web site, and why do you wish to hide / belittle the truth of 9/11?

Posted by: bill giltner at January 24, 2006 05:32 PM (PXRQW)

25 wow. bill giltner is insane. Just look at his website.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 24, 2006 08:32 PM (XA7De)

26 The truth? We all know it was the JOOOOOooooOOOOOoooooOOOOOOZZZZZzzzzz Bill.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 10:32 PM (0yYS2)

27 Hey Bill, did you hear the U.S Government has retrofitted the crashed Roswell space shuttle with a earthquake generator, and a "PROJECT BLUEBEAM" Jesus projector?

Posted by: dave at January 24, 2006 10:35 PM (CcXvt)

28 lmao!!! too fucking funny.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 24, 2006 10:36 PM (51oif)

29 Yeah, I remember those nutcase last 9-11. It was my son's first trip to Ground Zero since his father died there. We saw those idiots spewing there garbage and I just had to say it. I looked their speaker straight in the eye and said in a loud voice "Your are sooo full of shit!" The entire crowd did a whiplash manuever and my son thought we were about to be mobbed. We exited back on the subway before anyone could do anything. I despise these jerks!

Posted by: mithglin at January 25, 2006 04:42 AM (kp3ms)

30 Mithglin, I'm sorry you had to endure that. These people are soulless.

Posted by: Oyster at January 25, 2006 10:04 AM (osKlJ)

31 Always a liberal, on 9/11, I became a supporter of the President and stayed glued to FOX NEWS 24/7. I supported both wars, too. Just like the President, I wanted to get those evil-doing Bastards. So on 9/11, effectively, I waved my flag with every other good patriot. But then a friend mentioned that to him? 9/11 did not make any logical sense at all. He shared his un-answered questions. Why did our entire military, NORAD, the FAA, and the Pentagon's own defense fail us for the first time in history not once but with four separate planes? Why did three skyscrapers fall in nearly free-fall and look just like films of controlled demolitions? And how come no skyscrapers had ever exploded like that due to fires alone (and never mind one building, but 3 of them, and WTC7 was not even hit by a plane)! How come so many of the hijackers are still actually alive? Why did the Pres. stop caring about Bin Laden and told us that basically it's not even important that we find him? Why was Marvin Bush in charge of security for the WTC towers on 9/11? Why was there no 757 wreckage found at the Pentagon? Why didn't the Pentagon ever release the footage of any plane hitting the Pentagon? Why wasn't the hole in the side of the Pentagon anywhere near as big as the wingspan for the jetliner, neither in terms of width nor height? Why did the plane "know" to pick the part of the Pentagon where there were relatively few employees working (and none of the highest brass) and the section that had just recently been bomb-proofed? Why did Larry Silverstein, Leaseholder for Bldg. 7, tell the firefighters to "pull" that building? (You can't just pull a building - you need to place explosives in it in advance). Why did Rumsfeld tell CNN that Flight 93 was shot down over Shanksville? My friend had so many questions that I had to read for myself. So I did my research - month after month I kept saying NO WAY that our own government had anything to do with it! I REFUSED to believe it, for months! That would be evil, after all, for a government to harm nearly 3,000 people in order to get into some wars! Denial is not a place in Egypt. It is where we go when we don't want to face up to something that might be too painful to bear. Well, long story short, many, many articles, countless photographs and several books later I learned the real truth. 9/11 was done with the full cooperation of some insiders in our government in high levels. Please know that those who have questions are not insane. They are merely individuals who think for themselves. And admittedly, it is extremely painful to realize that one's own government would do such a thing - and actually has done many covert operations and false flag attacks for many years. Please do not take my word for it - nor Greg Nixon's word for it, either. Trust your own brain. Do the research like I did. Think for yourself. Read read read with the brain you've been given and think critically. Here are some places to get more info. Just look at the evidence as if you were a detective or a scientist. Our government has been lying about many things - and 9/11 is just but one. Here are some websites to learn more for yourself. Please don't dismiss this until you have done your own research. Don't you owe it to yourself not to simply listen to everything you hear out of the oval office, and to read the research and use your own good mind to mull over all of these things that just do not add up? http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/ http://www.911proof.com/ http://911research.wtc7.net/ http://www.reopen911.org/

Posted by: formerbushlover at January 25, 2006 07:59 PM (JuLkv)

32 formerbushlover, I can sum up your well-researched data by adding 3 words to the very beginning of your post: "Once a liberal," I am renewing your prescription and increasing your dosage to 20mg. DO NOT TAKE WITH KOOL-AID!!! Please stay away from all windows and sharp objects. Asshat.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at January 26, 2006 04:21 AM (maXzk)

33 I find it funny how 'critics' of the 9/11 attack say stuff like this: And how come no skyscrapers had ever exploded like that due to fires alone Hello? fires alone? did you miss the rather large plane impacts that went through the building floors, pillars and structure in general at high velocity? Why is it you idiots continue to separate the Fire, from the impact of a Jet liner as if one or the other wasn't a factor? Hey heres a free clue for you moron, perhaps you can tell us when the last time a commercial jet hit a building deliberately, and it survived?

Posted by: dave at January 26, 2006 07:41 PM (CcXvt)

34 1943 a b17 bomber hit the empire state bldg . at almost 300 miles an hour and did minimal damage you pathetic troglydite morons!

Posted by: None of your idiotic business at January 26, 2006 11:32 PM (skZky)

35 I guess you liberal FAGGOTS will also call the firefighters and police that were THERE that are saying that it was an inside job and that THEY HEARD the BOMBS going off a bunch of nuts too?

Posted by: nunyabiznes at January 26, 2006 11:38 PM (skZky)

36 Why the fear of people who ask questions? Is it easier to find someone that has a great sound byte and then just keep repeating that? Since when has a patriot become someone that just repeats what he hears others say? Being a ditto head is not patriotic nor is it a defense of your countries Constitution. If there is naught to fear, but fear itself, then maybe you should keep running in circles and screaming and shouting that Â‘moonbats and tin foil hatsÂ’ are out to get you and destroy the world. On 9/11 or the first time in 20 years Norad didnÂ’t have a plane in the air for less than 10 minutes. Why? Why did it take 1 Hour and 43 minutes to respond? Do you feel safe now? The original articles of impeachment on Clinton included that a passenger plane had made it into NYC airspace and it had taken 10 minutes for Norad to respond. Only one other time has Norad taken longer, that was 12 minutes. New worl Record for the defence of the Eastern Fainancial district seaboard, 1 hour and 43 minutes. Well Done! When are they going to beat that record? Of course now someone is going to talk about the Mid West and a golfer instead of staying on subject, which includes that NoradÂ’s prime responsibility is to protect the East Coast from attack. In the 1980Â’s, before there was an Al Quaeda, captured terrorists said that they had considered using airplanes in retaliation for the attack in Lebanon. Before the 3 TV Stations footage of the Air Force Colonel in charge of the Virginia Norad Air base was confiscated, I heard him say, live on TV, when only one plane ahd made its target, that when he called his superior, he was told to ground the plane he had in the air and to not fuel or arm either of his places until he received further orders. Over 2 hours later some northern Norad base was allowed to send a jetÂ… way to late. This Colonel knew more than 40 minutes before the first plane hit. What terrible things would happen to American citizens if we were allowed to see more than 5 frames of a video camera as the Â‘planeÂ’ that hit the Pentagon passed behind some object. Of the 5 Video cameras that had a clear view of the incoming plane, none of them are allowed to be seen as that would compromise national Security. Well, I suppose it might, if that wasnÂ’t a 757. Are you afraid to view a 757 hitting the side of the pentagon, hitting an area that was just reinforced to stop exactallly what just occurred? Something that penetrated 5 walls, then exploded? Would that footage permanently harm your psyche? Please donÂ’t ask any questions yourself, it would make it hard to be a faithful lapdog ditto head. Find someone who has nice neat short statements that you can remember, and repeat after them, the moonbats and the tin foil hats are going to get you if you donÂ’t protect yourself by calling them the names you learned to use in 7th grade.

Posted by: questionier at January 27, 2006 12:53 AM (95gWQ)

37 questionier, You have an incredible grasp of the idiotic. Here's an Occam's razor for your birthday. Stew in your moonbat doubts and conspiracy laden existence... The drama will kill you. SOTG

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at January 27, 2006 07:54 AM (maXzk)

38 the only "conspiracy theory" that exists surrounding 9/11 is the official version. read through the PDF file at http://911truthemergence.com/911fairytale.pdf and then see if you still believe the official version. or just ask yourself: "why do i believe what i do about 9/11?" is it because you've researched, read, and thought about it, or because a t.v. told you what to think? the official version of 9/11 has no more validity than any other lie of the bush administration. please see: http://benjaminpritchard.name/transparency.html

Posted by: benjamin pritchard at January 27, 2006 09:44 AM (J4sZB)

39 so everybody who disagrees with bush is a fucking liberal. OKC bombing was an inside job, WTC 93 the motherfucking FBI's John Anticef (spelling?) gave ahmed salim a million dollars, explosives and along with detonators to park against the main support column to make one WTC collapse onto the other and bring about martial law. THANK GOD that didn't happen because the arabs hired to do this were IDIOTS!! This was in the NYT for a little while but quickly went down the memory hole! BENTON K PARTIN's material (now part of congressional record) he said according to his analysis of the OKC explosive signiture the support columns had shaped charges placed on them and no way a "truck" bomb could have done that damage. BTW he was the former head of an Air Force Weapons Lab, so He must be a tin foil hatter too huh? you FUCKING pricks need to pull your head out of your asses and realize america is being dismantled right before your very eyes and you're cheerleading the efforts of the globalists!!!! We are on the verge of going into iran because of their NOOKULAR weapons.....the real reason they want to go to iran is because iran come this march is going to sell oil in EUROS. SAME FUCKING REASON WHY WE ARE STUCK IN IRAQ!!! ONLY ELEMENT MISSING IS ANOTHER FALSE FLAG ATTACK TO RALLY THE IDIOTS SUCH AS YOURSELVES BEHIND ANOTHER MidEAST FOLLY against a very powerful country. IRAQ and afghanistan were relative cake walks!!!

Posted by: Corporal! at January 27, 2006 11:06 AM (BHHsV)

40 Well, it is obvious who it is that doesnÂ’t want anyone to ask questions about obvious irregularities. Those folks are supporting the destruction of the constitution, wrapping themselves in the Flag that true patriots are sworn to defend, not use as a shield. If they could get past the 7th grade puberty level of potty mouthed name calling, they enter 8th, 9th and more high school curriculum and maybe get some algebra, learning to do some deductive thinking instead of gonad exercises. What really amazes me is their use of Liberal as a dirty word. It comes from Liberty. What else confuses me is that they sort of claim to be conservative (yeah right, and GW has the best pResidential ratings in the last 200 years) yet they donÂ’t reflect that either. At the best, they would be nationalists, but further study of definitions (as printed in the dictionary, it is a big book, hard for some to open and read, yes, yes I know) but more likely we have Neo Cons (no better or safer than Neo Libs I might add) and the slimiest crawling outta the wood work, the Fascists, claiming they are spreading Democracy while destroying it here at home. Here, have an exercise in seeing if your labels match what the rest of the world uses as a reference for the English language. http://www.onelook.com/ http://dictionary.reference.com/ http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm The fortunate thing in these links is that there are itty bitty little sound bytes, the problem is they require independent thought to be able to understand and use as something other than a ditto head, who has no freaking idea what he is talking about. So, back to 9/11? What is so damned dangerous about asking about the irregularities, all the things that the government just refuses to cover? Like? Why did GW say that there would never be an investigation and that no one would ever be held responsible for the security failures that day? Who is in whose pocket here? That is the question....

Posted by: Questioner at January 27, 2006 01:47 PM (95gWQ)

41 formerbushlover: For someone to claim that he has done a lot of research, the only research you obviously did was on debunked 9/11 conspiracy websites. It is incredible that after 4 years, your long paragraph lists nothing but long-since debunked nonsense. Can you explain rationally to us why you did not do the necessary research that would tell you conclusively that what you have written is wrong, debunked, irrational, and just plain silly? It's rather amazing how gullible people can be.

Posted by: S. King at January 27, 2006 05:32 PM (7b4mH)

42 S. King, well, so former Bush lover's web sites are pretty much showing wht has been disproved, as if they are Gov plant jobs, but, where would you recommned people to get data that wasn't fed to us by people from outerspace? Q.

Posted by: questioner at January 28, 2006 02:04 AM (95gWQ)

43 questioner: Show me the websites in which physical laws have been disproved and why you believe them. Show me the websites which would lead you to believe that evidence does not matter.

Posted by: S. King at January 28, 2006 07:18 AM (7b4mH)

44 Look, anyone who has spent a few minutes looking at the evidence can see something was not right on 9/11. You really have to be blind to not question the government's involvement in 9/11. From hijackings done with boxcutters to pilots not alerting ground control of a hijack to the lack of air defenses to the strange collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7 to the bizarre plane crashes at the pentagon and in Shanksville, it is all to clear the official story is a joke. I can understand not wanting to admit the government was behind it, it is an ugly truth, and it is hard to bear. But wake up. This is the truth of our country, and 9/11 was just the most extreme example of many other similar hoaxes over the years. If you want to live in denial fine, but you're being used, and you should realize it.

Posted by: Spooked at January 28, 2006 09:23 AM (wPOBL)

45 S. King The question was, "what web sites would you recommend, those not carrying Government disinformation, those that aren't trying to sell easily disproved idiot theories so as to discredit those that have serious scientific queries which the governments story needs to suspend the laws of physics to make their story work". The fact as stated by you was that Bush Lovers shared sites are disinformation. I can't be convinced of anything just because someone says something isn't good, I need to see the information they have used to reach their conclusion that something else is the right conclusion. I watched 2 TV sets from 8 minutes after the first plane hit. I saw the colonel in charge of the AFB interviewed, I heard reporters state that Bush was aware of the attack and was going to a press opportunity at an elementary BEFORE he read my pet goat and was caught on film being told the second plane hit another tower. I have about a dozen questions that the government wonÂ’t answer or their answers suspend the laws of physics, the only answers I have is that Bush and his cronies have dodged an investigation, downright said that 9/11 will never be investigated, then when it was investigated, those I saw live on TV were on the Â‘hand offÂ’ list for National Security and the list goes on. If you have ever raised a mess of teens, going through puberty, you know when something is up. YouÂ’d think these boys were able to lie to us better than a bunch of 6th/7th graders, after all, the are OUR REPRESENTATIVES, not the Big Corporations, which they act like. Questioner

Posted by: questioner at January 28, 2006 11:16 AM (95gWQ)

46 Spooked, Quite the contrary, Spooked. I've spent four years consistently debunking the 9/11 Denial Movement. When you make such idiotic statements as you just did, it is quite obvious you haven't even spent one minute evaluating the evidence whatsoever. Pardon me for laughing but you are awfully naive and gullible.

Posted by: S. King at January 28, 2006 12:25 PM (Rdl8p)

47 Questionner wrote: "The fact as stated by you was that Bush Lovers shared sites are disinformation." You are confused. You forgot that you stated that, to wit: "so former Bush lover's web sites are pretty much showing what has been disproved." Those are your words, not mine, but you are unwilling to identify what web sites those are. Then your write: "I have about a dozen questions that the government wonÂ’t answer or their answers suspend the laws of physics, the only answers I have is that Bush and his cronies have dodged an investigation, downright said that 9/11 will never be investigated, then when it was investigated, those I saw live on TV were on the Â‘hand offÂ’ list for National Security and the list goes on." To make the incredulous statement that "their answers suspend the laws of physics", you must be getting that information from somewhere. Why are you unwiling to tell us?

Posted by: S. King at January 28, 2006 12:45 PM (Rdl8p)

48 Questionner wrote: "The fact as stated by you was that Bush Lovers shared sites are disinformation." You are confused. You forgot that you stated that, to wit: "so former Bush lover's web sites are pretty much showing what has been disproved." Those are your words, not mine, but you are unwilling to identify what web sites those are. Then your write: "I have about a dozen questions that the government wonÂ’t answer or their answers suspend the laws of physics, the only answers I have is that Bush and his cronies have dodged an investigation, downright said that 9/11 will never be investigated, then when it was investigated, those I saw live on TV were on the Â‘hand offÂ’ list for National Security and the list goes on." To make the incredulous statement that "their answers suspend the laws of physics", you must be getting that information from somewhere. Why are you unwilling to tell us?

Posted by: S. King at January 28, 2006 12:46 PM (Rdl8p)

49 Ignore S. King he is a troll that only hopes to waste your time in endless "debate"

Posted by: Greg Nixon at January 28, 2006 09:54 PM (wT6sE)

50 It is amazing to see the number of complete nuts we have in this country.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 28, 2006 11:29 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 23, 2006

NSC Wiretapping Likely to get Congressional Approval

File under: it's not fascism if we give you the green light. Remember that Senate hearing that the partisan Left is chomping at the bits to expose McChimpy's inate fascism in? Well it looks like the Dems are going to take the opportunity to:

a) expose Bush as a fascist for wiretapping international phone calls without a warrant
b) call him the fascist that he is
c) authorize him to do the very thing he was doing that made him a fascist.

Via James Joyner this from WaPo:

U.S. surveillance laws should be reviewed and possibly rewritten to allow the type of eavesdropping that U.S. President George W. Bush has been criticized for authorizing, lawmakers from both parties said on Sunday....
"What he's (Rove) trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer."
'THERE IS A WAY'
But Kerry said the spying has to be legal and constitutional and if Bush needs the law to be changed, "then come to us and tell us... There is a way to protect the Constitution and not go off on your own and violate it."
Other prominent Democratic senators including Dick Durbin of Illinois, Charles Schumer of New York and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut made similar comments about reexamining the breadth and modernity of FISA in television interviews a few days after Rove urged Republicans to campaign on national security and the war on terror.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who has also questioned the legality of the eavesdropping, also urged the administration to work with Congress on modernizing the 1978 FISA law to take into account technological changes in communications.
"I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here's why we need this capability, that they wouldn't get it. And so let's have the hearings," McCain said on Fox News Sunday.

I guess that moots Jeff Goldstein's argument.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:01 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Like I suspected from the start - this particular NSA program is in all likehood - PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TOTAL SUCCESS IN PREVENTING FURTHER AQ TERROR ATTACKS WITHIN THE US ... PLUS THE GREAT POSSIBLITY IN FOILING SOME OF THEIR ACTIONS OVERSEAS. Congress can get access to the success stories - its up to the DEMs if they go public - think they wanna? Lib/Left is interested in only a legal LAW arguement and how it conceiveably affects them (they've always been paranoid about things like this anyway - and that hysteria will remain long after). To them, this is just a vehicle to GET BUSH - but the wheels are falling off and its just about out of gas. Please Left! - bombard me with tons of references to FISA - interesting to note your data confirms FISA adhered to vast majority of time! - these ARE THE EXCEPTIONS - please explain not to me - but the American public - why exceptions are bad and not allowed.

Posted by: hondo at January 23, 2006 06:23 PM (3aakz)

2 I'm not as convinced as McCain that players like Kerry, and a few others wouldn't have mucked it up, dragged it out and argued semantics for ever just to hear their own voices drone on and flex their muscles and pretend to be important. And it's real easy to say "why didn't you just ask?" after finding out nearly two thirds of the country is against you. Funny how we went from - Thousands and thousands of people's rights being trampled, nay STOMPED! - to a wimpering "Why didn't you just ask?" The melodrama shifting to condescension and back makes me seasick. We haven't even determined if any laws were broken to begin with.

Posted by: Oyster at January 23, 2006 06:25 PM (YudAC)

3 Oh, boy. 'But Kerry said the spying has to be legal and constitutional and if Bush needs the law to be changed, "then come to us and tell us... There is a way to protect the Constitution and not go off on your own and violate it."'? This guy was running for President and thinks passing a law makes something constitutional? Ignoring, of course, whether or not what is in the law is desirable. But the ignorance of the basics regarding the relationship of law and Constitution in someone who has been a Congressman for (how many years?) is staggering.

Posted by: Phillep at January 23, 2006 06:26 PM (Xg00m)

4 The Democrats put their finger up in the air, saw which way the wind was blowing, and decided to support spying on people who are talking to al-Queda. The Rovian Mind Ray has struck again. I advise investment in tin mines and tin foil manufacturing plants.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 23, 2006 06:55 PM (rUyw4)

5 Oyster Its called backpedaling. Overall FISA was adhered to - this aspect was the exceptions - and the exceptions appear to be successes too. Dems can't find proof exceptions were "the rule" nor any proof of going off intended target (AQ). Without anything substantial evidence contrary - Dems run hugh risk of EXPOSING BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUCCESS STORIES ON WAR ON TERROR. See why the backpedaling.

Posted by: hondo at January 23, 2006 06:56 PM (3aakz)

6 Now you have to ask, is the damage done to the program now it's all out in the open? So they would have authorized it, but it's been leaked to the press and is now probably worthless?

Posted by: dave at January 23, 2006 08:11 PM (CcXvt)

7 Sure makes you wonder just whose side they are on, Dave? Actually, I don't have to wonder, I know.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 23, 2006 08:14 PM (rUyw4)

8 How it my argument mooted?

Posted by: Jeff G at January 23, 2006 08:17 PM (YAOAH)

9 >>it looks like the Dems are going to take the opportunity to: authorize him to do the very thing he was doing that made him a fascist." bwahaha! You Lefties are such dopes!!!!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 23, 2006 08:45 PM (paKD6)

10 That makes two of us JJ. The likes of bin Kerry, bin Kennedy, et al, are nothing but enemies of America and should be treated as such.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 23, 2006 09:37 PM (0yYS2)

11 Maxi, I honestly believe a time is coming very soon when everyone is going to have to make a stand, and tell whether they support the US or terrorists. The fence-sitters will be forced to jump on one side or the other, and it will be apparent to everyone which side you are on. I look forward to that day, although I know it will signal a difficult time for our nation. But we have made it through difficult times before, so I have no doubt we will prevail against these Islamists and their allies in the US.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 23, 2006 09:56 PM (rUyw4)

12 dave Did ya notice this aspect of the program began immediately after 9/11/01? Did ya notice that Risen & the NYT (who broken this "story" 'bout 2 months ago ?) sat on it for a year? (pushin' this back to say 10/04) - You do realize putting the story together also takes time - pushing it back even further. You do realize the "info" they were getting was already old. fighting a war requires staying adept and flexible - and constanting changing and adapting to the circumstances at hand. I firmly suspect what is "available" now to know is "looking" for a way to get known.

Posted by: hondo at January 23, 2006 10:17 PM (3aakz)

13 What kills me too is that when the NYT broke the story, Nancy Pelosi instantly released a letter she wrote to Bush in '01 (or was it early '02?) expressing her "concerns" - a letter she wrote AFTER she gave it a thumbs up. And BEFORE she signed off on it numerous times more as each review was done. These guys are committing a slow and methodical political suicide.

Posted by: Oyster at January 24, 2006 05:25 AM (YudAC)

14 "These guys are committing a slow and methodical political suicide." You're right Oyster, but I would much prefer the real thing. Of course then we'd have to forego the pleasure of possibly seeing them hang for treason one day.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 24, 2006 09:09 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

273kb generated in CPU 0.0535, elapsed 0.1653 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.1253 seconds, 600 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 3366
Files: 13
Bytes: 43.5M
CPU Time: 1:43
Queries: 383177

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

January 31, 2006

January 30, 2006

January 29, 2006

January 28, 2006

January 27, 2006

January 25, 2006

January 24, 2006

January 23, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds