John F’ing Kerry, fresh off of his electoral ass-beating, went on Russert’s little-watched Meet the Press (hat tip to the poor schmucks who actually did watch it) show on Sunday to comment on, among other things, Iraq’s elections.
In short, Kerry called the elections a failure, and cautioned Iraqis not to get too excited about their newly found fledgling democracy (and first freeelection in about 50 years). Seems about 75% of Iraqis felt much differently than the rich woman’s toy felt. Thanks for the words of encouragement, you haughty French-looking self-righteous bastard. No damned wonder he lost by 3.5 million votes!
Anyway, here are a couple of pictures that are more telling of what Iraqis themselves think of their election:
Seems these good people of the Al Monsour district in western Baghdad walked along the freeway Jan. 30, 2005, to get to their polling sites. One 75-year-old man traveled three miles in his wheelchair, just for a shot at democracy. “My poor nephew pushed me all the way. But I had to come. Now that the criminal Saddam is gone this could be my only chance to vote.” Boortz had this one right: “I wonder what Hillary Clinton would say to this man right now? After all, she was the one that said people, and specifically women, were better off under Saddam Hussein.”
A proud voter showing that he did indeed exercise his right. By the way, note the purple ink on the index finger. It means you’ve already voted. We should adopt that here, to keep people from voting more than once. Naturally, liberals would complain that it would “profile” voters. Of course it would…the fradulent voters. That’s a plum liberal constituency, and they don’t want to lose these multivoters without a fight!
Sunnis boycotted the polls in sizeable numbers. Whoopty-freakin’-doo! Like I said before, all that means is that they consent to be governed by the ruling party, since they abdicated their desire to get involved in the shaping of their future. Hopefully, American liberals will follow their cue.
These words, from Neal Boortz:
It is an absolute mystery why the citizens of the state of Massachusetts have elected and re-elected Ted Kennedy to the Senate over and over again for 42 years. Because every time he speaks out on an issue, he is an absolute embarrassment to his constituents.
Now the brave hero of Chappaquiddick has decided to regale us with his solution to the growing insurgency in Iraq. It’s all so easy. We just leave! We cut and run. That’s right, he’s calling for the United States to simply leave Iraq. “There will be more serious violence if we continue our present dangerous and reckless course,” said the Senator. Oh really? What does he propose will happen if we just leave?
First of all .. someone has to say this, so I will. With those words yesterday Ted Kennedy signed a death warrant for more American soldiers. Those words encouraged the people in Iraq who are trying to kill their fellow Iraqis and as many American troops as they can. If, in the next few days, you get that knock on the door telling you that your son or daughter was killed in a bombing in Iraq, you might want to reflect on the role Ted Kennedy played in that tragedy. I just can’t say it strongly enough. This man is a vile, repugnant leftist pig and he’s costing lives .. American lives … in Iraq.
So .. what if we do follow Kennedy’s advice? What will happen is another Taliban, that’s what. The Islamic jihadists will immediately take over, start executing all of the non-believers, enslave the women and institute a terrorist state. Training camps would be set up, and we would have a whole new generation of suicide bombers, hijackers and Al-Qaeda hit men, all thanks to Teddy Kennedy’s disastrous foreign policy advice.
What kind of message would that send to the rest of the world? To the Iraqi people? To the other members of the Coalition? The wrong message. Then again, Ted Kennedy specializes in cutting and running. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne.
Why add anything else to that? Boortz said all that needs to be said.
This is a humorous e-mail sent to me by a relative, but it provides some great political satire.
* Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California.
* Baby conceived naturally . . . scientists stumped.
* Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.
* Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.
* France pleads for global help after being over taken by Jamaica.
* Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
* George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.
* Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
* 85-year, $75.8 billion federal government study results: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.
* Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
* Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.
* New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.
* Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts.
* IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
And last but certainly not the least… (I love it)..
* Florida Democrats still don’t know how to use a voting machine.
Air America, the upstart liberal radio network, is finally gaining some traction in the industry after a rocky, uncertain beginning.
Despite being placed on life support shortly after its much-hyped March 2004 launch, The Wall Street Journal reports Air America has spread to 45 markets, including New York City, Boston, Miami, San Francisco, and Portland, Ore.
But the network has a long way to go to counter its more successful conservative competitors.
Michael Harrison, editor of the industry’s Talker magazine, told the Journal that 75 to 80 percent of total talk programming is conservative.
And, the Journal reported, “a June 1 study from Washington, D.C-based Democracy Radio reported that national and local conservative programming totaled over 40,000 hours every week, while progressive, or liberal, programming totaled just over 3,000 hours.”
Profitability also continues to elude the network. It’s president, John Sinton, told the Journal Air America is still in the red, though he expects to turn a profit soon.
Adds Harrison, “When they start earning money as opposed to raising money, then we’ll know they’ve made it.”
Why am I hoping that Air America catches on? Mainly, for one reason and one reason alone: the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”
In 1987 that the FCC rescinded the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Under this doctrine broadcast stations had to make time available to all parties to present opposing views on various issues. Seems harmless, right? Wrong.
The plan made no sense. In a community with 25 radio stations and only one newspaper it was the radio stations that were forced to present all sides of an issue, while the newspaper went on it’s merry way. Political activists soon found out how to use the “Fairness Doctrine” to harass any broadcast outlet that had the nerve to allow an opinion to be expressed with which they disagreed. Richard Nixon was heard to brag about how he used this tool to hammer those who criticized him on radio and television.
With the end of the “Fairness Doctrine” talk radio broke through and the AM band was salvaged. Today radio stations, like newspapers, are free to broadcast without suffering harassment at the hands of those who can’t stand the free expression of opinions with which they do not agree.
If market forces allow Air America to survive, then life is good. If market forces cause Air America to crash and burn, then look for the left to try to ram the “Fairness Doctrine” down our throats and put an end to talk radio…all in the name of “fairness”, of course! After all, owning the MSM is not enough for liberals, since we red-staters are bypassing their leftist drivel by getting information from other sources, i.e. talk radio and the Internet. If they try to shut down talk radio today, they’ll aim for regulating Internet speech after that.
So let’s hope that Air America survives…just don’t listen to it! Let liberals listen to other liberals, and continue to lose elections.
This is the headline on Drudge’s web site. The story is as follows:
In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush’s push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.
But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president’s proposal, reveals Howard Kurtz in Wednesday runs of the WASHINGTON POST.
“The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples” and “educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage,” she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could “carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children.”
Gallagher explains to Kurtz: “Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don’t know. You tell me.” She said she would have “been happy to tell anyone who called me” about the contract but that “frankly, it never occurred to me” to disclose it.
National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: “We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio.”
Sorry, but while I do support President Bush and did vote for him twice, there are a few things about him that bother me. One of them is that for a “conservative”, he sure does spend like a drunken sailor…and I’m not counting the defense budget, since only a liberal would argue for the need to cut defense spending during a time of war.
First, there was Armstrong Williams getting paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars to promote Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program. Now we find out that Maggie Gallagher was paid to promote another Bush idea! Is this the best use of public dollars? The President has persuaded me (and millions of others) on the merits of his ideas…why in God’s name did his administration feel the need to pay people to persuade others?
Sorry, folks, but while I do like the man, I have to call things like I see them…and these two payoffs were horrible moves on this administration’s part!
I don’t condone paying private citizens with public money to lobby other private citizens on behalf of pet legislation…from the left or the right…period. While it may not be illegal, it sure is wrongheaded and wasteful, especially since we’re running a defecit.
From Neal Boortz:
Ted Turner is not what you might called thrilled with the surge of Fox News Channel in the cable television ratings. After all, CNN is Ted’s baby. I can remember many many moons ago sitting with Ted Turner at a private lunch at the Commerce Club in downtown Atlanta. At that time, the early 70’s I think, I was hosting a television show on Turner’s WTBS. Turner sat there at lunch and told me of his plans for a cable television news service. I nodded politely and tried to keep my elbows off the table. Little did I know the level of success that Turner would achieve with his dream. Now that success is sullied by the growing popularity of Fox News Channel … and Ted is torqued, and Ted felt the need to go on the attack against Fox News. So, attack Ted did … at the National Association for Television Programming Executives meeting in Las Vegas.
In attacking Fox News I suspect Ted is faced with the same problem that my more liberal listeners have been faced for the entirety of 2004. In January of 2004 I challenged my listeners to watch Fox News carefully and to call my show with any evidence of any right-wing bias in the presentation of news stories on any Fox News program. Obviously you will find bias on the opinion programs, that’s to be expected. But my challenge dealt with the presentation of actual news stories. Well, the entire year went by with repeated goading from me, and not one listener ever made one phone call or sent one email which illustrated even one instance of right wing bias in the presentation of news stories on the Fox News Channel. Not one. Turner faces a similar dilemma. He has no examples either, so what does he do? He does exactly what our friend Steve did! He goes the “Nazi” route! Yesterday Ted Turner was out there in front of God and all those people comparing the Fox News Channel, and it’s superior ratings, to Hitler! Yeah, Ted says, Hitler was popular with the people too! So, Ted Turner is comparing people who watch Fox News Channel instead of CNN to the people who put Hitler in power in Germany! I particularly like the response to Ted’s tirade from the Fox News Channel spokesman: “Ted Turner is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well.”
So do I, Ted. Enjoyed the lunch.
Oh .. one more thing. “Nazi” is actually an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Ted Turner has publicly stated that he is a socialist. Hmmmmmm. Nazis were socialists … Ted Turner is a socialist ……. Oh well, never mind.
Last year or the year before, the former Mr. Jane Fonda said that while Fox News had great ratings, he didn’t care…ratings weren’t everything. Now that’s a message you, as CEO or Chairman or whatever the hell he is, want to send to the advertisers, shareholders, and employees of CNN, huh? “We’re second rate, but hey…who cares?” If I’m an advertiser, I’m looking at maximum exposure to my paid ads, and here’s Ted Turner telling me that the exposure I seek for my product or services is not to be found on his network…and he doesn’t care! Needless to say, I will advertise elsewhere.
In 1996, Turner apologized to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for comments he made comparing FOX head Rupert Murdoch to Hitler. Teddie flunks “Political Discourse 101”, which says that when you invoke the name of Hitler to prove a point for or against a political position, you have automatically lost the argument. Seems that leftists lose a lot of damned arguments these days, doesn’t it?
Let me see if I have this right:
They have all called Dr. Rice a liar over the last few days. They said they don’t like being lied to. I don’t like being lied to, either…no one does.
Then where in the hell were these people in 1998 when Clinton lied to the nation, under oath, about being Lewinskied (among other trivialities like sexual harrassment)? These same sops had no problem being lied to then!
Which means that to these scourges of society, being lied to is bad…unless the liar is a Democrat.
I can’t say it any better than the Godfather did:
“I don’t see that thoughtful visionary direction that got us where we are today. The history of America is to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow. The progress that then occurred moved everyone forward. That progress is at risk today,” and then she said, “What are we investing in today. Frankly, it’s not that hard cutting people’s taxes.” Do you want me to translate this for you? Hillary Clinton’s vision, her definition of a “vision of greatness” is how much of your money can the Democrats get your hands on and spend. She says Bush isn’t doing enough of that. “I don’t see that thoughtful visionary direction that got us where we are today. The history of America is to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow. The progress that then occurred moved everyone forward.” She’s talking about the New Deal. She’s talking about rampant liberalism. She’s talking about the kind of thing that health care, her idea of health care was a failure at doing, and that is nationalizing one-seventh of the U.S. economy.
She has no clue what she’s talking about. “The history of America is to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow”? Let me tell you something, folks: This is why the Democrats are losing ground and they don’t even know it. If adults with kids hear that they aren’t making sacrifices today, they may have a few things to scream at Mrs. Clinton. For her to sit around and say Americans aren’t making sacrifices today for a better tomorrow? What does she think American parents always do?
American parents are constantly sacrificing for their kids, for their kids’ future, to put them through college, to do whatever they can to improve their lives. It’s just that her version of sacrificing is you pay more taxes. You pay more taxes to Washington so Washington can get more powerful — Democrats meaning Washington — so they can get more powerful and spread more money around and buy more voters. I don’t know what sacrifice Hillary Clinton has made whatsoever, other than to stick with her husband. That’s probably a sacrifice in her mind, but beyond that what sacrifice is she making?
As a parent of two autistic children, I resent the hell out of this hateful socialist bitch telling me that I am not making sacrifices! I sacrifice a great deal every day to make sure my kids grow up as “normal” as possible, and the federal government isn’t nannying them at all…and I damned sure don’t want it to nanny them, either! But if Her Highness has it her way, my children will be assimilated into the Social Collective of her global “village”!
Indeed…what the hell would this wench know about sacrifice?
Only a dimwit would take the MSM seriously when it comes to reporting on the goings-on in Iraq today. Thomas Sowell’s column makes a brilliant observation:
There are still people in the mainstream media who profess bewilderment that they are accused of being biased. But you need to look no further than reporting on the war in Iraq to see the bias staring you in the face, day after day, on the front page of the New York Times and in much of the rest of the media.
If a battle ends with Americans killing a hundred guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining ten fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: “Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today.”
This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat in print or on TV. Kept up long enough, it can even end up with real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.
When the Viet-Commies admit that the U.S. media aided and abetted them into victory, it says three things: (1) our mainstream media (MSM) was (and still is) shamefully anti-American, perverted, and treasonous; (2) our media shaped and fostered domestic discontent towards the war, a war that could have been won; and (3) our politicians lacked backbone to properly fight the Vietnam War. They’re trying (1) and (2) again, to see if they can bring about (3). After all, as Sowell points out:
Too many in the media today regard the reporting of the Vietnam war as one of their greatest triumphs. It certainly showed the power of the media — but also its irresponsibility. Some in the media today seem determined to recapture those glory days by the way they report on events in the Iraq war.
They will fail. As they failed in 2000, 2002, and 2004 to influence elections, and as they failed in trying to disparage Afghanis for voting recently, and as they still disparage Iraqis in attempts to delay Iraqi elections…they will fail.
Robert Byrd has held up (or thwarted) three nominees of note during his shoddy lifetime: Justices Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and now Dr. Condi Rice. The common bond with these three distinguished individuals: they’re all black. It seems as though the former Grand Kleagle of the KKK has a problem with African-Americans holding prominent positions in society.
Byrd’s recent racial history, outlined in Wikipedia:
On March 4, 2001, an interview with FOX News Sunday host Tony Snow was aired. In the interview Byrd was asked about race relations: “They are much, much better than they’ve ever been in my lifetime,” Byrd said. “I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us… I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that.” Then Byrd warned: “There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word.”
“We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”
Byrd’s office later issued an apology.
“I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today’s society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race.”
American conservatives have pointed to Byrd’s comments as evidence of a double standard in the treatment of Democratic and Republican political figures in regards to controversial statements about race (see Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh). Limbaugh made this point loudly, more in reference to the Lott controversy than the one surrounding himself, when fellow Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd said in praise of Byrd, “There has never been a time in U.S. history that he would not have been right for. He would have been right for the Founding. He would have been right for the Civil War …” Limbaugh stated that as Byrd had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan, he would have undoubtedly been on the side of the Confederate States of America, and hence slavery, during the Civil War, and wondered if Dodd really thought that was right. However, no general outcry in the mainstream media ensued, and the incident was hardly mentioned outside the venues of right-wing talk radio and FOX News — a silence cited by those sources as evidence of a Liberal bias in mainstream media, protecting the Democrats (Dodd and Byrd) and yet loudly attacking Republicans (Lott and Thurmond) for a milder version of the same behavior.
A recent ill-informed visitor to this blog attempted a weak-ass defense of Byrd by invoking Trent Lott’s poorly worded praise of Strom Thurmond two years ago. Considering that neither Thurmond nor Lott were ever in the KKK, it’s a poor defense. But that’s the point: while you’d be hard-pressed to find conservatives or Libertarians who will defend Thurmond’s sordid past, you will have no trouble finding scores of liberals who will defend Senator “Sheets” Byrd. An argument can be made that Thurmond repented later in his life (another topic for another day). Considering Byrd’s comments just four years ago, as well as his nominee hold-ups, no such argument can be made for Byrd.
But damned if liberals don’t try to spin his defense anyway!
This, from the Union Leader of New Hampshire (you know, the blue state!):
About those exit polls:
Sorry, no Bush conspiracy here
SOME DEMOCRATS and liberals who refused to “moveon” after President Bush won reelection in November either fabricated or latched on to all sorts of conspiracy theories in their desperation and despair. None has been shown to have any basis in fact, and last week the very first conspiracy theory offered on Election Day was soundly crushed by a polling company investigation.
Exit polls on Election Day showed John Kerry with sizable leads in state after state. The polls so consistently predicted a Kerry victory that conservative columnist Bill Buckley told a group of friends in an ominous tone, “It shall be Kerry.”
When the votes were actually counted, however, their results differed greatly from the exit poll predictions. The discrepancy prompted immediate charges that the Bush campaign had rigged the votes and stolen the election.
Well, last week pollsters Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research and Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International (the companies that conducted Election Day polls for the Associated Press and major television news organizations) released their analysis of the exit polls. They found that the polls overstated Kerry’s support in 26 states and Bush’s support in four states. The final national poll predicted that Kerry would win the election.
The main reason for overstating Kerry’s support? Bush voters refused to answer pollsters’ questions in larger numbers than did Kerry voters. No evidence of voter fraud was found.
So much for the conspiracy.
So much, indeed. It’s pretty damning when the exit poll companies themselves explain the discrepancy and reasons for their screw-ups. They would have been better served to have insisted that they were not wrong, and indeed, actual votes had been tampered with…they wouldn’t have looked inept and incompetent. Kudos to them for their candor and honesty.
But hey…since when do liberals let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?
A new documentary set to be released this week shows Ted Kennedy’s son abusing an African-American female security guard at Los Angeles International Airport five years ago.
A clip in “Taking on the Kennedys,” filmed by director Josh Seftel, captures Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-RI, getting physical with security guard Della Patton as Patton was loading his luggage into a scanner.
Kennedy, who insisted he was in a rush to catch a flight back to Boston, allegedly pushed Patton and grabbed her by the arm when she informed him that she would have to inspect his carry-on bag because it wouldn’t fit through the x-ray machine.
A video surveillance tape captured the March 26, 2000 incident but was never released.
The New York Post, however, reports that Seftel’s documentary includes video of “Kennedy getting into a ‘physical altercation’ with a female airport security guard.”
Rep. Kennedy, who wasn’t charged in the incident, denied he had manhandled Patton. But in July 2000 he offered her $25,000 to settle the dispute. On the advice of her attorney, Greg Mallory, Patton rejected the offer.
She was later fired from her job, with Mallory claiming Rep. Kennedy was responsible.
Patton should be thankful that she didn’t meet the same fate as her assailant’s father’s victim, Mary Jo Kopechne. At least Patton is alive to tell about it!
Hmmm…let’s see how the left tries to pin that on Bush! I’m confident that they’ll somehow try, regardless of stupid it makes them look…again. Full story here.
Brit Hume on Fox News Channel pointed out this interesting announcement on the ABC News website, the day before Bush’s inauguration:
For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below.
Hume gave a hat tip to the blogger who brought national attention to it. ABC was beseiged with angry phone calls and e-mails, so they pulled it from their site. As of right now, no explanation (or proof of its prior existence) is even acknowledged on the site.
Last night’s “Nightline” dealt with what the show called, “critics” who believe that voting irregularities in Ohio on Election Day cost John Kerry (search) the presidency.
Stories about Iraqi deaths and false illegitimacy claims…hmmm. Go ahead, libs…try to explain away this clear-cut case of media bias and left-wing agenda!
Bush’s inauguration party is a bad idea! Why, people are dying in Iraq and tsunami-ravaged southeast Asia, and Bush is throwing a multi-million dollar shindig today!
Such is the mindset of today’s liberals. But as usual, Coulter nails them on their hypocrisy. Her column:
In what the New York Times called Angola’s “worst crisis” in “nearly 30 years” in December 1992, the country erupted into civil war. By January 1993, the streets were piled with thousands of dead bodies. In the prior year, hundreds of thousands had died of starvation in Somalia. Millions more were still at risk.
Also in 1993, January floods left dozens dead and thousands homeless in Tijuana, Mexico. Russia was, according to a New York Times editorial, on the brink of disaster, facing economic circumstances like those “that helped bring forth Hitler.” Nine people were killed in a volcano in Colombia in mid-January, including American scientists. In Bosnia, according to the Times, hundreds had died of starvation and exposure in a matter of days.
“It has all been so much fun,” Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd gushed in the New York Times in January 1993. It was Bill Clinton’s one-week inaugural celebration. “Is it too much to ask that it go on forever?” (For those who loved America, the next eight years would only seem to go on forever.)
Rich and Dowd quoted Hollywood agent Karen Russell, saying: “I’m in this fantasy world. I haven’t slept. I’m punch drunk. … I just feel like I’m in this place called Clinton-land” – which, if it were a theme park, could bill itself as “the sleaziest place on Earth!” Russell, they said, “spoke for everyone.”
While dead bodies rotted in the streets of Angola and Somalia, the only “dead soldiers” in evidence in Clinton-land were the empty Cristal bottles lining the parade route. The most massive relief efforts that week took place at the rows of portable toilets circling each site of drunken Clintonista revelry.
Instead of having the usual Inauguration Day in 1993, Clinton had an “Inauguration Week,” with high-tech pageantry, large-screen TVs on the mall, Hollywood direction and, indeed, half of Hollywood. The amount of money that would have been saved just by holding the inauguration in Brentwood could have averted the Rwandan tragedy Clinton ignored just a few years later.
The spokesman for Clinton’s 1993 Inaugural Committee said the inaugural events would cost about $25 million – largesse exceeded only by the $50 million Ken Starr was forced to spend when “Clintonland” turned out to be populated with felons. Think of all the starving children in Angola, Somalia, Bosnia and elsewhere that $25 million could have fed! And don’t even get me started on Michael Moore’s “on location” food budget!
I wouldn’t mention it, except for the Times’ recent editorial snippily remarking that the amount of foreign aid to tsunami victims offered by the United States within the first few days of the disaster was “less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.” By that logic, why hold the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, or spend money on restaurants and theater productions praised in the New York Times? That money could go to tsunami victims!
A letter writer to the Times redoubled the Times’ bile, claiming to be “embarrassed for our country” on account of the government’s “pathetic initial offer of aid” to the tsunami victims. Yet he was still willing to throw away 37 cents on a postage stamp to send his letter – money that could have been spent on the relief effort! (One strongly suspects the letter writer was embarrassed for his country long before the tsunami hit and will remain so long after.)
Another letter writer suggested the first lady wear a used dress to the inauguration to “honor the young people who are dying in her husband’s misbegotten war.” (To honor John Kerry’s position on Iraq, Mrs. Bush would have to order an expensive gown and then, after it was delivered, decide she didn’t want to pay for it.)
Hollywood liberals could not be reached for comment on the cost of the inauguration because they were being fitted for gowns and jewelry worth millions of dollars in anticipation of Oscar night.
Speaking of which, I just remembered: George Soros is worth $7 billion! Couldn’t he get by on, say, $1 billion and donate the rest to the tsunami victims? If gun owners have to explain why they “need” a so-called “assault rifle,” shouldn’t Soros have to explain why he “needs” $7 billion? Last year, Soros announced that the central focus of his life would be removing Bush from office. Would that Soros could refocus that energy on alleviating the suffering of tsunami victims.
“Good enough for me, but not for thee”…eh, liberals? Not surprising. Your ideas, roundly rejected by the overwhelming bulk of Americans, are even rejected by you when it comes to practicing what you preach!
By the way, the overwhelming majority of money to pay for Bush’s inauguration come from private donors. Yes, the rich. Then again, when Clinton was wined, dined, and 69’ed by his rich friends, it’s all good, huh?
Kerry voted against Dr. Rice’s confirmation before the Senate committee. I predict that he’ll vote for her when the vote comes before the entire Senate. That way, he can say “I actually did vote against Condi Rice…before I voted for her!”
Sore Loserman, part II.
As if it weren’t bad enough that Condi Rice had to grow up in fear of the Klan when she was a child in Birmingham, AL, she now has to face the Klan again as an adult. Enter former Klansman and current U.S. Senator, Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
“Senator Robert Byrd, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, announced late [Wednesday] that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor,” reports the New York Times.
Sen. Byrd’s maneuver came just hours after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved her nomination by a vote of 16 to 2. The two naysayers were, not surprisingly, election loser John Kerry and new pointwoman for the loony left, Babs Boxer.
Though Robert “Sheets” Byrd “officially” left the Klan in 1943, he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 straight hours. And three years after he said he’d left his white-sheeted brethren behind, he wrote to Georgia’s Grand Imperial Wizard, urging, “The Klan is needed today as never before.”
Sen. Byrd was also a fierce opponent of desegregating the military, complaining in one letter: “I should rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”
Interesting that while Republicans are supposed to be racist merely for opposing affirmative actions and racial quotas (never mind the fact that real racist Republicans like David Duke are loudly rejected by the GOP), to the best of my knowledge, there aren’t any current GOP Senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act or were in the KKK. So while the nation is about to have its first black female Secretary of State, the Dems are embracing their bigots.
Did anyone see the grilling that Dr. Rice got from her Leftness from the Loony Coast, Senator Barbara Boxer? It was quite shameful, really.
Boxer impugned Rice’s intelligence and integrity with the content and tone of her questions. This, of course, is the same Barbara Boxer that cried when Bush received the Ohio electors…and the same Boxer who was the only Senator to vote against accepting the Ohio electors.
Barbara Boxer is officially the designated kook mascot of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. With her declaration of war on Bush, Rice, and the majority of Americans who voted for Bush, as well as her declaration of war on normal America, she has begun the “New Boxer Rebellion.”
Michael Goodwin of the NY Daily News has a great column that can be summed up like this:
Boxer and Kennedy are living in the past, back when it was okay for limousine liberals to tell the rest of us how to live. And maybe they’re going a little nuts with frustration because white-bread Bush was reelected and he’s the one nominating the first Hispanic attorney general and the first black female secretary of state.
Whatever’s bugging them, Kennedy and Boxer need to get a grip. They’re embarrassing themselves and defining their party as a bunch of sour-grapes, out-of-touch losers. All the talk about Dems moving back to the political center and working with Bush is being demolished every time these two open their potty mouths.
Of course, there is another, even more scary possibility: Maybe Kennedy and Boxer actually speak for the majority of their party.
In that case, Dems are in more trouble than they can ever imagine.
Makes me even gladder that I’m not, nor could I ever be, a liberal…I’m just not that unhinged or perverted.
John Kerry made a gracious concession speech the day after he lost the election. In typical Kerry fashion, he’s flip-flopped again.
At a Boston MLK Day breakfast, Kerry gratuitously invoked Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy and made up reports of voter disenfranchisement. Never mind that he lost by 115,000+ votes, confirmed by a statewide recount.
He reiterated that he decided not to challenge the election results, but “thousands of people were suppressed in the effort to vote.” Uh, no they weren’t…unless you count people who didn’t vote because they didn’t like him. I guess now the left is trying to claim that people who stay at home and away from the polls were disenfranchised by a lack of good candidates to choose from!
Kerry alleged: “Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways. In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, eleven hours to vote, while Republicans (went) through in 10 minutes – same voting machines, same process, our America,” he said.
He fails to mention that (a) in those same Democratic districts (counties), the supervisor of elections were also Democrats; (b) voting machines are handled by each county’s elections office, NOT by the state’s Secretary of State…that’s why some counties use scanners, others use punchcards, etc.; and (c) whether it’s one hour or eleven hours, once you are in line before the polls close, you are allowed to vote…period, end of discussion.
So if I understand liberals correctly, a voter is disenfranchised if he/she is inconvenienced in trying to vote. A voter is disenfranchised if the Democratic elections supervisors don’t set up enough voting machines (presumably, they didn’t set up enough voting machines that they could tamper with).
(Sigh)…Democrats never actually lose elections, do they? Somehow, they’re always robbed of them!
As for poor Jean-Francois Kerry, this face-slapper from NewsMax:
While Sen. John Kerry has made it clear he’s interested in running for president again in 2008, party insiders aren’t very enthusiastic about the prospect. “Kerry has been reaching out very aggressively and finding that many of the people that he automatically thought would be on board are not,” NBC’s Campbell Brown told “The Chris Matthews Show” on Sunday.
From Neal Boortz:
There are 240,000 Iraqis in the United States that are eligible to vote in the upcoming Iraqi elections. To ensure their participation, polling places have been set up throughout the country in Maryland, Los Angeles, Nashville, Chicago and Detroit. Yesterday, the first batch of folks started to trickle in. Now, keep in mind that the mainstream media in this country wants you to be convinced that democracy in Iraq is doomed, the election will be a failure and the war in Iraq was a mistake. With that in mind, let’s take a look at what some of the Iraqis in the United States are doing to be sure they are registered to vote:
Nouman Shubbar, a Philadelphia police sergeant, drove 2 1/2 hours just so he could register to vote. Said Mr. Shubbar: “It’s a historical event. I’m very happy, and I’m very proud that for the first time we have free elections.” He will make the same drive in a couple weeks to actually cast his ballot. Osama Al-Moosawi lives in Delaware and made the drive to Maryland because he didn’t want to miss out on the chance to vote. He was speechless, and even posed for pictures in front of the registration table. “It’s amazing, unbelievable,” he said. 67-year-old Abdul Al-Haddad drove six hours from Raleigh, Carolina to New Carrollton, Maryland to register to vote. Speaking through a translator, he said ”I feel I am responsible for my country, to build a free Iraq.”
This is the first free election Iraq will have had in 50 years. Just look at the faces of these Iraqi expatriates going so far to be able to vote in these elections. Despite what you read in the media and hear from the Democrats, these people want freedom and democracy. And they are going to get it, despite the naysayers who continue to say it will never happen, that it’s impossible.
Compare these Iraqi expatriates to Americans. How many of your neighbors would drive two and one-half hours just to register? We had people who wouldn’t wait one hour to vote! And now these people are whining that they were “disenfranchised.” While the Iraqis stand up to terrorists and Islamic thugs who will kill to keep them from voting, John Kerry complains that Americans who didn’t have the time to wait in line for an hour, or whose legs hurt so they went home, were “suppressed.”
Oh, and by the way….is Hillary Clinton going to tell all of these Iraqi women that they were better off under Saddam Hussein? She said that, you know.
Of course, if the liberals had it their way, Iraqis would still be getting raped, tortured, oppressed, and killed by the Saddam Hussein regime. Libs feel that Iraqis are people who do not deserve and are not entitled to the same rights that Americans enjoy. Those rights are bestowed upon us by God, not government…a message that liberals do not yet understand or accept.
During the election last year, I referenced a column by a professor at Central Washington University named Dr. Mathew Manweller. His column was entitled “Election Determines Fate of Nation”. It’s right here.
Anyway, he now has his own web site dedicated to “Essays, Articles, and Opinions” related to the news du jour. I figured that since his column was so brilliant, I would pass on his new site’s URL for interested readers: www.mattmanweller.com. You haven’t read his column yet? Well, read it now! Yes, I know the election is over, but it still makes for great posterior reading!
I have an observation about this purported Sunni boycott of Iraqi elections. The left (along with Sunnis) think that if any segment of the Iraqi population boycott the upcoming Iraqi elections, then the resulting government would be illegitimate. Huh?
Do you know what I would give to ensure that liberals in America boycott future elections? Would anyone, save the MSM, think that if any segment of America refused by their own free will to vote in any of our elections, the results would be invalid? Uh, no…if I turn on the TV and see that Bush defeated Kerry 75% – 45%, I wouldn’t think “Well, Bush hardly has a mandate! After all, the liberals stayed home!”
If people refuse to get involved in an election, they are subject to the rule of people they may despise. If you refuse to vote, you deserve whatever government you get.
Berns Rothchild, a NYC liberal (pardon the redundancy) who professed her shame in America by voting against her precious John F’ing Kerry, has come up with this idea of wearing blue bracelets. The whole “blue state” thing, I guess. Anyway, hat tip to Neal Boortz for this observation about those who don the bracelets:
1. The blue bracelets will easily identify people who believe that America is great because of its government instead of freedom.
2. The bracelets will identify people who believe that any price paid for freedom is too much, and that living peacefully as a slave is better than fighting to be free.
3. The bracelets will identify people who believe in the mob, and not in the individual, and who have enlisted wholeheartedly in the war against individualism.
4. We will be able to identify the people who believe that America should be a country of equal results rather than a system that guarantees equal opportunity.
5. People who believe that the government should own and control our retirement accounts will be identified by that flash of blue on their wrists.
6. We will be able to recognize those who believe that accomplishment should be punished while laziness and poor decision making should be rewarded.
CBS News turned over its entire “Face the Nation” broadcast on Sunday to inveterate Bush-basher Ted Kennedy, after refusing a White House request that they also include a Republican to rebut Kennedy’s bloviations.
“The White House was happy to put Dan Bartlett or somebody else on that program and CBS said, ‘Thank you, No,'” reported Brit Hume on “Fox News Sunday.”
The CBS snub comes just a week after the network promised Bartlett, who recently moved from Communications Director to the White House counsel’s job, that they’d stop skewing their coverage against the president.
According to Broadcasting & Cable, CBS News President Andrew Heyward traveled to D.C. and personally assured Bartlett that “neither CBS News nor [Dan] Rather had a vendetta against the White House.”
“From here on out [CBS] would do everything it could to be fair and balanced,” he reportedly pledged.
Uh-huh…not allowing a rebuttal to a drunk, womanizing murderer is “fair and balanced”, huh?
DiFi (that would be Senator Dianne Feinstein from California) said that she will propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban the Electoral College and implement a national popular vote in determining the presidency. Full story here. The article tries to give her idea credence by mentioning that it has the support of RINO (Republican in Name Only) Lincoln Chafee, a RINO from a liberal state (Rhode Island) who detests Bush.
Anyway, it’s not going to happen, for a few reasons:
1. It would require that virtually every “battleground state” (such as Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, West Virgina, Ohio, Florida, etc.) give up its importance and quadriennial candidate courting. They like the attention, so they’re not having it.
2. It would require all of the smaller states, whether battleground or not, to consider giving up their clout. Bush barely won the electoral vote in 2000, and it can be argued that the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, etc., played a huge role in that. Granted, Rhode Island may want to go along with it, but only because they don’t like the outcome of the last two elections.
3. Outside of California and New England, nobody likes California and New England, with their (generally speaking, clearly not applicable to all) sense of self-righteousness, haughtiness, rudeness, and lack of regard for all things outside of their blue spheres. Anything that we red states can do to continue sticking it to the loony left states, we’re all for doing it.
It’s for reason #3 that DiFi wants the EC abolished…that, and she doesn’t like the current president. She fails to consider, though, that Dems have benefitted from the EC, too. In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency with an anemic 42% of the popular vote. Embarrassing, except for the fact that he won a whopping 370 electoral votes, giving him electoral legitimacy that conservatives wanted to deny him.
What’s annoying, though, and typical of liberal disdain for our country and its origins, is DiFi’s condescending quote: “During the founding years of the republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states.”
May have been suitable? Why, how did this country ever get going without DiFi’s brilliance around?! Those morons Jefferson, Madison, et al didn’t know what they were doing, I guess. May?
Also, DiFi’s wrong about the elections being decided in several battleground states. Uh, DiFi…the election is decided in all states, not just battlegrounds! She’s letting her frustrations with the last two elections cloud her thinking (which I though was supposed to be a liberal’s strong point?).
Finally, this is a once-in-a-generation experience. For only four times in the history of our country, we’ve had different electoral vote and popular vote winners. States decide the presidency, not metropolitan population centers. If states want to divvy up their electoral votes differently, they can: Nebraska and Maine do, and Colorado voted on it…and opted against it.
So is this really necessary, other than to placate disgruntled liberal constituents? If so, knock yourself out, DiFi…but realize that you have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting this amendment voted on, much less ratified.
Former NFL coaching great Vince Lombardi is famous for saying “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing!” It looks like Democrats are thinking the same thing.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told The New York Times: “Some people argue about old Democrats and new Democrats. I’m a Vince Lombardi Democrat. Winning is everything.”
OK, he botched the quote, but hey…at least their thirst for power is now transparent, by their own admission! Gee, that kind of warm and fuzzy inspirational rhetoric is certain to get more red-staters on board, huh?
“American interests be damned…we want to win for our party first, and the country second!”, they seem to be saying.
Interesting report from NBC affiliate KHQ-TV in Spokane. According to the report:
An Exclusive KHQ NewsPoll conducted by Survey USA shows, 62% in the State of Washington say there should be a new election to re-vote on the governor’s race.The survey was conducted January 10 and 11, 2005, and 36% statewide say there should not be a new election.
A re-vote is supported by 76% of Republicans and 64% of Independents.In Eastern Washington 59% of those polled back a re-vote, 61% in the Seattle area back a re-vote.
Democrats oppose a re-vote, but even among Democrats, it is close:45% support holding a new election, 52% say they oppose it.
This is a survey of 600 adult respondents from Washington State.Overall results considered significant +/- 4%.Results may not add to 100%, because percentages are rounded to whole numbers.
Granted, a court will decide the matter, not public opinion. But it is interesting that even nearly half of Democrats want a new election, as do nearly 2/3 of liberal Seattle! No word yet on if the demographics of the poll included Democrat constituencies like the dead, multiple voters, illegal aliens, post-election ballot manufacturers, or those who mailed out military ballots too late.
From Neal Boortz:
Kennedy was telling us (again) yesterday that Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam. In making that statement there is not one bit of doubt in my mind that Ted Kennedy gave virtual aid and comfort to Islamic insurgents in Iraq and to Islamofascist terrorists around the world. There is no doubt in my mind that Kennedy’s statement yesterday so encouraged and emboldened the insurgency in Iraq that American servicemen will die as a result. Ted Kennedy doesn’t seem to be satisfied with the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, he wants more .. or so it seems. If Ted Kennedy cut a notch in his bed for every death of an American serviceman or woman at the hands of an Iraqi insurgent encouraged by his remarks, and by leftist opposition to the liberation of the people of Iraq, he would be sleeping in sawdust.
Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam? We lost in Vietnam. We ran. Is that the message Kennedy is sending here? Is that the solution he’s calling for again? The media took a U.S. victory, the Tet offensive, and turned it into a rout of, not by the Americans. This actually seems to be what Kennedy wants … what a lot of Democrats want. I truly believe that they actually want to see the United States leave Iraq with its tail between its legs. The Iraqi people? Who cares? The future of peace in the Middle East? Again, who cares? What is important to Democrats here .. what is more important than establishing a beachhead of peace in the most dangerous region of the world .. what is more important to the left is disgracing George Bush and disgracing the Republican Party so that they can return to their rightful position of dominance in Washington. Ted Kennedy and his sickening sycophants are actually willing, if not eager, to endanger every man woman and child in the United States — to actually increase the threat level of another and probably more horrible terrorist attack on our soil — if it means they can take back what they believe their birthright — the right to rule the roost in Washington.
Nothing left for me to add to that.
The president is catching hell from liberals and from the media (pardon the redundancy) regarding his recent statement that “I don’t see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord.” Gasp! There he goes with that God thing again!
Yet when her Highness, Hillary Clinton, once confessed to consulting the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt…why, how brilliant! How avant garde! What a fascinating woman this Hillary is.
So to liberals, faith = lunacy, and hallucinations = brilliance. Ooooooo-kay then!
Recently, the president said he wanted to address the need to revamp Social Security. One of the ideas being batted about is allowing younger workers today to divert a small portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private retirement accounts that they can grow and pass on to their families when they die. SS will not do this.
Anyway, Bush is having resistance within his own party. No surprise there, since the Gimme Generation of the AARP has scared them into thinking about political (rather than practical) fallout. But how’s this for total cowardice and self-preservation?
Most alarming to White House officials, some congressional Republicans are panning the president’s plan — even before it is unveiled. “Why stir up a political hornet’s nest …. when there is no urgency?” said Rep. Rob Simmons (Conn.), who represents a competitive district. “When does the program go belly up? 2042. I will be dead by then.”
Emphasis mine. Hey, thanks, Rob! To hell with the rest of us, since you will have long since been worm food by then! To hell with your kids and grandkids…let the little bastards fend for themselves, having contributed their whole lives to this federal Ponzi scheme and have nothing to show for it…you won’t be here for it to affect you! So it’s all good, right?
How come when Enron blows everyone’s pensions to hell, then the wrath of the government comes down with intense ferocity…yet when that same hypocritical government does the same thing to us in 40 – 50 years, it will suffer no ramifications for it? After all, you do know that federal courts have ruled that SS benefits are not guaranteed, don’t you?
That means that not only are your benefits not guaranteed, but that the government went to court to lay that decision down now so when the day of reckoning comes, they can look back and say “The courts agreed, we’re under no obligation to pay you anything. Your payroll taxes used for SS were never earmarked for you.”
And as long as today’s politicians have neither the stomach nor the sack to address the problem (since, by their own admission, it’s not their problem), you can bet that those of you (myself included) born after 1965 will see a U.F.O. before we will see one red cent of Social Security benefits.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett