He Just Won't Give Up...Or Debate It

The Goracle is at it again. He's still maintaining his "Inconvenient Truth" stance of how climate change will kill us all and he's the only one that can save us.

Oh yeah, us "unbelievers" are not only akin to Holocaust deniers, but we're now "flat-earthers" as well.

Same Ol', Same Ol'

I thought that the media's diatribe and "can't do" attitude was only specific to Iraq and their favorite American "loss", Vietnam. Well, apparently, it's just something they can't resist in their Marxist, Communist, totalitarian-backed mindset.
This has been happening for well over 60 years.

I guess TIME has taken over where LIFE left off. Is it any wonder that their subscription rate dropped so far that they went out of business?

I swear, after Iran or Syria or whatever enemy that has the first chance to launch a nuclear warhead at the U.S, every liberal newspaper, magazine, news network and university professor will cry out with one voice,
"Mr. President, why did you fail us? Why didn't you do something to stop this?"

Idiots.

Please Release Me

Just a quick update. It seems that I (along with at least Michael Medved) aren't the only ones that are wondering when the ABC 2006 miniseries, Path to 9/11 is going to be released on DVD (along with reasons why it has taken so long to get'er done)
Of course, as I've mentioned before, ABC being in cahoots with the Clinton campaign wouldn't have anything to do with it, would they?

At any rate, it's good to know Medved and I aren't the only ones interested.

Their lame reason? Citing the costs involved in marketing a DVD, [Disney VP Zenia] Mucha said the potential return wasn’t worth the investment, “given the performance of the miniseries.”

Given the fact that Hollywood has released numerous anti-war films that repeatedly *ahem* bomb at the box-office, that doesn't stop the elites of Tinseltown (along with their Liberal producers & distributors-[Disney chairman Robert] Iger has donated money to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaigns) from releasing them anyways. Obviously, losing money (and that of their shareholders) is a distant second to getting their liberal, anti-Republican, anti-America, anti-Bush views out there.

Their tactics are a tad fascist as well. Think back to 2005 when you probably didn't know this happened.

Dirty tricks

Wake Up Call

Just a reminder that no matter what the mass media says, most people think for themselves despite their unending proclomations about "most Americans say" or "most people think" or the old reliable, uncomfirmable, "many say" ploy.

It seems that Barack Obama's speech on race relations and that of his new "disassociation" of Jeremiah Wright (and of his Grandmother's "fear" of black people that makes her a "typical white person") didn't go over with most Americans (both black & white) as he, the Democrats and the MSM would have you believe, as this poll suggests.

52 per cent of pollsters say because of the speech, they are now less likely to vote for Obama. 52 per cent. That says a lot folks.

How bad does Obama want this to go away? Bad enough to the point that he had to make a "race-relations" speech designed to make this all go away with added bonus of attempting to draw in new, undecided voters. Better luck next time.

New Boss Same as the Old Boss?

So out with Jeremiah Wright, in with the Rev. Otis Moss III.
It seems the good reverend has chosen Easter Sunday of all times and places to continue the wacky conspiracy-driven accusations of the right and the evil Republican Party in particular.
In his first sermon as pastor of the Chicago-based, Trinity United Church of Christ, Moss chose entitle his first rant, "How to Handle a Public Lynching", no doubt in reference to what Moss feels is a public outing and blaming for Barack Obama's recent media uproar concerning the former pastor's anti-Semetic, anti-government, anti-American rants.

Now Moss is apparently attempting to latch his own wacky wagon to the Obama train. On Sunday he called CNN the RNN (Roman News Network) the Washington Post the Jerusalem Post (although there is a paper called the Jerusalem post) and the New York Times the Palestine Times (although how calling the NYT the Palestine Times follows in line with Wright's line of thinking that America is anti-"Palestine" is kind of confusing-but the conotations are the same) and the NPR as "National Publican Radio" which could mean either the NPR is an extention of the Republican Party which is just too funny in and of itself, or Moss was making reference to the Merriam-Webster definition of publican:
13th Century: a) A Jewish tax collector for the ancient Romans
b) A collector of taxes or tribute
Which would, of course, keep in line with Wright's anti-Semetic rants and Barack Obama's (sort of) anti-Israeli stance.

This whole sermon, about the next "vast right-wing conspiracy" is obviously about the public outcry of Jeremiah Wright's, let's just say, dissatisfaction with white America (especially the rich-what does he say about priveleged, rich black Americans like, say, oh I don't know, BARACK OBAMA!?) and the American government as a whole...the white American government, I'm sure.

I predict with the youth and relative inexperience of this new pastor, he'll be in the news more often (until of course the MSM decides he's being treated unfairly and/or they get bored of the story (therefore dictating that America is bored of it as well) with more outlandish accusations and conspiracies.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Jeremiah Wright would be proud.

The Roman News Network?

Telling It Like It Is

Five years hence and there has been a lot of violence, death, destruction, disappointment and failure in Iraq. But hold on there Bush-haters; before you go and use this as yet another "quote from a Bush-forsaken neo-con", realize that there has been lots of unreported (thanks MSM) progress and accomplishments since March 2003.

I'll let the President explain.

Happy Easter

I know us conservatives like to use the phrase "Never Forget" every September 11. We should also say it and should have been saying at it since Pearl Harbor, but on this day, on the 2000+ anniversary of the sacrifice, crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and savior, I think it's even more apropos.
He died for you, y'know.

Chris Wallace May be Right, But...

I've been saying for months now how FOX News is disappointing me a little more each week. Never mind the the whole Anna Nicole Smith debacle, or for some reason them thinking that the latest Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton (who?) sighting is news; or that their right-wing leanings are becoming more and more evident that even the most uneducated, uninformed lefty can pick up on it (even though, as I've mentioned before, how much more bias than CBS, ABC, NBC, Time, Newsweek, etc. can they be?)
But now even one of their own, Chris Wallace is calling them on it, even though I think that Obama not really explaining his loyalty to a bigot clearly enough is still relevant news, FOX can do itself a favor by not buying into too much sensationalism.


Wallace is right, though - in the sense that Obama is such an empty suit and posing hypocrite that he is not worth more time than it takes to point it out.

I guess Obama feels at ease with Wallace (as long as he's defending him, even for the time being) since he felt obligated to have someone post this at his campaign blog:

We appreciate Chris Wallace for doing his job as a tough but fair journalist on a network that has been deeply irresponsible over the last week in its unrelenting and sensationalist coverage of Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama gave the speech he did on Tuesday because he believes that Americans are ready for a thoughtful, mature discussion about race, and are hungry to move past media-generated controversies that distract from the struggles they face in their everyday lives.

If Fox News wants to play clips of the same offensive sound bites every day from now until November, that's their right, but that type of coverage does a disservice to their viewers and to a nation that is facing serious challenges that merit thoughtful and honest reporting.

Obama is clearly a well-spoken Marxist with good diction and no accomplishments and is willing to line up with anyone that will help this story go away. That's not to say FOX is innocent in this, but when is the same vigorous condemnation going to fall the rest of the MSM's way?

Plus, Obama still has to defend this.
He'll be busy for a while.
Well, the Clintons wanted to brand this guy the "black candidate", now he's done it for them.

Just a Little Cure for Your Confusion About Iran's Nuclear Program

Just because Iran "allegedly" stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003, doesn't mean they're not up to no good (of course, everybody knows only the U.S. government is nefarious in their thinking, right?)
There's more than meets the eye when attempting to build a nuclear arsenal, as this column explains, with quotes from Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell.

Even liberal-Democrats find fault with people not taking Bush serious, as this article from the Los Angeles Times, dated Dec. 7, 2007, via Pundita can attest to.

Bush is right, they're still a threat, people.

Dion On His Way Out?

It may finally be happening. Dion has been embarrassing his party, nay country for long enough, it seems that the Liberals themselves want him gone.

Has this ever happened before?

Something Has to be Done About This

Embarrassing:

It appears security is lacking here in the Great White North. When plans of a building meant to house anti-terrorism officials ends up in the garbage for anyone to find and manipulate (luckily a Ottawa citizen quickly returned them) there's some issues to deal with. Like finding six files still unaccounted for.

This is How Hillary Would Deal with Iraq

Here it is, in your face, Hillary Clinton's agenda for Iraq should she be elected president.

From the New York Times:


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
Emphasis mine.


The Times's Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy interviewed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Tuesday. Following are excerpts from that interview:

Transcript of Interview With Senator Clinton (March 15, 2007) :

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more-nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

“So I think it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of the military officers who would have to carry out the strategy.

(like General "suspension of disbelief" Patreaus?)

Mrs. Clinton’s plans carry some political risk. Although she has been extremely critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, some liberal Democrats are deeply suspicious of her intentions on Iraq, given that she voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force there and, unlike some of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, has not apologized for having done so. Senator Clinton’s proposal is also likely to stir up debate among military specialists. Some counterinsurgency experts say the plan is unrealistic because Iraqis are unlikely to provide useful tips about Al Qaeda operatives if American troops curtail their interaction with the Iraqi public and end their efforts to protect Iraqi neighborhoods. But a former Pentagon official argued that such an approach would minimize American casualties and thus make it easier politically to sustain a long-term military presence that might prevent the fighting from spreading throughout the region.

Mrs. Clinton has said she would vote for a proposed Democratic resolution on Iraq now being debated on the floor of the Senate, which sets a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008. Asked if her Iraq plan was consistent with the resolution, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers said it was, noting that the resolution also called for “a limited number” of troops to stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other personnel, train and equip Iraqi forces, and conduct “targeted counter-terrorism operation.”

With many Democratic primary voters favoring a total withdrawal from Iraq. Senator Clinton appears to trying to balance her own short-term political interests with the need to retain some flexibility to deal with the complexities of Middle East. Like other Democratic candidates, she has called for engaging Iran and Syria in discussions and called on President Bush to reverse his troop buildup.

But while Mrs. Clinton has criticized Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcements as an escalation of war, she said in the interview, “We’re doing it and it’s unlikely we can stop it.”

“I’m going to root for it if it has any chance of success,” (Really?) she said of the Bush plan, “but I think it’s more likely that the anti-American violence and sectarian violence just moves from place to place to place, like the old Whac a Mole. Clear some neighborhoods in Baghdad, then face Ramadi. Clear Ramadi, then maybe it’s back in Fallujah.”

Mrs. Clinton made it clear in the interview that she believes the next president is likely to face an Iraq that is still plagued by sectarian fighting and occupied by a sizable number of American troops. The likely problems, she said, include continued political disagreements in Baghdad, diehard Sunni insurgents, Al Qaeda operatives, Turkish anxiety over the Kurds and the effort to “prevent Iran from crossing the border and trying to have too much influence in Iraq.”

“The choices that one would face are neither good nor unlimited,” she said. “From the vantage point of where I sit now, I can tell you, in the absence of a very vigorous diplomatic effort on the political front and on the regional and international front, I think it is unlikely there will be a stable situation that’s inherited.”

On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly vowed to bring the war to a close if the fighting is still going on if she takes office as president. “If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will,” she has said.

In the interview, she suggested that it was likely that the fighting among the Iraqis would continue for some time. In broad terms, her strategy is to abandon the American military effort to stop the sectarian violence in Iraq and to focus instead on trying to prevent the strife from spreading throughout the region by shrinking and rearranging American troop deployments within Iraq.

The idea of repositioning American forces to minimize American casualties, discourage Iranian, Syrian and Turkish intervention and forestall the Kurds’ declaring independence is not a new one. It has been advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon’s comptroller under former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared with the approximately 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional brigades in Mr. Bush’s plan are deployed.

While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American troop presence, she indicated that they might be based north of Baghdad and in the western Anbar Province.

“It would be fewer troops,” she said. “But what we can do is to almost take a line north of — between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.”

Mrs. Clinton described a mission with serious constraints. “We would not be doing patrols,” she added. “We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that’s a smart or achievable mission for American forces.”

One question raised by counterinsurgency experts is whether the more limited military mission Mrs. Clinton is advocating would lead to a further major escalation in the sectarian fighting, because it would shift the entire burden for protecting Iraqis civilians to the nascent Iraqi Security Forces. A National Intelligence Estimate, which was issued in January, said the Iraqi forces would be hard-pressed to take on significantly increased responsibilities in the next 12 to 18 months. “Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq,” the estimated noted, referring to the American-led forces.

Mrs. Clinton said the intelligence estimate was based on a “faulty premise” because it did not take into account the sort of “phased deployment” plan she was advocating. But she acknowledged that under her strategy American troops would remain virtual bystanders if Shiites and Sunnis kill each other in sectarian attacks. “That may be inevitable,” she said. “It certainly may be the only way to concentrate the attention of the parties.”

Asked if Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to stop sectarian attacks there, Mrs. Clinton replied, “Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. (Does that mean that they would, in essence, support-through inaction, mass genecide?)I think they’re at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, what is this getting us? What is this doing for us?”

“No one wants to sit by and see mass killing,” she added. “It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority — you can go down the lines, if, if, if.”

Obama Apparently Agrees with His Pastor

So apparently when Barack Obama was in church sometime within the last few months, he was nodding in agreemment with his pastor, the controversial Jeremiah Wright, about some other anti-American, race-baiting statements.
An article from Newsmax, dated August 9, 2007 says Obama was not only present when these comments were made (seeing that the reporter, Jim Davis was actually sitting right beside Obama and his family at the time) but allegedly agreed with Wright's tirade whole-heartedly.
There's also some quotes from Obama about Wright from the New York Times, indicating that he did indeed know about past comments and, again, has some 'splainin' to do.

Obama's camp and one supporter in particular has the Illinois senator's back and says Newsmax has it completely wrong.

Newsmax's defense?

Remember, Wright is a man who has a personal connection with the militant racist, Louis Farrakhan and has condemned the United States, apparently, for the last 20 years at the minimum. It's about character, plain and simple. Just because someone writes about the indiscretions of a public figure, personal or otherwise, does not mean it is not a personal attack; it's informing the public about the persona of that figure that the public has the right to know about before they pull the lever (so to speak) to put this person in power. Power that can have a profound affect on our lives.

Thomas Sowell wrote in his latest column,
"In reality, character matters enormously, more so than most things that can be seen, measured or documented.
Character is what we have to depend on when we entrust power over ourselves, our children and our society to government officials.
We cannot risk all that for the sake of the fashionable affectation of being more non-judgmental than thou."

This was a follow-up to the scandal of New York governor, Eliot Spitzer and the outing of the fact that he is a power-hungry, unscrupulous , unprincipled scumbag.
But, it can be applied to Obama's situation quite readily. Now, I'm not saying Barack Obama is a scumbag. He seems to be quite the nice, genuine, sophisticated Marxist.
But since we know next to nothing about the man, other than he speaks great, but says absolutely nothing, his choice of people that surround him and his unwillingness to say what those people say or do is wrong-instead of simply saying "I don't agree with some of his statements", says something about his character.

Thomas also says that Hillary Clinton's character would matter too, if she had any.
I couldn't agree more.

Quick Damage Control

Well, well. So Senator Barack Obama decided to nip this whole Jeremiah Wright stuff in the bud, and rightfully so. Is it because it is so damning to have a race-bating, America-hating, "man of God" as your pastor? Or is it because he can't get away with it any longer?
Either way, he still hasn't explained why (oh, he tries in this excerpt from Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN) about the fact that he proudly held this man up as his pastor for the past 20 years and didn't know his views on race, economics, civil rights and America as a whole? C'Mon.

Well, the bottom line is he did "excuse" Wright from the position of Obama's "personal" pastor, like that means anything, since Wright is on his way out due to retirement anyway. So does Obama simply condemning Wright's racist, bigoted, ignorance make it all o.k? Will the media forgive and forget? You bet. Especially forget.
I mean, Obama not priveleged?

Furthermore, like this blog, Miracles Daily says (thanks Conservative Beach Girl) it's not Obama's pastor, or what he says that reallt matters; it's Obama's theology that should give you reason to not only pause, but to run as far as humanly possible from this man. Obama is not a Christian, but a Marxist posing as one.

Check out the denial in body language that Obama "didn't know" about his pastor's views.


Have you ever and I mean ever seen Olberloon act with more decorum and respect for his guest? No? Me neither. I guess it takes a Marxist like Obama to keep Olby in awe of empty suits and non-existent platforms.

Ferraro is Not a Bigot or Afraid of the Truth. Is Obamedia?

Much like Bill Clinton's remarks concerning the commonalities between Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson, Geraldine Ferraro is being labeled a racist by the PCMSM for simply saying the truth.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Not that far removed from Hillary Clinton when she also pointed out a historical fact when she said, more or less that, although Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did most of the legwork and the civil rights movements would have gone nowhere without him, ultimately she was correct when she noted,

"...it took a President" to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

A truth by any other name would be...a lie. Because, God knows only Libs, Dems and the MSM can play the race card, even if it is usually hillbilly backwards.

Believe me, it's not lost on me that I'm actually defending the Clintons and Jimmy Carter's former running mate.

In Case You Didn't Know

Here's a little information on your heroes and defenders of the "religion of peace". Check out all of the trouble and slander that C.A.I.R. (Center for American-Islamic Relations) has heaped upon Anti-C.A.I.R.'s founders and administrators, just for exposing the truth about the terrorist-supporting group. It's nothing new really. Just doing my part to not let you forget or to be enscansced in ignorence.
Note the admissions by liberal-Democrats, that they are now trying to flip-flop on.
Please follow all links to have your eyes opened to this obvious and "Fifth Column" oriented group.

Bush Didn't Lie, But the Media Continues To

I'm tired of arguing this FACTUAL, HISTORICAL point. Just read this and every link herein. Seriously, it's important.

Obama is Standing in it Now

So with all the racist, anti-Semetic, America-hating diatribe seething from Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, you know, Mr. "God-damn America", it's no wonder Obama doesn't want to wear an American flag pin on his lapel. This "man of the cloth" has had the presidential hopeful indoctrinated for the last 20 or so years. This is not going to score points for Obama with any religious or faith-based crowd, be they Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, right or left. Any true Christian is probably not going to turn a blind eye to Rev. Wright's hateful remarks about their country, religious allies, or saviour.

At first, Obama claims he "never heard" Wright say bad things that he is now accused of (contrary to video and quoted evidence) but however, this says different. Regardless of this, he still has the man as an "advisor". Of course it goes without saying, the MSM along with the cable networks such as (as unbelievable as it sounds, especially lately) the Clinton News Network will make this much ado about nothing, as they usually do when they don't (or won't) find anything condemning a liberal to be considered"newsworthy".
Much like his affiliation with Louis Farrakhan, Obama simply refuses to disassociate himself with these men of vitrolic statements and hate-filled, ignorant, history-twisting diatribes.

For his part, Obama released this statement as a "defense" of sorts. Via the Huffington Post, of course.
Once again, the media and their war-cry of racism is tossed out whenever someone of color is exposed or at the very least, to be found in disagreement with.

I Just Have to Say...Good For Us

So Canadian parliament has extended Canadian troops mission in Afghanistan til at least 2011. And thanks to HotAir.com for finally seeing that Canada is a big and important American ally, and has been for decades.

Oh, and we are truly sorry for Celine Dion.

Just Another Global Cooling Update

Via Newsbuster.org
Close the door will, ya? There's a mighty draft coming in.

And on that note.

Was Iraq Better Off Under Saddam?

Read this article by Chaplain Mitch Lewis who spent some time in the Hussein's rape rooms and has a unique perspective of then and now.
Once again (and always) thanks to Amy Proctor and her blog Bottom Line Up Front

And Saddam did know about and support al Queda in Iraq way before the invasion of 2003.

The libs keep covering it up and we keep exposing it.
How embarrassing.

First Olympic Terror Plot Foiled

The Chinese authorities have uncovered a plot of a terrorist variety that was planned for this summer's Olympics in Beijing. The first of many, I'm sure.

Just a Little Reminder

With a bomb going off in New York (along with Isreal-for the first time in four years) assassins on the left are in denial/attack mode claiming President Bush and Homeland Security (along with the Terrorist Surveillence Program) can't really protect America like their defenders say they can.
Well naysayers, here's a list of terrorists plots that have been foiled since Sept. 11, 2001.
I just thought I'd stop you in your tracks before you started celebrating your own nations' preconceived, yet disapointing lack of downfall.

Chavez Turns Back

So Little Ugo is at it again. Not more than 24 hours after both he and Colombian leader, Alvaro Uribe seemed to have settled their "differences" and pulled both their forces away from their respective mutual borders, apparently from urging by French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, Hugo Chavez is now wanting more trade with the man he considers George W. Bush's puppet in South America. Funny coming from a man who has been outed as indeed a South American terrorist supporter

Venezuela deployed tanks and air and sea forces on the Columbian border last Wednesday that raised fears in both nations concerning about regional stability. This all stemmed from Chavez not wanting to appear weak to not only his enemies in Colombia, but also to his allies of Iran, Cuba and Ecuador, of which Colombian forces were determined to kill rebels of with their own form of guerrilla warfare, should Chavez's army step over Ecuador's border.

Apparently, being found out to be a terrorist as a part of FARC doesn't sit too well with Chavez. especially now that everyone knows his bark is worse than his bite.

Seriously, this guy needs to be spanked before he creates some irreversible problems.

For the Love of God, Please Let This Be the Last Time

I don't agree with Blinky too often, if ever, but she makes a good point here. In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi was saying her usual irrelevent, inane liberal talking points and usual embellishments if not all out lies. However she did raise an issue me and my friends have been saying for a couple of yeares now. Here's the interview, with the point in question reprinted, in bold italics; my emphasis.

CHARLIE ROSE: Some argue that the sacrifice had been primarily by the men and women in the armed services and their families. And part of the reason that we ought not go to war, in which the American people are not asked to sacrifice behind the military.

NANCY PELOSI : Well, the one percent of our population is feeling this in a very personal way. And that`s just not fair. The shared sacrifice -- what did we do? We went to war, and the president gave a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America instead of saying we’re going to have a shared sacrifice here so everyone knows what the cost of this war is.

Like I said, please let this benthe last time I have to do this!

Still Waiting

I'm still waiting for the left-wing media to go after Bill Maher for calling Sarah Palin a "c*nt" and a "twat," among other disgusting names on a regular basis.

I'm still waiting for Mike Malloy to catch heat for the Christians he has said that had been "smashed into a grease spot" from tornadoes in the "Bible belt."

I'm still waiting for the left-wing media to admonish Sarah Bernhardt for suggesting Sarah Palin should be "gang-raped by my big black brothers."

I'm still waiting for the left-wing media to call Keith Olbermann for his comment that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents and called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.”

Believe it or not I'm still waiting for the left-wing media to admonish Chris Matthews for calling Hillary Clinton in a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched” “Madame Defarge “witchy,” “anti-male” and “uppity.”

I'm still waiting for the left-wing media to force Matt Taibbi to apologize to Malkin for saying, "When I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth."

I'm still waiting for the left-wing media to go after Ed Schultz for saying on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a "bimbo alert" and for calling Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut."

No? Nothing? Yeah, thanks for honesty dirtbags.

You MUST Know About This

Several months ago, I posted about the "Fauxtography" that the AP and their Middle East journalistic friends-in-fraud continue to consciously mislead the public with their anti-Semitic, anti-western stories, based on false interviews and photo-shopped pictures.

Along with the posts and links I give you, warning you of such trickery and deception, I now show you the website that will guide you through the B.S. that is "journalism" the AP way. You know, all the lies that is the "history" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the "bad", Jew-supporting Christians in Lebanon, et al.

Use a Leftist Tactic to Expose a Lefty Fraud? Why Not?

It appears now that Al Gore and the rest of his climate alarmists ilk are being exposed more and more for their fascist, fear-mongering hysteria, a charge they refuse to defend; it appears some (like The Weather Channel founder, John Coleman, want to take legal action, a la C.A.I.R and the A.C.L.U. against the do-what-I-say, not-as-I-do hypocrites.

I must admit, I'm loving this.

Just Some People We Ought Intern

Here's a list I found from The Best of Notable Quotables, of people we have to do a better job of keeping an eye on. Seriously, most of these people are a real threat, if not to our (inter)national security, then at least to the thought processes of our historically ignorant and young, impressionables that these people have by the coat-tails, thanks to their everyday presence on the idiot-box.

More About Bush's "Lies" About WMDs

As the Right Brothers song goes, Bush was right.

Of course the Loony left and the rest of the "Bush lied" crowd will undoubtedly be chanting that mantra till the end of days, I'm sure. No matter how much documented truth is layed before their eyes. They'd rather be a part of the "in" crowd; hating their president and their country than being on the right side of history for once. From FactCheck.org, Bush had every right to believe what was being fed to him.

They Might Get Some Respect If They Just Corrected the Record

While I was listening to Barack Obama's "rebuttal" to John McCain when the Illinois senator said, "I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Afterwards, when all the news channels were replaying the soundbites for their top-of-the-hour reports, I noticed not one of them mentioned the inaccuracies of Obama's statement.

As noted in an earlier post, and as history has shown, Senator Obama (and the rest of the Looney left) is re-writing history for his own political gain.
Besides the obvious liberal bias in the news and their fawning over the empty suit, why hasn't the media corrected this misnomer?

The funny things is, the MSM were jumping on Bush about not doing enough to disable al Qaeda in Iraq in 2002 and earlier. Wait a minute. Wasn't that before the invasion?

The FACT that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, with the knowledge of Saddam Hussein, heading up al Qaeda training camps in or near Ramadi and Baghdad, rewarding suicide bombers and their families just seems to be either to true to use (in which case their whole "Bush created terrorism in Iraq" argument is null and void) or they are simply ignoring it (in which case they are pond scum) either way, the truth is there for all to see...no, wait, it isn't until these phonies start doing their job and start reporting the facts, good, bad, or indifferent.

By the way, violence is waaaaay down in Iraq, more and more citizens are moving back, political progress is being made (finally) but there is no stories telling you these things to be scene on any of the network news casts or liberal cable shows. I wonder why. Any takers?

Hoping, Pleading for a Scandal

Here we go again.


It appears the Liberal Party is not satisfied with besmirching former PM, Brian Mulroney and that whole Karl Heinz Schreiber debacle that was clearly much ado about nothing. Clearly the Libs can't beat the Conservatives at the poles for the time being, so I guess they'll try and beat them in the court of public opinion. Now they're going after the man himself, current Prime Minister, the Right Honorable Stephen Harper.

Harper, the Liberals hope, is engaged in a "scandal" of sorts, wherein he allegedly offered a dying independent MP a $1 million life insurance policy to help with the toppling of the old guard that was the Paul Martin government.

The story goes as such:

Before the Canadian general election of 2005, independent MP Chuck Cadman was dying of cancer. He has since passed. The Liberals now charge that the Prime Minister gave the green light, if not made by himself, for members of the Conservative Party to make Cadman the offer so his vote would help to put Martin and his cabinet out of office. The Liberals even want the RCMP to investigate. As if with the "Adscam" going on over the "purchases" of votes in Quebec, the CPC needed further ammunition to turn the tide their way.

Now it seems there is video evidence of Harper doing the deed. But apparently, the "evidence" is circumstantial at best. At first, even Cadman's widow backed up the story, but now it seems she has had a change of either heart or facts.

Nipping this one in the bud and perhaps beating Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party to the punch, Harper is threating to sue Dion, invariably bringing this affair and all its details to the foreground for all to see. Doesn't sound like a man with something to hide.

With this and Schrieber and all the other non-stories the MSM and the Libs love to facilitate, why is ti, the consrvartives are the ones with the faux history of corruption and lies?