Sunday, December 28, 2008

The Continuing Story of Get Fuzzy

Yes. I do find this comic utterly hilarious, thank you.
And so should you. That is why I continue my attempt at indoctrinating you all with Bucky and company.

Once again, you'll have to scroll way down as I'm trying not to block other information.

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

Get Fuzzy

I Would Be Amiss...

If I didn't congratulate the President-Elect on a job well done sending Christmas salutations to the troops.

From USA Today

WaPo Culpable of Ayers Cover-Up

Or so says Accuracy in Media.
The Washington Post also made a point of rejecting this article by former FBI informant, Larry D. Grathwohl. Interesting how they protect all associations of Obama, huh?

Well Blow My Lips Off

I think this whole Global Warming...oops, there I go again, I mean "Climate Change" fiasco may be exposed to the majority of the masses sooner than the Goracle would like. More and more news agencies (mostly foreign ones) are coming around and are beginning to ask relevant and revealing questions about the poor penguins and polar bears (who are the world's best swimmers FYI)
Today's "Eyes Wide Open" award goes to the British Telegraph.

Give Me a Break

Does this crap ever end? I know there's been a multitude of proof that everyone from Keith Olberloon, Chris Matthews, the cast of The View and Today and every liberal "news" program in between is in the deepest of tanks for Obama, but does this beat all or what? Not that it hasn't been totally expected, mind you, but I mean, really.
How can they possibly deny anything after this? But, of course, we all know they will, and continue on their merry Obama-loving way.

Not to mention (but of course I'm going to) the very next story.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times...Un-freaking-believable.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Merry Christmas!

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them,

Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

LUKE 2:8-14

And don't forget to check out the preverbial showing of It's a Wonderful Life, with the absolutely gorgeous, Donna Reed:

My favorite loser, Mr. Bean:

And of course, the origin of my starting point. A Charlie Brown Christmas:

This is Just Sickening

I heard about this a couple of days ago, but I couldn't muster the words to describe how digusted I am at this.
So, I'll just let the title of this post (and the HotAir column on it) do my talkking on it, as they seem to be as flabbergasted as I am.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Who Gives to Charity?

It appears the rich give more than the poor (and not just because of income levels, either) and Americans are the most charitable people in the world (factoring in inflation and the dollar differential between the two countries, it seems Canada is a very close second)

Monday, December 22, 2008

Democrat Congress Gets Yet Another Pass from NYT

The "paper of record" must surely be getting their information from Bizzaroland these days. How else would you explain their blatant disregard for the facts and omission of history concerning Democrat senators and their part in the current economic crisis, other than they're simply the New York Times?
Unbelievable, yet not surprising.
If you care to notice the left hand side of the web page, the Times has a link to other articles in "The Reckoning" series, presumably designed to tell us who is ultimately responsible for the economic crisis. The problem is they never once mention the names of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd or even Barack Obama. All, as well as the Bush administration, had a hand in the economic undoing. Anybody that has half a brain and more than two years worth of memory would know this. Which is why I can't understand why readers of the NYT (if there are in fact that many left) aren't insulted by all this historic B.S. and the fact that the Times counts on them to be (or at least figures them to be) ignorant and/or indifferent.

NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard has some reminders of historic tidbits that the Times so conveniently "forgot" to inform their readers of.

The White House decided (for the umpteenth time) to correct the Times biased and inaccurate reporting.

I have to second Sheppard's column-ending question:
Shouldn't the Times have included [all] this information in its 5000-word article Sunday if the goal was to inform readers of the truth concerning this issue?

Don't hold your breath waiting for a correction.

This is Funny

The Goracle explains why and how he and his utterly confused and hysterical minions can all of a sudden change their mantra from "global warming" to "climate change" without a whimper from anyone (well, anyone who believes in this crap to begin with) especially the culpable MSM.

The all-knowing seer says on his blog, *chuckle* An Inconvenient Blog:

I was in Poznan, Poland last week for serious climate change negotiations and my speech was well-received by the scientific community, which agreed with my assessment of our dire situation.

As global warming reaches epic proportions, I had expected record temperatures in Poland. Unfortunately, I had expected record heat and instead was met with some of the coldest temperatures I’ve felt since Hillary Clinton turned off the heat in the White House one winter when she was mad at Bill.

When I loaded my luggage onto my carbon-neutral NetJets flight, it was filled with shorts and Live Earth t-shirts that simply weren’t going to cut it in the cold; I had to buy a new wardrobe in Poznan.

My experience is not atypical. Many others can’t help but notice: it’s awfully cold outside. Not only has winter arrived early in many places, it’s a cold winter. There was even snow in Tipper’s favorite city, Las Vegas.

Despite the fact that we had record-breaking October heat, apparently 2008 looks like it might be the coldest year in the past decade.

Of course, global warming denialists are loving this. They point out that not only is 2008 a cold year, but that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming in the past decade if you consider that the record hot year of 1998 was caused by El Niño, a climate change refuge from Latin America.

They further observe that the 21 different climate models the UN’s IPCC included in its latest assessment report did not show any possibility of a quarter century without statistically significant warming yet given the cooling over the past decade, they claim that even if the models start working again, a trend of statistically significant warming cannot be reestablished until 2020 at the earliest.

Finally, there are those who believe that the unexpected lull in activity at the largest furnace in the solar system - the Sun - is responsible for this cooling trend and that this demonstrates solar activity, not carbon emissions, is the driving force behind global warming and cooling.

My Nobel Prize was not in mathematics or astrophysics so I cannot address the validity of the science behind these claims.

But what I can tell you is that the denialists have it all wrong: we’re not talking about global warming anymore, we’re talking about climate change. As temperatures rise, the climate will change very rapidly and very unpredictably in all directions.

There are lots of ways that rising temperatures can produce colder temperatures.

In his book The Coming Global Superstorm, best-selling author and atmospheric scientist Whitley Strieber describes a scenario in which global warming can actually cause an Ice Age.

That’s why you’ll notice that lately, I’m referring more to “climate change” than “global warming.” Yes the planet is heating but we may not feel that heat here at ground level.

Therefore, I encourage you to make sure that when you’re educating your fellow citizens about the existential threat to humanity that we all face, you refer to “climate change,” not “global warming.”

I’d also encourage those of you who are older (like me) to think back to the pre-climate change days when weather was far more predictable. You’ll probably remember that winter was a lot colder then than it is today. In that sense, all of the alleged 2008 climate records that have been broken due to cold are the result of collective amnesia produced by climate change. You simply can’t remember a normal winter so each year, you expect winter to be more and more mild. When it isn’t, your body thinks it’s colder than it really is.

Based on the work of a colleague of mine which will be published next year, the average person is becoming more sensitive to cooler temperatures because our DNA is rapidly adjusting to the rising temperatures. By 2020, he predicts that temperatures of 75°F will elicit a response by the average human’s body that is comparable to the response temperatures of 50°F would have elicited in 2005.

The Cooling Anomaly of 2008 as my scientists are calling it is therefore not so much a real cooling but the climate taking a breather before the IPCC climate models resume. I am told that a new model being published in the Journal of Climate Change Science in February 2009 will show that the cooling of 2008 was completely expected.

Stay tuned for information on that.

Oh, we'll be sure to do that Al. We'll be sure to do just that.

Man, this kook has an answer for everything, don't he?

Well This is Weird

Jon Sinton, the founder of liberal-radio talk station, Air America actually agrees with Rush Limbaugh on the "Fairness Doctrine."
What's next? Dogs and cats living together?

Better Get Goin' While the Gettin's Good

With this little morsel of information, and yes, I do believe it, Israel and/or the U.S. better make a decision fast pertaining to Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Obama Disciples Won't Like This...

Not one little bit.
If this turns out to be true, the President-Elect will find that a lot of his former supporters all of a sudden have come down with a case of a mutated disease, known as ODS, or , you guessed it, Obama Derangement Syndrome.

I would think the more moderate or "centrist" Obama people will be upset, maybe even downright angry that their "messiah" is actually human after all and can succumb to political pressure dealing with the post 9/11 world we now live in.
This is really not surprising considering reports out of the White House that when he and Vice-President Elect Biden saw intelligence reports on what they would soon be knee-deep in, they "turned white" with shock at all that they didn't know.

You'll see, all that "Hope and Change" rhetoric they ran with to get elected was a good plan to win the White House, but now that their there, how long will it take for his supporters, or God forbid his enablers in the MSM, to "Bushify" him?
It already appears to be happening over this whole Blagojevich thing. I guess they figure Obama owes them. They may be right. But as soon as he refuses to answer questions (and not the usual softballs for once) they start to question if they indeed anointed the right guy (or person?)

Iranians are already hatin' on Obama. Ooh, he's in for a few surprises, as is his flock.

May I point it out the most relevant part with my emphasis?

"Thousands of Iranians held a protest rally in Tehran Friday against the blockade of the Gaza Strip, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel had 'reached the end of the road.'

The protested chanted 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' as they demonstrated on streets leading to the Tehran University compound where the weekly Friday prayer service is held.

Also attending the rally, Ahmadinejad told reporters that the Israelis "have reached the end of the road and their abnormal behavior is due to anger and even their supporters are shaky in backing them.

'By committing these atrocities they want to pressure the Palestinians to influence their elections.'

Ahmad Khatami, conducting the Friday prayers, slammed the "United Nations, Organization of Islamic Conference, Egypt, the Europeans and United States" for their inaction on Gaza.

'Why are the UN and OIC keeping silent? Where are the European nations who are the defenders of human rights?' Khatami said in his sermon, broadcast live on state-run radio and quoted by AFP.

'We can see the hands of (US George W.) Bush and (president-elect Barack) Obama in these crimes,' he said.

Khatami criticized Egypt's leadership for closing down the Rafah crossing with the Gaza Strip, saying that "by doing this they are cooperating with them (Israel).

'I am telling the Gazans and Palestinians in the occupied territories that the only way for salvation is by resisting the way Hizbullah did,' continued Khatami."

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Yeah, What About That?

Time after time, whenever a member of the GOP is caught in a scandal, or even if there's just a whiff of a possible one, the MSM, placating brainlessly to their high exalted Democrat masters in Congress, always seem to conveniently forget that there are a hell of a lot of Democrat scandals as well.
Via NewsBusters...

And the sad part is, this will never, ever end until these ignoramuses are forced to account for their actions.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Chavez is Just Begging For It

If he's looking for an altercation, this is the way to get it. Hugo Chavez, and to a lesser extent, Vladamir Putin seem to only be doing this because they know soon Bush is out and Obama is in. Gee, when pressed, what do you think the odds are of Obama not doing very much about these two.
Oh, don't worry, he'll "talk" to them and make them like America. Yay for unconditional "negotiations."

Isn't This Typical

With the economy in shambles, the Democrat-led Congress has decided to spit in the face of the American people and give themselves a raise amid the rest of their government subsidies, amenities and benefits.
In a related story, guess who's declining a payraise?

This, in the midst of President Bush's announcement of the governments continued new policy of socialistic hand-outs. This time to the auto industry.

What is going on with this crap? I'd expect this from a Marxist Obama, but not from a leader who claims to be a fiscal conservative. Was the president listening just a bit too much when one industry CEO said when speaking on behalf of the Big 3, "If one goes down we all go down."
Oh really? When the government bailed out the airline industry not that long after 9/11, didn't United Airlines still file for bankruptcy and still remain in business. In fact, to this day they're filling their planes to capacity each and every day. These three companies are independent of each other and if one does go down (or if they all do, oh well, since they have been in denial about their gas-guzzling monsters for decades) the other two would simply pick up the slack and get new customers. Either that or the business would go to Volkswagen or Honda. The Presidents reasoning?

And as for the Dems in Congress, I would normally say I can't believe their gall, but c'mon, is anybody really surprised by this? Does this not prove that they cannot be trusted with the economy? Barney Frank is no doubt doing cartwheels right now.

But as for the the president's decision, he does make some valid points in his explanation for his decision, but overall this will just facilitate more "Bush is a socialist like Obama" arguments. Totally absurd of course, but I digress.

This is yet another screw up by President Bush that the left will use in their normally inane arguments against him. This time I can't defend it.
Like I said in a post last year, I'm finding harder and harder to defend the president's decisions on anything other than the War on Terror.

Obama-Man of the Left

Anybody that thinks that after my "Obama is the Man" post, you think I'd be all hugs and kisses about the man? Um, no.

Now this is where I have to proclaim the usual blah-blah-blah disclaimer that Obama is not evil or Hitler or the anti-Christ. It's ALL JUST OBSERVATIONS and for "entertainment" purposes only. So don't send me any emails or leave any comments about how much of a racist or evil bastard I am. Then again, what do I care?

It's interesting to me when hard-core leftists assume and indeed label Republicans in general and certain conservatives in particular with them being Nazis, fascists, or above all else, Hitler.

You've heard it said and seen it in print; Rumsfeld is Hitler from the View's Joy Behar, the conservative Supreme Court justices are fascists and homophobes from mainstream newspaper editorialists, Dick Cheney is Darth Vader from left-wing bloggers and of course, President George W. Bush is a war criminal, a Nazi, a fascist, a racist, a mass murderer and of course, an idiot from everyone in between from the far-left political sphere. And all of them and their supporters, including conservative talk-radio hosts, suffer from Islamophobia.

But interestingly enough, it is the left that has
historically been the champions of fascism, elitism, demagoguery and totalitarianism. Everyone from Pol Pot and Benito Mussolini to Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and yes, Adolf Hitler.

Now, let me be clear on this:
Again, I do not think that Barack Obama is an evil, Jew-hating, anti-Semite. I do not believe he would stand idly by and allow a second Holocaust to come to pass. In short, I do not believe Obama equals Hitler.

However, if you look at the propaganda, slogans, symbolism and even some of his words, when not scripted (or sometimes even when scripted) or on teleprompter are indeed very eerily similar to that of the German dictator. Besides, if Time magazine can compare Obama to Jesus, why can't I compare him indirectly to Hitler?

In his book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, in Chapter 2, entitled, Hitler: Man of the Left, Jonah Goldberg uses passages from Adolf Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf to relate to the reader the wants and influence of the "fuhrer," to the German people. Some of those similarities are very much applicable to Barack Obama's means of getting his message across.

Again, I am not comparing Obama to Hitler, but I am comparing his, shall we say "tactics," language, and rhetoric to Hitler's. It is inescapably similar, like it or not. This is not a message of hate; as much as many of you out there will invariably say it is. It is simply an very interesting and scary comparison. It's just a different time, so a different way of delivery is needed. I do not believe Obama would consciously act and sound like Hitler, he's too smart for that. Smart enough in fact to know how to use the language and symbolism to get his message across.

Adolf Hitler hated communism and communists, as well as religion and Christianity-Obama does not. However, with Obama clearly being a socialist, the only difference being that in a socialistic democracy, you can elect your socialist leaders, with communism you cannot-unless you want a choice of nothing but communist idealists.
But, Hitler was more apt to convey the messages and influence of socialism and obviously, fascism.
However the words "fascist" and "fascism" barely appear in Mein Kampf. In over 700-plus pages, only two paragraphs mention either word. But a sense can be felt of what Hitler thought of Benito Mussolini's Italian experiment with fascism and what it had to teach Germany.

"The appearance of a new and great idea was the secret of success in the French Revolution. The Russian Revolution owes it's triumph to an idea. It was only the idea that enabled Fascism triumphantly to subject a whole nation to a process of complete renovation."

Now regardless if you believe that both the French and Russian revolutions were "successful," it does indeed show that believers and followers of that ilk survive today in the words and platforms of people like Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.
Now you may not want to believe or want to compare the ideology of those two men (and others in American politics) to Mussolini and Hitler (with exception to the evil deeds of Hitler like the Holocaust, as Mussolini did actually despise) but again, history and documentation say otherwise

Some will argue that Obama's plans for America are more in line with Mussolini than Hitler and that argument can be made, but again look at the comparisons:

"What Hitler got form Italian Fascism and from the French and Russian revolutions," writes Goldberg, "was the importance of having an idea that would arouse the masses. The particular content of the idea was decidedly secondary."

Hitler's ultimate utility of ideas was not their intrinsic truth but the extent to which they make a desired action possible-in Hitler's case the destruction of his enemies, the attainment of glory and the triumph of your race.
Of the three, Obama is surely seeking the second-glory. The first I would not put on Obama, although it may certainly be for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (along with Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, et al) with their goal of implementing the "fairness doctrine" to suppress the free speech of conservative radio, along with Howard Dean's wish for a one-party system. The second of Hitler's desired actions was not Obama's plan, but the "triumph of 'his' race" surely was attained when he became the first black President-Elect.
And much like Hitler, as his history shows, Obama's "opportunism, pragmatism and megalomania often overpowers any desire on his part to formulate a fixed ideological approach.

For socialists there was and is "no aim they would not take up or drop at a moments notice. Their only criterion being the strengthening of the movement."
It is Obama's lack of record, experience and alliances with radical people and ideas that allows him to to break promises , flip-flop and say or do anything to achieve and hold power.
"It is a commitment entirely to action," Goldberg advises us.
Like Hitler, Obama's "genius" lay in the realization that "people wanted to rally to ideas and symbols," if not necessarily the person delivering them.

Obama's success (other than his protection by the media via their collective omission of his past record-or lack thereof) is his techniques and comparisons of himself to past political icons (Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan) his marketing, advertising and most of all "oratory to exquisitely staged rallies," in lieu of a substantial record to run on. The American people didn't necessarily vote for him because of who he is, it was because of who they thought he could be.

"Time and time again, in Mein Kampf, Hitler made it clear that he believed his greatest gift to the party wasn't his ideas, but his ability to speak," said Goldberg.
Then and today the ability to sway the masses through oratory is the key to power.
"Without the loudspeaker," Hitler once observed, "we would have never conquered Germany.
Note the use of the word conquered. Could it be likened, in that sense at least to Obama's use of the word change?

"Hitler had many ideologies. Indeed, he was an ideology peddler. Few 'great men' were adept at adopting, triangulating and blending different ideological poses for different audiences."

The Nazis staged a reactionary coup by exploiting patriotic sentiment and mobilizing the "conservative"-often translated as racist and religious-elements in German society. Once in power, the Nazis established "state capitalism."

"As we all know, the most effective lies are the ones sprinkled with the most actual truths. For decades the left has cherry-picked the facts to form a caricature of what the Third Reich was about. Caricatures do portray a real likeness, but they exaggerate features for a desired effect," Goldberg says.
In comparison, this isn't just like what the Democrats have done to the integrity and history of the Republican party, but exactly like it, while at the same time embellishing on their own accomplishments-if not downright lying about non-existent ones. And Barack Obama's legacy, like Jimmy Carter's will be twisted by them and sheltered by the liberal media.

Now, this doesn't describe Obama's personal traits (not yet at least) but, again, it does describe the methods of his party. A party line that Obama has never parted from or stood up against.

Goldberg again explains,
"The Nazis rose to power exploiting [the problems of the status quo and] anti-capitalist rhetoric they indisputably believed...It is impossible to deny the Nazi rank and file who saw themselves as mounting a revolutionary assault on the forces of capitalism."
From today's standpoint, that would be the left's war on "big oil," Wall Street, anything or anyone standing in their way of combating "global warming" and of course the rich-which they conveniently don't see themselves as.

Now this next passage is again in no way comparing the anti-Semitic rantings and beliefs of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf to the beliefs of Barack Obama. But it is interesting to note Obama's observations of caucasians and how they treated a young, college-going Obama as he noted in his own book, The Audacity of Hope:

Hitler wrote:
"I could no longer doubt that there was not a question of Germans who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there was a question of an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Jews, then Vienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I now went, I now saw Jews and the more I saw of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as a different people form the other citizens."

Goldberg notes on this:

"The leading intellectual in Vienna touting 'Teutonmania'-the neo-romantic 'discovery' of German exceptionism very similar to some forms of Afrocentrism today-was George Ritter vonSchonerer, whom Hitler followed closely and whom he later called a 'profound thinker."
Although admittdely, Ritter von Schonererwas a "drunk" and a "loutish anti-Semite and anti-Catholic," two things that Obama most certainly is not. Although Hitler's praise of Ritter von Schonerer and Obama's early praise of Rev. Jeremiah Wright is interesting to say the least.

"In September, 1919 [Hitler] was ordered to to attend a meeting of one of the countless new 'workers parties,' which at the time was was generally code for some flavor of socialism or communism."
The comparison of this to Obama's voluntary appearance of Chicago's Marxist New Party in 1995 cannot be ignored.

"Young Hitler showed up at a meeting of the German Workers Party ready to dismiss it as just another left-wing fringe group. But one of the speakers was Gottfried Feder, who had impressed Hitler when he had heard him speak previously. The title of Feder's talk that night: 'How and by What Means is Capitalism to be Eliminated?'
Feder was a populist ideologue who had tried to ingratiate himself with the socialist revolutionaries who briefly turned Munich into a Soviet-style commune in 1919. Like all populists, Feder was obsessed with distinction between 'exploitative' and 'productive' finance.
Hitler instantly recognized the potential of Feder's ideas which would appeal to the 'little guy' in both cities and small towns. Hitler understood that, just as in America the increasing power of big banks, corporations and department stores fostered a sense of powerlessness among blue-collar workers, small farmers and small business owners."

Tell me you don't see vast similarities there.

In 1920, the Nazi Party issued it's "unalterable" and "eternal" party platform, co-written by Hitler and Anton Drexler that was dedicated to the overwhelming principle that "the common good must come before self-interest."
The most striking thing about the platform was its "concerted appeal to socialistic and populist economics," including providing a "livelihood for citizens, abolition of income from interest, the total confiscation of war profits with labor, the nationalization of trusts, shared profits with labor, extended old-age pensions and the "communilization of department stores."

"Nazism's one-nation politics appealed to people fron all walks of life. Professors, students and civil servants were all disproportionately supportive of the Nazi cause.
Patrick Leigh Fermor, a young Briton traveling Germany shortly after Hitler came to power, met some men in a Rhineland workers' pub. One of his new drinking buddies offered to let Fermor crash at his house for the night. When Fermor climbed the ladder to the attic to sleep in a guest bed, he found a 'shrine to Hitlermania.'

The walls were covered with flags photographs, posters, slogans and emblems. His SA uniforms hung, neatly ironed on a hanger.
'You should have seen it last year [my host] said. You would have laughed! Then it was all red flags, stars, hammers, sickles, pictures of Lenin and Stalin and Worker of the World Unite! Then, suddenly when Hitler came to power , I understood it was all nonsense and lies. I realized Adolf was the man for me.' All of a sudden , he snapped his fingers in the air, 'And here I am!'
'Had a lot of people done the same then?'
'Millions! I tell you, I was astonished how easily they all changed sides!"

The only reason for the last couple of paragraphs was not about Obama per se, but the way Democrat Party supporters, and especially the media, had an unabashed love for the Clinton's only to turn on a dime and portray such unapologetic devotion for Barack Obama.

There are many more similarities of the Democrat tactics and symbols to that of the Nazi Party and Hitler himself in this chapter alone of Goldberg's book. Not to mention the eery comparisons of Hitler's rise to that of Obama's meteoric one. That's all I'll leave you with, since I've no doubt already been labeled a disgusting hater and a fool. But if you consider yourself open-minded and tolerant to other views (which Liberals always want others to see them as) you'll see these comparisons as, if obviously not the gospel, then at least as mildly interesting.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Iraq Arrests Dozens Over "Coup Plot"

Approximately 30 Iraqi policemen have been arrested for an attempted coup of Nuri al-Maliki's government. This is in addition to 50 interior ministry staff including senior officials that have also been arrested. Some in Iraq apparently desire to return to the days of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and, by association I guess, torture rooms, corruption and mass murder.
Allegedly this was the work of Al-Awda (The Return) a "clandestine group" that has wished the return of the old guard since 2003. The group was formed not long after the execution of Saddam Hussein.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why a now free people would want to go back living under the rule of a tyrant, or that of which the way said tyrant ruled.

Watch, if there aren't already, there will be stupid headlines like, "Shoe Coup," or something to that affect.

Shoe Thrower Apologizes...Maybe But Even Still, Not to Bush

So the infamous "shoe thrower," Muntader al-Zaidi has allegedly written a letter to Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki apologizing for his actions in throwing his shoes at President Bush.
The letter claims that al-Zaidi admitted his actions were "an ugly act" that "cannot be excused."

However, al-Zaidi's brother, Udai, said that the letter is a fabrication.
"This information is absolutely not true. This is a lie. Muntader is my brother and I know him very well. He does not apologize," he said.

Muntader also wished for a pardon, as do his employers in Cairo. I have to agree. Even the president doesn't think al-Zaidi should be treated to harshly.

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with the Egyptians.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Obama Still Balking with the Press Over Blagojevich

Look, I completely understand that if something is under investigation, you can't speak on it. But when reporters ask about his opinion on a matter that's removed from said investigation, why the hesitancy?

"Don't waste your question?" "Let me cut you off?" How can answering questions about a man you knew and endorsed for governor be "inappropriate?" Who doesn't know he's full of it? Axelrod admitted it ("Oops my boss said I was wrong, sorry) and Rahm Emanuel did in fact talk to Blagojevich about Obama's vacant senate seat multiple times.
So Obama's "I...we have had no contact with the governor's office is...3..2..1..A LIE!

On a related story Joe Scarborough finally chastised members of the MSM for only doing their jobs when they felt like it:

Good for Scarborough, even if it was a year or more too late:

Dig That Reaction Time

Ok, forget for now that all the lefties are going off saying how this one man's actions represent the Iraqi people's attitude toward President Bush as a whole (once again, not true)
"Oh, throwing your shoe at someone and calling them a 'dog' in the Middle east is the worst insult to someone, because it means that your lower than the sole of that show, as in you're as low as dirt."

And? With all the insults and vitriol this president has had to put up with from his own press, pundits and bloggers, do you really think this bothers him? I think that he laughed it off bothers these same BDS sufferers even more.

After the professional Iraqi journalists rightfully apologized to the president he said,

"Thanks for apologizing on behalf of the Iraqi people. It doesn't bother me. If you want the facts, it was a size 10 shoe that he threw".

Playing down the incident, the president later added: "I don't know what the guy's cause is... I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."

All the left-wing blogs (not to mention the giddy Liberal news anchors-I mean did you see the actual smirk on the face of NBC's Brian Williams?) are saying this represents not only the dislike of Bush in Iraq, but in fact the whole Middle East.
And of course the New York Times made it "clear" that the majority of Iraqis feel the same way with this story that has numerous quotes from citizens. It goes without saying that they printed more people that agree with this guy than don't.
"We have a handful of people chastising this guy? O.k, that's enough. What, we have an opportunity to prove our bogus point that they don't want Americans there, even though we tried this tired argument multiple times before? Run with it."

Once again, the MSM's selective memory is a bit short. Do they not remember when the statue of Saddam Hussein came down, all those Iraqis cheering and hitting it with their shoes? Also I might add those same people hugged the American soldiers and brought them flowers (met as liberators)
Did they represent he attitude or opinion of all Iraqis? No. Just like this journalist (who is as objective it seems as his American counterparts) does not represent the people as a whole this time either, contrary to what the MSM would like to have you believe.
And as for the other Mid East countries? Did you really expect any president to be welcomed into the bosom of any Middle East country, especially nice "moderate" countries lie Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran?

Did you notice that he was the only reporter that acted in such a way? Were there other Iraqi journalists throwing footwear? To the contrary, the other Iraqi and Middle Eastern press in the room had to actually apologize for their contemporaries actions, as they felt it was unprofessional and unbecoming as an Iraqi citizen.

But forget all that for now. Check out the reaction time of the president. Was he a-jookin' and a- jivin' or what? And he looked so calm and unnerved about it, too. Nothing can take this guy down. Not a shoe, not a grenade, not even the nefarious Democrat Congress.

But this is, as the president pointed out, democracy in action. This is freedom of expression and freedom of speech in action. Think about it, do you really think for one second that he would have even dared to think about doing this to Saddam Hussein or another Mid-Eastern dignitary?
Or even to Maliki himself? I think if Bush wasn't there and it was a normal press conference with their own people, this guy would have probably received more than a black eye, which I do think was uncalled for. "He has been taken to Ibn Sina hospital because he has a broken arm and ribs and is also suffering injuries to his eye and leg," Durgham al-Zaidi said his brother Muntazer.

But the simple fact he even contemplated this action shows, once again, Bush was right and democracy has spread.
Yeah, he was arrested. But it was not for suppression of his freedom of speech, it was for assault, plain and simple. I think he should be released, but not before he has paid "a debt to society," such as a hefty fine, maybe a little commuted jail time, but not much more than that.
By the way, although the guy is Iraqi and works for an Iraqi newspaper, it's interesting to note that it's owned by an Egyptian company. Hmm.

As a commentator noted on Hot Air, "between this and the fact that the guy’s in media, he’s now qualified for his own show on MSNBC."

Before I forget, where was the Secret Service on this one? Where was the Iraqi security? I mean this guy was able to get off not just one projectile, but two! What if this had been a gun? Oh, I can almost hear you lefties cheering. Sick.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

This is Pretty Cool

"Her" name is Akio (love child) and how many lonely, pathetic men are saving up for one of these right now?

But how far off is a scenario like I, Robot or, God forbid, The Terminator? I know, I'm reaching, but that's only because we haven't had the benefit of the hindsight of history yet.
The best situation would be a scenario like Soylent Green. You know, a girl that comes with every apartment? Vroom, vroom.

And in other science news, I always wondered when we would be able to record our dreams and watch them later. It may be a reality sooner than we think.

They're Still Trying

So the traitors up here in Canada are still considering forming a coalition to try and undemocratically usurp Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I guess they thought that with Michael Ignatieff as the new Liberal leader, they might seem a little more competent and threatening to Harper's government.
Unfortunately for the three stooges (until Iggy proves otherwise, he's a part of a club; although he is tremendously more competent than Dion ever hoped to be-which does worry me because he could actually beat Harper. Why the Libs voted Dion ahead of him into the party leadership, I'll never know) Harper still has the hammer and the support of the Canadian people.

In a week that witnessed the hasty departure of Stephane Dion as Leader of the Liberal Party and the selection of Michael Ignatieff as his replacement, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and Global National Television reveals that Prime Minister Harper still holds a significant vote-garnering hammer over his political opponents because of the support he would receive if the opposition forced an election, regardless of what has transpired since the Governor General prorogued parliament until late January.

If an election were held tomorrow, the Conservatives would receive the support of 45% of decided voters (down 1 point), while the Liberals would receive 26% of the vote (up 3 points). The NDP would garner 12% support (down 1 point), and the Green Party would receive 7% support (down 1 point). Within Quebec, the Bloc has the support of 39% of Quebecers (up 2 points), which amounts to 10% nationally.

It's actually quite surprising how sites like NewsBusters and Hot Air remain interested in this soap opera, seeing that it is Canadian politics.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Entitled to Their Entitlements

This is what the Canadian opposition sounds like when their public financing is threatened to be extinguished:

Wah. And this is supposedly why they say this is one reason why Parliament has "lost confidence" in the Conserative Party?

Layton, Duceppe and Dion were all fine and dandy when their campaigns were paid for by the taxpayers, but when their snouts are smacked away from the trough, they say their opposition to it is in the best interests of Canadians?

Like the author or poster of this video points out, the opposition or coalition as they apparently liked to be called these days, say they represent the "majority" of Canadians who want the Prime Minister to work with Parliament, yet listen to the children on the other side of the aisle that consistently shout him down.
By the way, I absolutely get a kick out of the PC "how to" guy, I mean Jack Layton, doing what socialists do best; complaining about how their is no bailout...oops, I mean stimulus package.

But, what gets me the most about all this is how all the CBC-watching crowd (representing less than 4.6 % of the population) that love to write letters to their local newspaper, only have one source for their vitriol, then they make sure the whole country knows how misinformed and ignorant they really are, in the name of democracy and patriotism. Yet they side (again, without knowing all the facts-a couple being that there is no structural deficit and Canada continues to have the strongest economy out of the G8 nations) with Socialists, Separatists and moonbats.
I mean, Calgon take me away.

This Can't be Right

As soon as this hit the wire, all that "Iran suspended their nuclear weapons program in 2002," talk went out the window (again, no one on the left apologizing or admitting they were wrong)

I know a deterrent is needed to handling Iran's mullahs and Ahmedinewhackjob, but I doubt if Obama has the cahonies for this, nor anyone in his upcoming administration (and surely those who voted for him) would publicly support it.
And since this "source" is of the anonymous kind, it may not be verified anytime soon and therefore I can't really believe that this is true and/or accurate. I mean Charles Krauthammer suggested it:

"How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush’s greatest contribution to nuclear peace would be to issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy’s language while changing the names of the miscreants:

'It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.'

This should be followed with a simple explanation: “As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

As did Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with Canada's spy agency, CSIS, who wrote when suggesting that Iran would suffer at worst, 28 million fatalities, while Israel would suffer considerably less...

"All out nuclear war between Israel and Iran: a doomsday scenario that we all fear deeply. A new study compiled by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), headed by former Pentagon analyst Anthony H. Cordesman, explored just such a nightmare scenario, noting that it could lead to the death of between 16- 28 million Iranian civilians, and 200-800 thousand Israelis…

Given certain conditions, Israel could potentially survive such a nuclear scenario, the study found. Iran, on the other hand, would be completely and utterly obliterated. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of term, though Israeli recovery is theoretically possible in population and economic terms,” wrote Cordesman, who compiled this study entitled “Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War"

The bottom line, according to this study, is that Israel quite simply has more potent and effective bombs. Israel currently has a 1megaton (mt) nuclear bomb, whereas Iran does not yet have the ability to develop a bomb with more than 100 kilotons of power. What this means, in essence, is that the Israeli bomb can lead to three times as many casualties as its Iranian counterpart (chiefly due to third-degree burns), and has an “area of extreme lethality” (the range within which a nuclear bomb is fatal) ten-times as great…

Cordseman also noted that Iran would have lower fission yields, and less accurate force into cluster targeting on Israel’s two largest urban complexes, and that the Iranian side would also most likely be thwarted by Israel’s missile defense systems. Notable among these is the “Arrow 2” anti-ballistic missile which could most potentially shoot down most.

And unbelievably, so did a tough-talking Sen. Hillary Clinton in an interview on Good Morning America. ABC's Chris Cuomo asked her what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, to which she said:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

But I believe all this American "talk" would be moot anyways, since Israel would hit them first,
like they did to
Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981.


Thursday, December 11, 2008

Those Peace-Loving Islamic Leaders

Ignatieff New Liberal Leader

So the Liberal Party of Canada has decided to get that bad taste out of their collective mouths that was Stephane Dion and appoint Michael Ignatieff (admittedly a more competent leader and more of a threat to Conservative power) as their new boss.

Two things:
Number one, the upcoming Liberal leadership race will most assuredly be a quick and decisive victory for Ignatieff and, number two, since the Liberal leader still feels that a coalition government with the socialists and separatists is the way to convince Canadians that it's the correct way to go to "take back" their country; I beleive a majority government for Stephen Harper's Conservative Party is almost a shoe-in. Not quite, as I believe Ignatieff (who was really in no doubt to take the reigns) will be more than a competitive adversary for the Prime Minister.

However, Ignatieff's past and (like Obama in the U.S.) his lack of exposure to Canadians is something he should be concerned with. Some aren't convinced of his intentions with a coalition, or even if he supports one.

Things are getting juicy now.

Even if Harper does win, if it's another minority, he's a goner. Jean Charet anyone?


Are you kidding me?
Even some gays aren't on board as the numbers aren't where organizers would like them to be.

So does this mean heterosexuals can just call in "Straight" every time they want to mourn the death of any of their failed initiatives without fear of reprisal? Man, with the Dems in power, a lot of conservatives wouldn't be showing up for work in the next two to four years.

This is ridiculous. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi-sexual, or abstinent, anybody that misses work with that lame excuse deserves to be fired!

Did I say this is ridiculous? This goes way beyond.

The Debate is Over...Again

So the mighty United Nations has apparently vindicated Al Gore by claiming that man-made global warming has been "proved beyond a doubt."

Instead of being in the tank for "climate change" advocates, for reasons that no doubt have to do with government funding (money, money, money) can't these "scientists" and their followers just be honest for once and just admit they might be wrong instead of making pariahs of everyone that disagrees with them, including other scientists.

Illinois Governor Indicted for Corruption

That's the DEMOCRAT Illinois Governor. Just in case you didn't notice the MSM's failure to make that a priority.

But before I begin, I'm sorry I didn't get to this sooner, but I was working a six til two shift (that's p.m. to a.m.) and if you factor in the hour-long walk home (plus only getting about five hours sleep to begin with) I wasn't really in the mood to blog at three in the morning.
But since I'm at it now at three in the morning...not a very good excuse now is it. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

So Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich has been arrested for allegedly attempting to sell the senate seat left vacant by Barrack Obama.
Other sources here,
If that isn't bad enough, Blagojevich was allegedly recorded as saying,
"I’ve got this thing and it’s [expletive] golden. And I’m just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing. I’m not going to do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there."
That last sentence referring to Blagojevich possibly appointing himself. The story also says the federal affidavit also claims that Blagojevich In several possible situations, the affidavit says,
"Mr. Blagojevich seemed to refer to plans already under way to make money or win a job (for him or his wife, Patti) in exchange for a particular Senate selection, raising the specter that there might be others, including some of the Senate candidates, who were participating or at least considering participating in such deals."
Wanted cash?
This is big, folks.

This most definitely involves the President-Elect. If not directly, then indirectly as the question remains-what did Obama know?
He of course denies any involvement and/or knowledge of this scandal saying,
"I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening, "It’s a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment."

Not appropriate to comment? If he won't even put his two cents in on this one, what will he get involved with? I mean, what, is it above his paygrade? Afterall, he is a major player in this. Perhaps not "involved" (which at this point, I do not believe he is) but to not even comment on it? Not good.
To be fair, he could have just been saying "we," meaning his "office," and it is an ongoing investigation, so he can't get that deep into it, but to not even give his opinion on the matter (I mean other than some soundbite) is kind of suspect.

In spite of the fact that he may have slipped up when he started to say "We were not aware of what was happening," before correcting himself, his senior adviser and campaign manager, David Axelrod said back on November 23,
"I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."
He's since then flipped on that comment, as well as having yet another Obama aid speaking for the both of them.
"I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."

Obama has rightfully called for Blagojevich
's resignation, as has the Illinois attorney general.
But he's not going quietly.

Just case you're wondering who "Senate Candidate #5" is, it's ta-da, Jesse Jackson, Jr.
He denies any wrong doing. Apparently, he's not a suspect in the scandal.

How far will this go?

In a related thought, how are the media reporting this? Well for starters, they didn't think you should know he's a Democrat.
As opposed to...
And most news outlets haven't even questioned Obama's relationship with Blagojevich, as usual.

This is Chicago machine politics in action, people. Not to mention the MSM's non-role in it.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Finally, Dion is Gone

So Stephane Dion, the embarrassed and utterly incompetent former Liberal Party leader has finally grown a set and did what was best for his party, not to mention what is best for Canada-he quit.
His reason?

When Dion originally announced his resignation after his humiliating defeat in the general election in October, he intended to leave in May of next year. But with national disdain of the forging of the the Liberal-NDP coalition (with the Bloc Quebecois in there with some veto power) and his party virtually imploding, the "great communicator" resigned on Monday. Now the Libs are running around with their heads cut off trying to find the best way to find a permanent leader before Parliament resumes Jan. 26.

All this uncertainty (well, not really; if a vote went tomorrow, the Conservatives would no doubt find themselves with a majority)
"Fully 60 per cent of those interviewed said they opposed replacing the government with Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Quebecois, compared with 37 per cent who favoured the idea. Support for the coalition was highest in Quebec at 50 per cent, followed by 44 per cent in Atlantic Canada.
(What's up with Atlantic Canada?)

The poll indicates the prospect of the Dion-led coalition has prompted Canadians to rethink the value of an election so soon after the Oct. 14 poll. Fifty-six per cent said they would rather go to the polls than be governed by the coalition."

"...a clear consensus appears to be building in Canada, albeit to a lesser degree in Quebec, that Harper is doing the right thing by trying to hang on to power."

"Ironically...the prospect of a coalition government involving the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois may end up allowing Harper to get the majority government he wasn't able to get on his own on Oct. 14."
-Canwest News Service/Global National poll.

Some in the press are saying that Canadians are scared for the future of their country.
"...fear touches every region and demographic in the country. The rate was highest in Alberta at 90 per cent, and lowest in Quebec at 62 per cent."

Well why wouldn't they be with so-called leaders like the three stooges at the helm?

The Truthers New Best Friend

So it seems that Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinewhackjob is trolling for conspiracies again. You know he's a big supporter of "all those Zionists who stayed home on 9/11," he denies the Holocaust ever happened and, while at Columbia University last year, he stated that "there are no homosexuals in Iran, like in your country."

Now he's shooting off at the mouth claiming that the United States was behind the Mumbai attacks.
If I haven't said it before, this guy really needs his chickletts knocked out.

I can just imagine what the 9/11 Truthers are going to say about this and how long it will take them to somehow say this is proof that indeedthe U.S. is involved. Yay! Another bogus reason to hate my country!

Ooh, They're Getting Ansy

So all the left-wing loons that thought Obama was going to "change the world," and get revenge for all the BDS sufferers out there with far-left appointments to his cabinet when he takes power in January are crying foul.

More from Chris Matthews and company.
How many times can you say the word "change" in one interview?

I wasn't going to post anything of real substance on this matter until all his appointments were chosen and/or until they screwed up (which they're sure to do) I must admit, I never thought he would budge from the left, nevermind going to the center. However, I did mention in a prior post that he would have to do this if he wanted to avoid another "Republican or Reagan Revolution." But that's what I don't understand. If the left would just stop grinding their teeth about President Bush long enough, they might see that President-Elect Obama is not only doing the right (as in correct) thing, he's actually saving Democratic seats in Congress.

I mean, what did they realistically expect? Michael Moore for Secretary of Health and Human Services? Ward Churchill for Secretary of Education? William Ayers for Secretary of Defense?

You know he is tapping a lot of Clintonistas as well, although that may be the scary part:

*SECRETARY OF STATE: Hillary Clinton…despite ties with India that could hurt U.S. diplomatic relations with Pakistan, she is the best the Democratic party has to offer. Last year Hillary insulted the elected Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki by calling for his replacement, which resulted in verbal retaliation from the PM.

*ATTORNEY GENERAL: Eric Holder…former deputy attorney general in the Bill Clinton administration who facilitated the seizure of little Elias Gonzalez at gunpoint and had him sent back to Cuba with then Attorney General Janet Reno (remember Waco Texas and David Koresh?)

Under Bill Clinton, Holder facilitated the 2001 pardon of Marc Rich after Rich’s wife made hefty contributions to the Clinton campaign. It is arguably the most controversial pardon in history.

Marc Rich was a fugitive from justice for 2 decades after fleeing the U.S. because he was guilty in the biggest tax evasion case in history and made illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-80 hostage crisis…benefiting from Iranian oil while they held U.S. hostages for over a year. Marc was on the FBIs Most Wanted list.

*HEAD OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Janet Napolitano, Arizona Gov…once said the Elias Gonzalez seizure facilitated by Eric Holder “was more than executive overreach. This is contempt of the circuit court of appeals order. This is a high class kidnapping is what it is, sanctioned by no law, sanctioned by no judge…”

Napolitano is a friend of illegal aliens….as governor she “conspired to take away … money that the state Legislature and the (county) Board of Supervisors approved specifically to enforce human smuggling laws, money my office needs to fight illegal immigration.”

*AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: Susan Rice….served for 8 years in the Clinton administration and worked for the failed campaigns of Kerry-Edwards in 2004 and Hillary Clinton in 2008. As a member of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council, Rice chose inaction in Rwanda while hundreds of thousands were victims of genocide, a decision that she now regrets. Rice also mischaracterized the war in Iraq as a “raging civil war”.

The one bright spot:
*SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Robert Gates…replaced Donald Rumsfeld and worked as a a member of the dream team…Gates (Sec. Def.), Petraeus (commander of U.S. forces in Iraq until recently) and Crocker (U.S. Ambassador to Iraq) to win the war in Iraq.

With the exception of Robert Gates, this hand-chosen crew has demonstrated poor judgment regarding foreign affairs and foreign policy throughout their careers.

Is anyone else nervous?

But overall, like many conservatives, I am so far pleasently surprised.
Wait til he chooses his Supreme Court Justices, though. Wha-ho nelly!

And don't forget this
Hat tip to Amy Proctor.

Monday, December 08, 2008

Today in History

Wow, two days in a row. I didn't intend on doing this two straight. But I thought I should post this date's events, December 8th, because of one in particular in 1980. That is of personal interest to me.
These are pretty much all I could think of:

Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The American Federation of Labor was founded at a convention of union leaders in Columbus, Ohio.

Congress declared war on Japan and the U.S. entered World War II.

Communist attacks forced the Chinese Nationalist government to flee to the island of Formosa (Taiwan).

Former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir died.

John Lennon, former member of the Beatles, was shot and killed in New York City by a deranged fan. *This would be the one.

President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the first treaty to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers.

President Bill Clinton signed The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into law.

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Today in History

December 7:

Do I have to say it?

1941-Pearl Harbor, Hawaii-Japanese forces attacked American and British territories and possessions in the Pacific, including the home base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

In 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

In 1796, electors chose John Adams to be the second president of the United States.

In 1808, electors chose James Madison to be the fourth president of the United States.

In 1836, Martin Van Buren was elected the eighth president of the United States.

in 1917, The US declared war on Austro-Hungary.

In 1946, fire broke out at the Winecoff Hotel in Atlanta; the blaze killed 119 people, including hotel founder W. Frank Winecoff.

In 1944, the United States formally announced all six Japanese aircraft carriers involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor were sunk.

In 1962, forty-two Soviet IL-28 jets, believed to be the entire bomber fleet sent to Cuba, was observed on the decks of Russian ships leaving the island's ports.

In 1972, America's last moon mission to date was launched as Apollo 17 blasted off from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

In 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor and annexed the region as its 27th province.

In 1982, convicted murderer Charlie Brooks Jr. became the first U.S. prisoner to be executed by injection, at a prison in Huntsville, Texas.

In 1983, in Madrid, Spain, an Aviaco DC-9 collided on a runway with an Iberia Air Lines Boeing 727 that was accelerating for takeoff, killing all 42 people aboard the DC-9 and 51 aboard the Iberia jet.

In 1987, 43 people were killed after a gunman aboard a Pacific Southwest Airlines jetliner in California apparently opened fire on a fellow passenger, the two pilots and himself, causing the plane to crash.

In 1988, a major earthquake in the Soviet Union devastated northern Armenia; official estimates put the death toll at 25,000.

Ten years ago: On the eve of historic hearings, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde said there was a "compelling case" for impeaching President Bill Clinton. Attorney General Janet Reno declined to seek an independent counsel investigation of President Clinton over 1996 campaign financing.

Five years ago: Allies of President Vladimir Putin won a sweeping victory in Russia's parliamentary elections. Zimbabwe withdrew from the Commonwealth of Britain and its former colonies, which had suspended it for alleged abuses of civil liberties.

One year ago: Congressional Democrats demanded a full Justice Department investigation into whether the CIA had obstructed justice by destroying videotapes documenting the harsh 2002 interrogations of two alleged terrorists. Two window washers fell 47 stories from a Manhattan skyscraper when their scaffolding failed; Edgar Moreno was killed, but his brother, Alcides, miraculously survived. Barry Bonds pleaded not guilty in San Francisco to charges he'd lied to federal investigators about using performance-enhancing drugs.

Same thing tomorrow.

Carter Set to Make us Proud Yet Again

Anti-Semite Jimmy is set to do some lovin' with yet another dictator.

This guy Smilin' Jimmy Carter never ceases to amaze me. Other than the peace accord between Israel and Egypt (which surprisingly still stands to this day) is the only thing (albeit a very good one) that this clown has, pretty much, ever accomplished.

Giving him a Nobel Peace Prize for a guy who did absolutely nothing to deserve it (him recieving it approximately 30 years after the Israel-Egypt accord is mind-blowing) given the time frame of it, is almost as mind-blowing as the Nobel panel awarding Yasser Arafat with one. Nope, George W. Bush is a total monster not even worth consideration (except for maybe, 30 seconds back in 2000) but a terrorist such as Arafat, sure join the club.
Freakin' amazing.

Watch how Carter's biggest fan on the planet, Katie Couric gushes over this one.

Karma is a Real B**tch, Isn't it Juice?

The Continuing Saga of "Good News is No News" from MSM

Only NBC (if you can believe that) and the USA Today decided that the most fewest soldier deaths "since the U.S. invaded Iraq" was newsworthy. That's combined deaths in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. No bleeding, no leading , don't you know?

"Cold Cash" Jefferson Out on His Ear

Finally some justice. And by his constituents no less.

Trutherism Never Seems to Stop

Well that should be it, you'd figure. Now all they have to do is convince the blockheads about 9/11, JFK, Area 51, the Moon landing, and heck even Elvis.

Friday, December 05, 2008

Hail Hail Fellow Distain for MSM-Wherever They Live

Yay for fellow Canadian bloggers and their disappointment and vigilance of the mainstream media.

-Your hate has made you powerful.
-Emperor Palpatine
Return of the Jedi, 1982

Blogs to Read

Again, Too Little Too Late Morons

The Good Guys Win...For Now

So the treasonous, unelected Liberal/Socialist/Separatist coalition that tried to usurp the the duly elected Conservative government of Canada have failed to do so.
Stephane Dion (Liberals) Jack Layton (socialist New Democratic Party-NDP) and Gilles Duceppe (the separatist Bloc Quebecois-remnants of the terrorist, Freedom du Liberation du Quebec-FLQ) had signed an agreement to bring down Stephen Harper's Conservative Party minority government by forcing a vote of no confidence due to what they say is Harper's failure to address the country's economic woes and his wish to cut off party financing; although the Tories "were deemed by almost six in 10 Canadians to be the best managers of the economy in these troubling times."

This is almost unheard of. It's been talked about and debated over the years, but it hasn't been utilized (yeah, it's actually legal-but they're still traitors) since 1925 when Mackenzie-King led a coalition government of the Liberals and Progressives.

However, Governor-General, Michaelle Jean (the Queen's representative and FYI another separatist-don't ask me how she,of all people became the Governor General of Canada) has, to the chagrin of the coalition, accepted Harper's request to suspend parliament until Jan. 26 when Harper can produce the Canadian budget for the next year. With the historic (if only temporary) victory Harper proclaimed,
"Today's decision will give us an opportunity -- and I'm talking about all the parties -- to focus on the economy and to work together.

As a result of Jean's decision, the Conservatives have been granted a prorogue-a suspension of parliament.
And according to IPSOS (the Canadian version of Gallop or Rasmussen) 62% of Canadians are angry about a coalition governmentand and 46% would vote Tory if an election were held today. Also, it states, 68% of Canadians support the G.G's decision.

Hat tip to ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK (yes, that is the blog's actual name) via

Under the coalition government, Dion would have been the new Prime Minister. A feat he could not accomplish through an election.
Dion in fact, is a lame-duck Liberal leader. He has already announced his resignation (in reality he was forced out by his own party due to his incompetence as leader-and I would suspect his broken "english") and what would he have done if he in fact did become Prime Minister. Would his resignation have been yet another lie by the idiot Liberal "leader?"

What is it about the left that doesn't allow them to accept defeat graciously? First there was the whole "Bush stole the election" from Al Gore in 2000. Then he apparently did it again in 2004 over John Kerry. And don't forget the whole gay marriage fiasco in California where the California Supreme Court decided to ignore the wishes of the people and overturn an election that would have re-enforced the definition of marriage before Proposition 8 made it clear those same citizens wanted the issue to be a part of an amendment to the California constitution.

These three men, by all rights should seriously be standing at the gallows under the charge of treason as far as I'm concerned.
But the fact that they've been embarrassed and ridiculed by the people of Canada according to a poll taken on Dec. 3 has "showed the Conservatives had shot up in popularity to 44 percent, enough to get a parliamentary majority if an election were held today, up from the 37.6 percent they received in the October 14 vote."

"Liberal support dropped to 24.1 percent from 26.2 percent, the New Democrats fell to 14.5 percent from 18.2 percent and the Bloc edged down to 9.2 percent from 10.0 percent."

Maybe Harper should have asked the G.G. to call an election. That would have most likely ticked the Canadian people off enough (seeing that they had just voted the Conservatives into power Oct. 14) to give the Conservatives a majority and the mandate to pass through Parliament what they will.
Of course, it probably would have been another low turnout, if not in fact, a record low turnout, as the last general election was one of lowest Canadian voter turnouts in history.

Harper said on Dec. 3:

By the way, this is what Dion had to say ealier about forming a coaltion with the NDP:

Yeah, like this guy and the rest of these clowns can be trusted.


By the way. Something has been bothering me for some time now. Is Jack Layton such a bad politician that he had to take a second job selling PC "how to" DVDs?

Yeah right. You tell me these aren't the same guy.
  • /* Profile ----------------------------------------------- */ #profile-container { margin:0 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px dotted #444; padding-bottom:1.5em; } .profile-datablock {