Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Jihad Cyndi to be arrested for assaulting cops; Dems downplay

Oh, if I had a nickel for every time I assaulted a cop, I’d have…uh, not even a nickel. I make it a habit not to assault anyone, much less a police officer. I’m funny that way.

Anyway, Jihad Cyndi, aka Rep. Cynthia McKinney (Moonbat-GA), assaulted a white cop the other day and will likely be arrested for it. How did I know he was white? Because she felt compelled to repeatedly mention that fact while explaining herself to the media. She would rather be dipped in camel dung and rolled in sugar than apologize, though. From Breitbart/AP:

Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had a physical altercation with a police officer, is speaking out about the episode after saying she regretted the incident.

But she has refused to apologize in a statement and a brief on-camera interview.

The six-term congresswoman apparently struck a Capitol Police officer when he tried to stop her from entering a House office building without going through a metal detector. Members of Congress wear identifying lapel pins and routinely are waved into buildings without undergoing security checks. The officer apparently did not recognize McKinney, she said in a statement.

Asked on-camera Thursday by WSB-TV of Atlanta whether she intended to apologize, McKinney refused to comment. A news conference scheduled for Friday morning was canceled. She issued a statement late Wednesday saying she regretted the confrontation.

“I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, and I appreciate the work that they do. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now,” she said in the statement on her Web site.

I’m guessing that if she is supporting them now by assaulting them, then her past support must have been a helluva lot more violent! Try this: walk into your boss’s office, and smack him/her right in the piehole and quickly explain that you were showing your “support” for him/her. Check back in and let the rest of us know how that worked out for you, because we’d love to try it ourselves if we knew that our bosses would be receptive to that kind of support!

What do Dems make of Jihad Cyndi’s antics?

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday labeled it “a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress.” She added that the police officer was not at fault.

“I would not make a big deal of this,” said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Of course you wouldn’t make a big deal of the incident, Numskull Pelosi! The assailant has the same scarlet letter (a “D”) beside her name that you do. I don’t know how to break it to you, Pe-loser, but a mistake is when you lock your keys in the car, or forget to Tivo Desperate Housewives. Unless she suffered from Tourette’s Syndrome or otherwise had some involuntary motor reflexes, Jihad Cyndi made no mistake…except getting caught. Or was the “mistake” in question that of the cop doing his job?

Isn’t it cute how Pe-loony tries to Kerry her position on whether it was the cop’s fault? An “unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress”? That implies, of course, that had the dumbass Barney Fife that protects their sorry plutocratic asses simply recognized Queen Cynthia, he could have avoided his asskicking by the Georgia gerrymandered Congresswoman! Sensing that the public might have a bit of a problem with her implying blame on the cop (which is obvious by her statement that she was doing just that), she quickly Kerryed her position to note that it wasn’t said Fife’s fault.

Had Dennis Hastert or the evil diabolical Tom DeLay done such a thing, would Pelosi have been so understanding? Sure she would…right after publicly announcing her support for Bush’s tax cuts, I’m sure! Speaking of Hastert:

Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., responded: “How many officers would have to be punched before it becomes a big deal?”

Two? Three? Ten? Let us know, liberals, so we can begin our “Jihad Cyndi Cop Strike” Countdown…fun for the whole family!

March 31, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Feingold to censure…Baghdad Jim McDermott?

Sen. Moonbat Feingold (D-WI) wants to censure Bush for spying on phone calls to al Qaeda. Says it’s illegal to record or monitor the conversations.

OK, then are we to assume that Feingold will simultaneously be pushing for calls to censure Baghdad Jim McDermott (D-WA), who was found guilty of (and has seen his appeals damned near exhausted)…I couldn’t make this up if I tried…violating “federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago? At the time, Baghdad Jim was the ranking Democrat on the…(snicker)…House Ethics Committee!

I mean, a married couple (who are liberal hacks) illegally intercepted a phone conversation between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner, and gave the tape to Baghdad Jim…thus making him an accessory to the warrantless wiretapping! He then turned that over the New York Times, who were more than happy to run with it.

(Sidebar: the NYT didn’t hesitate to run with a story on the contents of the Boehner/Gingrich (both Republicans) phone call without much thought or concern about how the tape was obtained…they didn’t care. Yet recall when a Democrat Senate memo was obtained that explained how Janice Rogers Brown (black) and Miguel Estrada (Hispanic) needed to be filibustered on the basis of their race? Did the NYT run with that story? Nope…they focused on how the memo was obtained, not what it contained!

GOP phone call, illegally obtained…the contents, not how the tape was obtained, are newsworthy. Democrat Senate memo based on a racist strategy…the method by which it was obtained, and not the contents, is newsworthy. Nope…no liberal media bias!)

After all, don’t Democrats pride themselves on ideological consistency? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, I could barely finish typing that without cracking up! Democrats take about as much pride in adhering to consistency as Jesse Jackson takes pride in being camera-shy!

Anyway, I don’t plan on holding my breath waiting for Moonbat Russ to condemn Baghdad Jim, do you?

March 30, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mexican pride?

This a subject that crossed my mind one day when I watched Mexican president Vicente Fox implore the U.S. to ignore the border and let his people come willy-nilly into the country. I remember thinking “Shouldn’t Fox be humiliated?” Barry Farber explored that topic, and in a much more eloquent manner than I could convey. Excerpts of the column follow:

We come now to the degrading, disgraceful and disgusting spectacle of uncounted Mexicans surging across America’s southern border looking for a better life.

Where is Mexico’s pride? If I were president of a country whose underclasses had to leave to find life-sustaining work, I’d be too ashamed to beg a neighboring country’s leadership to “Let My People In.” I’d be too warped with humiliation to print little “matricula” cards to spray some kind of “status” over my fleeing hordes and run ads in the host country’s newspapers pleading for wider and safer holes in their border and their policies.

If I were President Vicente Fox, I’d address my Mexican countrymen and remind them of their Latino value of “macho,” which, contrary to widespread misinterpretation, does NOT mean being rough with women and wearing gold chains over hairy chests. Macho is a multifaceted set of virtues, among which is the determination to suck it up and thrust your nose right into adversity’s face.

I’d tell them, “What’s so different north of the Rio Grande from here in Mexico? Is the United States of America kissed by tongues of Godly flame that make crops grow better and children learn better and the economy perform better and politicians behave better? Of course not! We can abandon our slovenly habits and embrace better ones. Just as America is waging a War on Terror, we Mexicans can wage a war on bribery, corruption, drug trafficking, human smuggling, illiteracy, poverty and all our other blights that make Mexico a failure.

We can turn Mexico into a place no Mexican will ever want to leave. Eventually, our Mexico can become a place others would like to sneak into! (Hundreds of poor people from Guatemala and Belize do try to sneak across Mexico’s southern border for a better life. They’re treated harshly and sent back. Among Mexico’s new wars might therefore be a war against Mexican hypocrisy.)

“Don’t INVADE America,” I’d urge my Mexican brothers. “COPY America!”

Isn’t humiliation supposed to be a big deal? It is whenever America can be accused of visiting humiliation upon others. Maybe if you voluntarily choose a humiliating solution to your problems, it’s OK.

Must the Mexican message remain “Sorry, America, but you’re a success and Mexico is a shame and since we’re so close we feel it’s OK for us to come on in and make ourselves at home”?

If I were Vicente Fox, I’d climax my exhortation by saying, “Look, nobody leaves, OK? Nobody abandons us in our war for a better Mexico. Whosoever heads for America is a deserter of our people in time of war. You will not be stopped by our police. You will not be stopped by any Mexican iron curtain.

“You will be stopped by a force much more powerful – MEXICAN PRIDE!”

I have a theory, and it’s only that…a theory, i.e. I have no proof. Anwho, my theory is that since Mexico is so drenched in poverty, the government is incredibly burdened with trying to provide services to the citizens caught in poverty. Rather than undertake the incredibly tough burden of wholesale reform in Mexico, the government swallows its Mexican pride and encourages emigration into the United States in order to alleivate itself of the toll that its poorest citizens take on the Mexican government. Getting rid of the poor people in Mexico is a hell of a lot easier than actually changing Mexico itself.

That’s my guess. Your thoughts, regardless of your ideology, are welcome. Unless you’re a moonbat, in which case I don’t really give a damn what your opinion is, since moonbattery is a mental disorder and not an ideology! 😀

March 30, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Teen sends threatening e-mails to Bush

Excerpt from article:

A 13-year-old boy has been charged with a felony for sending two e-mails threatening President George W. Bush ahead of his upcoming visit to Cincinnati, Ohio, local media reported.

The boy, who lives in a Kentucky suburb of Cincinnati, was allowed to remain in his mother’s custody ahead of an upcoming court appearance to face the charge of terroristic threatening.

An investigation was launched when the town’s mayor received an anonymous e-mail threatening the president, who is expected to throw the first pitch for the Cincinnati Reds baseball team on Monday.

A second e-mail was also sent to the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon.

The crack team of investigative journalists here at the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (or CLOWNS) have recovered a book report he wrote for his seventh-grade geography class entitled “The Top Ten Things I Want to Be When I Grow Up and Hopefully Bush Will Already Be Worm Food” The list is as follows:

1. Contributor for the Daily Kos
2. Hairdresser for NBC’s David Gregory
3. Editor of the New York Times
4. Chairman of the DNC
5. Senator from California
6. Public liaison for Code Pink
7. Professional protestor for the Earth Liberation Front
8. Clerk at Starbucks
9. Attorney for the ACLU
10. Anchor for CBS News

CLOWNS…infiltrating the media more, with every passing day!

March 29, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dems finally reveal security plans?

Yes, they do…well, sort of. From Breitbart/AP:

Eyeing House and Senate elections this fall, Democrats are stepping up their effort to cut into the public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security.

Congressional Democrats vow to provide U.S. agents with the resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden and ensure a “responsible redeployment of U.S. forces” from Iraq in 2006 in a national security policy statement House and Senate Democratic leaders were announcing Wednesday.

Are Democrats implying that U.S. agents haven’t been provided with the necessary resources to find OBL? If so, how come this is the first time in the nearly 5 years after the 9/11 attacks that we’re hearing about this? Were concerns not voiced in that time frame?

Also, please allow me to offer a translation for you fine folks. I have become fluent at translating “Democrap” over the years, so here’s a translation for you:

A “responsible redeployment of U.S. forces” from Iraq in 2006 means “cut and run from Iraq.” Pelosi, Murtha, and others have said as much. Hope that helps!

Anyway, what details do we get from the Democrats on how to find OBL or “responsibly deploy” Iraq troops?

The Democratic statement lacks specific details of a plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida chief who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

They say: “We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.”

How so? Now that is just so unlike them to be vague and offer no specifics! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

I have maintained from the beginning that if the Dems will come out with a plan of their own, instead of reflexive bitching and obstruction, they might stand a chance of doing the unthinkable: actually winning an election! However, when I said that they should offer a plan, I actually meant that the plan should have specifics!

After all, John F’ing Kerry told us repeatedly in 2004 that he had a plan…and then he never told us what the plan was. I guess he was for a plan, before he was against it.

March 29, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chocolate City selling flooded school buses on eBay

The Mayor of Chocolate City…er, New Orleans…has discovered an innovative way to raise money: auctioning off the buses he allowed to sit motionless leading up to Hurricane Katrina. From Breitbart/AP:

Starved for cash, the New Orleans school district is taking a long shot and hoping to sell its flooded, unsalvageable school buses on eBay.

Some submerged to their roofs in the black flood waters, the yellow school buses were widely photographed in the days after Hurricane Katrina and have become an icon of the city’s devastated school system.

Uh, not quite, AP. The buses became an icon of the city’s hamhanded, inept, and grossly and criminally negligent handling of the evacuation prior to Hurricane Katrina. By now, we’ve all seen the pictures of the flooded school buses sitting motionless near the Superdome, and we’ve all heard Mayor Ray “School Bus” Nagin’s shameful excuse that they couldn’t be used because there were no unionized or government workers to drive the buses.

Speaking of which:

The district plans to contract out its student transportation.

Oh, so now it’s OK for non-government entities to be driving buses? They couldn’t drive the buses to save people’s lives, but they can shuttle folks now that the city is half-full! I guess hindsight is 20/20, eh Mayor Nestle?

March 29, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

LA to cite truant students for protesting

High school students have been skipping class, purportedly to “protest” the attempts to enforce our illegal alien laws. Why they have been skipping class probably depends on your perspective: some would say to object to the efforts to stop illegal immigration, and others would say that it’s because they’re a bunch of lazy ass slackers who are looking for an excuse to skip school.

Anyway, LA is going to try to put a stop to this truancy. Excerpt from article:

Despite school lockdowns and rainy weather, some 11,000 students from nearly two dozen Los Angeles County campuses skipped school Tuesday as immigrant-rights rallies continued, leading to some arrests.

About 8,000 students from the Los Angeles Unified School District and 3,000 students from other schools countywide took part in protests Tuesday, or at least did not show up for class, LAUSD Superintendent Roy Romer said. Beginning Wednesday, LAUSD students who do not show up for school will automatically be considered truant, Romer said.

“It’s one thing to have a spontaneous demonstration of free speech, but it’s another to have continued absences,” Romer said during a City Hall news conference Tuesday afternoon. “A parent has a legal obligation to have their youngsters in school.”

Such a crackdown must be because of racism, right? Can’t stand to see a bunch of Latino kids exercising their First Amendment rights, huh? There’s just one problem with that theory:

“Our first priority is to keep our kids safe, that they need to be back in school,” Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said after meeting with Romer, Bratton and Sheriff Lee Baca this afternoon. “And it’s important for parents to understand that beginning today we will be strictly applying our truancy laws.”

The mayor of LA is Hispanic…and he wants to “strictly” enforce truancy laws? Uh, never mind about that “racism” thingee.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can skip school to exercise it, and face no consequences. Geez, considering that they’re breaking immigration laws and truancy laws, that kind of shoots holes in the “we’re just a bunch of law-abiding hard-working people” mantra, doesn’t it?

March 29, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sen. Byrd’s wife dies


Funeral services for Erma Byrd, the wife of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, will be held Saturday in Virginia.

Erma Byrd died over the weekend at the couple’s home in McLean, Virginia, after battling an illness for five years. She was 88.

The family says funeral services are scheduled for 2 p-m Saturday at the Memorial Baptist Church in Arlington, Virginia, with several West Virginia ministers participating. Burial will be at Columbia Gardens Cemetery in Arlington.

Two thoughts:

1. My heart goes out to the Byrd family. May she rest in peace, and may her family find strength to cope.

2. Her funeral is Saturday. My cynical self can’t help but wonder if it will be a funeral, or another Democrat pep rally a la Paul Wellstone and Coretta Scott King. Maybe our ol’ friend Snookums can let us know ahead of time if we can expect this to be one of those…how did she describe them? Oh, right: a “political” funeral!

March 28, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dems’ faith better than ours?

David Limbaugh observes the left’s and the MSM’s (pardon the redundancy) shifting standards for acceptability of faith:

Can someone please explain why Hillary and Bill Clinton always get a pass from the secular left when they invoke God in their public discourse? Why is Dan Quayle ridiculed for championing family values while Hillary is glorified as a dutiful disciple of evangelist John Wesley?

Do the God-mocking among us doubt the Clintons’ sincerity and thus not perceive them to be a threat to their sacred church-state separation doctrine? Or could there be some other reason we don’t see hysterical editorials when the power couple mention Jesus Christ, as when Hillary recently dragged Him and the Good Samaritan into the immigration debate?

Why is no one calling Hillary an “American Taliban”? Why don’t the media pillory Hillary like they did John Ashcroft for saying, “We have no king but Jesus?” Shouldn’t someone step forward and ask, “Can a deeply religious person be president?” like Tony Mauro, then of USA Today, inquired concerning Ashcroft: “Can a deeply religious person be attorney general?”

In 1992, Bill Clinton likened his Republican opponents to the Pharisees and the “sanctimonious money-changers” of the New Testament. In 1996, he received a glowing tribute from the media for ranking “near the top of the list of presidents who have talked comfortably about religion” — as if, all of a sudden, they deemed that a good thing. That same year, Hillary received kudos for urging her party to reclaim the mantle of family values. (Memo to the short-term memory challenged: The libs’ nose-holding scramble to reconnect with “values voters” didn’t begin with their soul-searching group therapy in the aftermath of the 2004 election presidential election.)

Aren’t we witnessing a glaring double standard here? When the Clintons brandish the Bible, where is Maureen Dowd to warn of an impending theocracy? Why doesn’t the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne vilify Hillary for “the exploitation of strong religious feelings” and using “religion as a wedge issue” like he did George W. Bush after the 2004 election?

Also don’t forget the trio of spiritual advisers Bill Clinton surrounded himself with following his DNA-coerced confession of relations with “that woman.” Not to mention Clinton’s statement in a post-presidential sermon to his former fellow congregants at the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C. that, ‘You cannot imagine the peace, the comfort, the strength I have drawn from my Sundays here.” Hum, could he have been talking about the same kind of “strength” President Bush had in mind in his prayer concerning Iraq? Surely not, right? Liberals don’t cross that hallowed line.

I’ll not address the curious context of Hillary’s particular biblical references, as others have covered that subject well. But I will say that when certain famed liberal politicians, like Hillary and John Kerry, invoke Scripture, it seems transparently incongruous.

It’s as if they’re saying, “Look at me, Middle America, I am bilingual, too: I can talk Scripture as fluently as I can speak English, and I can interweave religion and politics as seamlessly as Roy Moore. So vote for me, Bible-thumpers.”
The next time the secular media crucifies a conservative politician for openly professing the relevance of faith in his public life, try to remember their refusal to inflict the same rhetorical punishment on those in their ideological camp — and ask yourself, “Why?”

Why ask “why”? We know why. B-b-b-but it is not due to any liberal media bias, I’m sure!

March 28, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quote of the day, part III

The hits just keep on coming today. From Ted Kennedrunk, who helped craft the Senate’s illegal amnesty bill:

“All Americans wanted fairness and they got it this evening,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who played a pivotal role in drafting the legislation.

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

I’ll see if I can get off the illegal alien kick for a while…thanks for indulging me.

March 28, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quote of the day, part II

From Newsbusters:

[Guest host Campbell ] Brown then let her true MSM colors show with a softball question to [La Raza representative Janet] Murguia implying that opposition to illegal immigration is veiled racism: “What are the racial undertones to this debate for many people? Is that something that worries you?”

Murguia was only too happy to be worried, alleging that there are “racial undertones, anti-ethnic overtones.”

That’s when Dobbs got off perhaps his best line of the morning. “The National Council of La Raza is talking about race? La Raza – what does that mean? It means ‘the race’!”


March 28, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quote of the day

This is rich.

“Nobody benefits when the illegal immigrants live in the shadows of society,” [President] Bush said after the ceremony at the Daughters of the American Revolution Building.

Yeah…”in the shadows” like this:

Shhhhhh! Don’t tell anyone we’re here…in the shadows!

March 28, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Those opposing illegal immigration are "white supremacists"

So says Katrina Vanden Heuvel, demented magazine of the leftist rag called The Nation. Proving once again that liberals have no idea what normal America thinks, she observes the following:

Nation magazine publisher Katrina Vanden Heuvel said Sunday that illegal immigration foe, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is animated by a “white supremacist” philosophy – and insisted that illegals are “the backbone of this country.”

Following the Colorado Republican on ABC’s “This Week,” Vanden Heuvel told host George Stephanopoulos:

“Tancredo, on your show today – he looked pleasant. But I will say that what’s happened in our country is that some of the white supremacist thinking that used to be represented by David Duke has been absorbed by people like Tancredo.”

Vanden Heuvel called the House immigration reform bill backed by Tancredo “very dangerous,” “draconian” and “un-American,” before praising the illegal population:

“Undocumented immigrants are the backbone of this economy,” she told “This Week.” “They do the suburban lawns in this country. They take care of the kids. The economy in this country would be in real trouble [without illegal immigrants.]”
Vanden Heuvel predicted that “2006 will be the year of immigrants rising” before adding, “the demonization of immigrants is going to lead to ripping apart the Republican Party.”

Contrary to Vanden Heuvel’s claim, poll after poll on illegal immigration shows that more than two-thirds of Americans favor tougher border enforement.

That’s the codeword that leftists like to use for illegal immigrants: “undocumented immigrants.” “Undocumented” sounds more innocuous that the truth: lawbreakers. Expecting any person, immigrant or otherwise, legal or illegal, to observe the law is apparently a “white supremacist” expectation.

Plus, illegal aliens are “the backbone of the economy”? This will no doubt come as a surprise to the 95%+ of people in this country who apparently are irrelevant to the economy. No wonder everyone thinks liberals are functional illiterates when it comes to economic matters!

Leave it to the left to screw something else up, as usual. Nothing says “We’re ready to take control in D.C. in November!” quite like ignoring 2/3 of the country on illegal immigration, all for a little “Hispandering” and posturing. Nice job, Katrina! See you in November!

March 27, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Illegal immigrants just like you and me

Apologists for illegal immigrants like to ignore the fact that by definition, illegal immigrants have already broken the law. Well, let’s see these apologists polish this behavior!

Susana Findley, a Gary native whose parents were born in Mexico, said illegal immigrant workers arrived here for the same reason federation members’ ancestors arrived: To find work and a better life.

When 63-year-old Chicago Minuteman member Rick Biesada arrived and pulled out his protest sign, he claimed that two counterprotesters yanked it from him. When he yanked it back, the men assaulted him, knocking him to the ground, he said.

The Lindenhurst, Ill., resident was treated by paramedics at the scene for a gash over his eye and dizziness, spending a few minutes inside an ambulance before returning to the protest.

“I wished he fell to the ground harder,” Findley said.

But hey…they’re just like you and me, right? Don’t we all work hard, pay taxes, and punch someone for saying something we don’t like? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was both rhetorical and sarcastic.

Illegal aliens…breaking one law at a time!

Related:LA Immigration Protest Leaves Millions Of Yards Poorly Groomed” (satire)

March 27, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Camels of mass destruction?

I don’t know if I should find this funny, but I do. Excerpt:

Saddam Hussein planned to use “camels of mass destruction” as weapons to defend Iraq, loading them with bombs and directing them towards invading forces.

The animals were part of a plan to arm and equip foreign insurgents drawn up by the dictator shortly before the American-led invasion three years ago, reveals a 37-page report, captured after the fall of Baghdad and just released by the Pentagon. It is part of a cache of thousands of documents that the United States Department of Defence says it does not have the resources to translate.

If the translation is correct, it suggests that many of the foreign fighters now attacking coalition forces and bombing Iraqi civilians were directly trained by the Saddam regime, although there are no known reports of camels being used in suicide attacks.

Maybe Saddam thinks that the allied forces, not wanting to incur the wrath of PETA, wouldn’t kill the “loaded camels” in self defense, huh?

Or, maybe Saddam had just finished off his oversized glass of Crazy As Hell jihad juice?

March 27, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Today’s "Damn that global warming!" update

Cover story of Time magazine: “Be Worried. Be Very Worried!” Polar ice caps melting. What’s a polar bear to do?

Let not your heart be troubled for our polar bear friends, though. They can always migrate to Palm Beach, FL, which are experiencing record low temperatures!

March 27, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Paranoia knows no party affiliation

We’ve seen countless examples of paranoid behavior from the moonbat segment on the left. However, they don’t have an exclusive license on using tinfoil hats. From Drudge:

A Republican challenger to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is bizarrely claiming that the former first lady has been spying in her bedroom window and flying helicopters over her house in the Hamptons, the NEW YORK POST reported in a frontpage splash on Saturday.

Former Reagan-era Pentagon official Kathleen “KT” McFarland stunned a crowd of Suffolk County Republicans on Thursday by saying:

“Hillary Clinton is really worried about me, and is so worried, in fact, that she had helicopters flying over my house in Southampton today taking pictures,” according to a prominent GOP activist who was at the event.

“She wasn’t joking, she was very, very serious, and she also claimed that Clinton’s people were taking pictures across the street from her house in Manhattan, taking pictures from an apartment across the street from her bedroom,” added the eyewitness, who is not involved in the Senate race.

Suffolk County Republican Chairman Harry Withers, who hosted the reception in East Islip, confirmed McFarland’s paranoid statements.

“Yes, she said that,” Withers told the POST.

McFarland spokesman William O’Reilly responded that the GOP hopeful was just kidding around with her far-fetched claims.

“It was a joke, and people laughed,” O’Reilly insisted.

But three witnesses who were present said nobody in the audience cracked a smile.

“The whole room sort of went silent when she said it,” one person said.

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson denied any spying was going on.

“We at the Hillary campaign wish Ms. McFarland the best and hope she gets the rest she needs,” he said.

But Wolfson couldn’t resist a sharper gibe at McFarland’s remarks.

“Some campaigns hand out campaign buttons; the McFarland campaign hands out tinfoil hats with antennas,” he quipped.

As if the NY GOP didn’t already have a Herculean task in trying to dethrone Her Highness from her lofty Senate perch, the first candidate they get a hold of bows out and the second one seems to have black helicopter delusions.

In a dark blue state like New York, where Her Highness gets high marks from her peeps, why in the hell would Shrillary feel the need to take an obscure conservative all that seriously…especially to the point of wanting to spy on her? If the allegation was really a “joke”, count me among those who didn’t get the punch line.

At this point, one must wonder if the NY GOP should even bother fielding a candidate.

March 25, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Russia: Friend or foe?

America: “Moscow spies tipped Saddam on U.S. war plan

Russia: No, we didn’t.

Russia, like France, had “secured millions of dollars worth of trade and service contracts in Iraq, with the implied understanding that their political posture with regard to sanctions on Iraq would be pro-Iraqi.”

However, “Russian intelligence officials repeatedly have denied having any links with Iraqi spy services.”

Whom to believe?

March 25, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chirac offended at the English language

From AFP:

French President Jacques Chirac defended his eye-brow-raising exit from an EU summit session, accusing the French head of Europe’s employer union of piquing French pride by daring to speak in English.

An ardent defender of the French tongue, Chirac said he had been “deeply shocked” to hear English on the lips of the Frenchman in a speech at the two-day European summit.

“I was deeply shocked that a Frenchman would speak at the council table in English,” he told journalists, explaining for the first time his abrupt walkout when the summit opened on Thursday.

“That’s the reason why the French delegation and myself left so as not to have to listen to that,” he added.

Perhaps he would have rather heard German? Lord knows France has a history of getting an unwanted immersion in German! 😀


When Ernest-Antoine Seilliere, head of the UNICE employers federation, started his speech to the EU’s 25 leaders, Chirac interrupted and asked why he was speaking in English, according to a French official.

“I’m going to speak in English because that is the language of business,” replied Seilliere, former chief of the French employers’ group MEDEF, which has been at odds with the government recently.

English is the language of business? Well, we must excuse Jacques for his confusion! With France being a quasi-socialist country, no damned wonder he didn’t understand the words! Finally:

Rubbing salt into the wounds Seilliere inflicted on French pride, the Brussels correspondent for Britain’s eurosceptic Sun newspaper, Michael Lea, approached Chirac at the end of Friday’s news conference with a small English-language phrase book for tourists.

“This is a present from your friends at The Sun,” Lea told the French leader, who first looked puzzled, then smiled as he slipped the little tome into his pocket.

What book was that, English for Dummies?

March 24, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Christian Peacemaker ingrates

I mentioned in a prior post how the “Christian” anti-war activists who were rescued by coalition forces in Iraq still referred to their liberators as “illegal occupiers” in Iraq. That’s right, the brave forces who risked their lives to free these ingrates from the clutches of bloodthirsty Islamofascists who had already tortured and killed one of their colleagues (Tom Fox) are still denigrated…despite saving their worthless hides.

At Freedom Folks’ blog, they noted how the “Christian” Peacemakers kept referring to their “release” instead of their “rescue.” WTF?

“Release” implies that their captors willingly let them go, whereas “rescue” implies that the captors were not willing to let them go but were unable to stop them from doing so because of efforts made on behalf of the captives. For the “Christian” Peacemakers to fail to acknowledge this effort, even if on a grotesque subconscious level, is appalling. Are they suffering from Stockholm Syndrome or something?

I’m not the only one who feels that way, as the “Christian” Peacemakers’ phone lines have been flooded with angry callers with sentiments identical to mine. It wasn’t until they began receiving these phone calls that they decided amend their statement: they were so “overwhelmed” and “overjoyed” by their release that they “forgot” to thank their liberators. It’s easy to be forgetful while you still have your head intact on your shoulders, instead of having it sawed off with a big dull steak knife while you’re alive to experience it!

Do I have permission to question their patriotism now?

March 24, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

al-Reuters pulls a Kerry

The al-Reuters “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” network got exposed by the new media for a flip-flop in its reporting. From LGF:

Earlier we pointed out this end-of-the-line absurd piece from al-Reuters, arguing that the controversy over the Afghan convert is just like the Muslim world’s reaction to the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

ROME (Reuters) – The strong Western response to a threatened death sentence for an Afghan convert to Christianity looks something like a mirror image of the Muslim reaction to the Prophet Mohammad caricatures printed in the European press.

There have been no riots or sackings of Afghan embassies, unlike the violence that marked the uproar in Muslim countries after the Danish cartoons were published, but the shock and mutual incomprehension expressed in both cases are similar.

Well, the writer has had a change of heart since this morning. Now the two cases are completely different. Western, Muslim worlds clash again over religion. (Hat tip: Allah.)

Two months ago, political and religious leaders in the Muslim world were rounding on Western European media and governments for printing and defending caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that they considered blasphemous.

Two months ago, political and religious leaders in the Muslim world were rounding on Western European media and governments for printing and defending caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that they considered blasphemous.

The cases are clearly different. Western leaders from President George W. Bush down have spoken up to save the life of a man whose religious freedom is a universal human right which his judges say is secondary to Islamic law.

The cases were actually “mirror images” of each other…before they were “clearly different.”

March 24, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New approach to execute Moussaoui?

Satire alert! From Scrappleface:

(2006-03-22) — Justice Department officials said today they have a new plan to get the so-called 20th hijacker executed, despite a TSA attorney’s bungling that may have allowed Zacarias Moussaoui to escape the death penalty under U.S. law.

The novel prosecution approach calls for getting Mr. Moussaoui converted to Christianity, then shipping him to Afghanistan with a Bible verse tattooed on his forehead.

The latest rendition of the death penalty strategy, which lawyers acknowledge faces some significant obstacles, was sparked by news that an Afghani man, Abdul Rahman, faces execution under Muslim Sharia law for becoming a Christian and carrying a Bible.

“In the U.S., we can’t get a confessed terrorist executed after five years of trying,” said an unnamed Justice Department attorney, “But when Moussaoui lands in Kabul, he’ll be lucky to make it through baggage retrieval alive.”

What happened to Rahman isn’t funny, and it actually looks like he may be spared for the unspeakable crime of finding Jesus. However, the prosecutor’s approach to remedy the P.R. nightmare that Afghanistan got from this is by accusing Rahman of being mentally deficient. After all, someone must be insane to reject Islam, right?

March 24, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ABC News executive sickened by Bush

File this under “Nope…no liberal media bias”! Click on it to enlarge it:

A top producer at ABC NEWS declared “Bush makes me sick” in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

“If he uses the ‘mixed messages’ line one more time, I’m going to puke,” Green complained.

The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation’s news outlets.

A friend of Green’s at ABC says Green is mortified by the email. “John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair. That said, he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email and the embarresment (sic) it causes ABC News.”

I’m just sure that this sentiment is not reflected in any way in ABC News‘ coverage of the President! And notice the date…during the height of the 2004 election? I bet any negative thing or two (or a thousand) mentioned around that time was purely coincidental!

Gotcha, ABC!

March 23, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

"Today" shamed into positive coverage?

From Newsbusters:

Call it the Ingraham Effect. Two days after Laura Ingraham sent shockwaves through the MSM with a Today show appearance in which she charged that the media accentuate the negative in their Iraqi coverage, and just the day after a palpably stung Today responded with a segment defending its coverage, Today led its show this morning . . . with good news from Iraq.

To be sure, Today would under any circumstances have covered the rescue of three self-styled Christian peace activists. Story here. But would Today have otherwise highlighted the story of a successful coalition military operation in the way that it did? In the show’s very opening, Katie dramatically intoned:

“Good morning. Breaking news: US-led forces in Iraq launch a dramatic rescue operation and free three Western hostages.” In fact, the news wasn’t quite breaking. It had occured many hours earlier and had been widely covered overnight.

Guest host David Gregory, who had aggressively sparred with Ingraham during her appearance, enthused: “What good news to report this morning. Those freed hostages. Two Canadians and a British national are safe this morning four months after they were kidnapped in Iraq.”

Katie then interviewed Richard Engel, the NBC reporter in Baghdad whose largely balcony-based, Green Zone coverage had sparked some of Ingraham’s ire.

Engel emphasized the exultant mood: “Members of Christian Peacemaker Teams here in Baghdad told us they jumped for joy when they heard the news that three of their colleagues had been rescued.”

Engel reported that the activists had been rescued this morning [Baghdad time] by coalition troops. Even when Engel struck a somber note, mentioning that one of the activists, Tom Fox, had been murdered by his captors, and that US journalist Jill Carroll still remains a hostage, Katie Couric closed with this positive take:

“Alright, Richard. Well, at least three happy endings coming out of Baghdad this morning.”

The peace activists who weren’t killed with their colleague Fox were freed by the same military they still call “illegal occupiers“…how’s that for gratitude?

Anyway, kudos to Laura Ingraham for shaming one outlet of the MSM into reporting a little good news, two days after she had exposed their leftist slant for the world to see.

March 23, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Shrillary: "GOP would criminalize Jesus"

This must be a terrifying piece of news for the left. I mean, Her Highness is using the “J” word…Jesus! The MoveOn types must be aghast that she would mention religion at all, much less the central figure of the dominant American religion.

Her Highness, ever vigilant in her quest to appeal to red state Americans who actually believe in Jesus, used an ingenious approach to attract said red staters: insult them!

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is blasting a GOP-backed immigration bill, claiming bizarrely that the legislation would “literally criminalize . . . . probably even Jesus himself.”

Clinton invoked the biblical themes on Wednesday while restating her opposition to a bill sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner that would make illegally entering the U.S. a felony.

Surrounded by what the Associated Press described as “a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates,” the former first lady ripped the GOP bill as “mean-spirited” – insisting that it flew in the face of Republicans’ stated support for faith and values.

“It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures,” she declared, before adding: “This bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”

Oh, where to start?

1. Her “understanding of the Scriptures”? That is arguably one of the richest statements I have ever heard come from her and her hubby combined. That ranks right up there with “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Quick, Hill: name the first four chapters of the New Testament!

2. Can someone explain to me how criminalizing behavior that is already illegal would be akin to “literally criminalizing the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself”?

3. The “Queen of the Document Shredder”, who has the nastiest of temperments and despises our soldiers (at least, when they were guarding her and her hubby’s miserable lives), who “can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized business” that would have been killed by her socialist health plan, is going to accuse anyone of bad “faith and values”? A Clinton is questioning anyone’s faith and morals? Are you freakin’ kidding me?

4. Does anyone other than me question the wisdom of trying to appeal to religious voters of the opposition party by accusing them of trying to criminalize the Almighty? If her people had briefed her on Jesus’ crucifixion, whereby Jesus was convicted of “criminal behavior” before he was tortured and killed (sidebar: are we sure those who killed him weren’t Muslim? That’s their modus operandi, you know!), she may have dropped out early from the Dick Durbin School of Sh#tty Analogies and used a different metaphor.

What’s next, “Support me or Jesus will hate you”? Maybe “Vote against this bill, or you’re going to Hell”? Perhaps “Vote for this bill, and Jesus will stop loving you!” Good God (insert deity here), the possibilities are limitless with this woman!

5. I guess we should cut her a little slack. Democrats have a hard time understanding this religion thingee, so I guess it’s to be expected that they’ll have some growing pains trying to adapt.


The legislation would instruct law enforcement to seek out illegal aliens and cut federal funding for cities, such as San Francisco, that have sanctuary laws.

Other provisions include the creation of a border fence, the elimination of the diversity visa lottery system and the indefinite detention of some immigrants.

In 2003 Mrs. Clinton blurted out during a radio interview that she was “adamantly opposed to illegal immigrants.” But her actions never lived up to the tough talk.

Two weeks ago Clinton announced her support for a defacto amnesty program that she said would grant illegal aliens “a path to earned citizenship for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes [and] respecting the law.”

Don’t be a Kerry, Shrillary! Pick a freakin’ position and stick with it! Normal America is against illegal immigration, and the those who continue to fight efforts to curb illegal immigration will do so at their own peril.

March 23, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

AP pulling a Kerry on Saddam – WMD tapes?

This ought to be of interest to my visitor Snookums who forwarded me the new AP story about how Saddam was exasperated that no one believed his assertions that he had no more WMD’s. From NewsMax:

The Associated Press is now reporting that tape recordings of Saddam Hussein chairing his Revolutionary Command Council show that the Iraqi dictator was telling the truth all along when he claimed that he had no weapons of mass destruction.

But only last month the wire service reported that other recordings show a top Saddam aide boasting about how he concealed Iraq’s WMD’s from U.N. weapons inspectors.

In its latest version of the Saddam tapes, the AP claims:

“Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they’d given up banned weapons.

“‘We don’t have anything hidden!’ the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

“At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would ‘roam Iraq for 50 years’ in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. ‘When is this going to end?’ he asked.”

However, Saddam didn’t sound nearly so exasperated in another meeting taped the year before, as his son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, explained how he’d hidden Iraq’s WMD stockpiles from inspectors.

In quotes reported by the AP on Feb. 16, Kamel told the Iraqi dictator:

“We did not reveal all that we have. We did not reveal the volume of chemical weapons we had produced.”

Kamel boasted that he had managed to conceal “the type of weapons, [and] the volume of the materials we imported.”

In other comments not covered by the AP, Saddam’s son-in-law went on to note: “None of [the information we gave the U.N.] was correct. They don’t know any of this.”

As translators continue to pore over more of the 500 hours of tapes ordered released by President Bush last week, the outlines of Saddam’s deception become even more clear.

In one recently released snippet, the Iraqi president orders his advisors to prepare for what sounds like an upcoming weapons inspection:

“We want to make them fail at the last minute, squeeze them to the end. We have to create situations where the Special Commission will go search for one time, the Special Commission, not the team that is coming. Now at the same time I want two inspections to be simultaneously conducted; one for the things that we are going to ignore in the special locations the Special Commission will search only once.”

Comments like that don’t exactly jibe with the AP’s latest claim that an innocent Saddam was doing everything he could to prove he’d given up his WMDs.

See, folks like Snookums reject the newly found documents which may show a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda or OBL or WMD’s or 9/11…but accept at face value the AP’s flip-flopped version of the documents.

Hell, we could have pictures of Osama and Saddam at a Baghdad cafe taken on 9/10/2001, and Snookums’ kind would say “Just because they’re drinking coffee and feeding each other grapes doesn’t mean they had a cozy connection!” Oh, well, there are still people who think OJ was innocent, too!

March 22, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MSM circling the wagons?

The left likes to tell us that (a) there is no liberal media bias, and (b) the independence of the press is under attack. Personally, I think “independence of the press” implies that the MSM outlets act individually and do not coordinate stories or coverage (except for the wire services).

Well, if there’s no coordination or “circling of the wagons”, then someone please explain to me how these talking points are identical among Chris Matthews, David Gergen, Jeff Greenfield, Larry King, John Roberts (of CNN, not the current Chief Justice of the SCOTUS), Andrea Mitchell, Ron Corning, Jake Tapper, Diane Sawyer, and Jessica Yellin:

MATTHEWS: The president has decided not to attack the Democrats but to attack the media.

GERGEN: I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by attacking the press.

GREENFIELD: It’s been the liberal media that’s been the target.

KING: Blame the media for the coverage of the war that we only show the bad things.

ROBERTS: A familiar tactic blaming the media.

MITCHELL: Why is the administration now seeming to blame the media?

CORNING: The president is taking a shot at the media.

SAWYER: In his press conference yesterday he was pushing back at the media.

TAPPER: The Bush administration think the media coverage is too negative.

YELLIN: Blaming the media!

YELLIN: It’s not if first time the White House has gone after the media when the chips were down.

Nice little “blame the media” meme. Sounds like the “gravitas” talking points we heard circulate amongst the MSM during the 2000 election when Bush tapped Cheney to be his veep.

Not done yet. They can’t seem to get their story straight: is Bush an evil genius, or a “towel-snapping frat boy” idiot? Note to David Shuster, Margaret Carlson, James Carville and Chris Matthews: Make up your minds, will ya?

SHUSTER: The president does excel at fraternity-style teasing, like when he towel-snapped a reporter.

CARLSON: His attitude during the press conference was oddly upbeat I thought and, you know, the towel snapping.

CARVILLE: He was in this jocular, frat boy, towel-snappin’ mood.

MATTHEWS: Did his P.R. people warn the president, “When you go out and towel-snap…”?

If you’ve heard or seen one MSM outlet, you’ve seen them all. These talking points prove it.

Why is the press collaborating like this? If they’re not reporting in unison, then why in the hell are they getting defensive in unison? Likely because the MSM is finally getting called out on their complicity in the enemy’s propaganda, and the MSM is getting awfully defensive about it! Theyre getting so defensive that they’re resorting to telling us that things are worse in Iraq than what they’re telling us. Laura Ingraham is right: “…there is a group of people who are invested in America’s defeat, in one of the most important conflicts in our nation’s history…” They are the left and the MSM…pardon the redundancy.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

March 22, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pedophile teacher beats charges

Debra LaFave, the hottie teacher in Tampa who boinked her 14-year-old student, had her charges dismissed yesterday by the prosecutor. Story here.

I’m sure I’m not the only one asking this question, but what if the teacher had been a man and the student a female? Does anyone honestly think the charges would have been dropped against a male teacher in this situation?

Anywho, LaFave holds a press conference afterwards and says (among many things) that the affair was due to…bipolar disorder. Yessiree, the disorder that makes your highs really high and your lows really low caused her to get hot and bothered over a 14-year-old boy. I have no doubt that she has some sort of mental disorder that played a role in her jumping the bones of a high school boy…but it ain’t bipolar disorder!

Is the boy, now 16, scarred for life? Who knows? If I had to guess, I’d say that I doubt he’s scarred. Heck, he may feel confident as can be! While I’ll be the first to admit that I would have loved to have had a teacher like LaFave growing up, I’ll also admit that my reaction as a parent would have probably been the same as that of the parents of LaFave’s victim: outrage.

She confessed. The victim didn’t want to testify. LaFave’s lawyers said that she was “too pretty” for prison (which apparently didn’t cross her mind in the back of the SUV with her boytoy). In the end, the prosecuting attorney declined to press charges.

My sole concern is the double-standard that exists over the issue. A male teacher has consensual sex with a female student, and he’s a monster and needs to be locked up for a long time. A female teacher has consensual sex with a male student, and she’s a poor soul who just needs some help. The male teacher is acting on male aggression and can’t control his testosterone-laden urges! The female teacher is a dainty young thing who was just misguided and crying out for help!

Again, the boy is probably fine. Many of us think he’s a lucky little b@stard to have scored with a hot teacher. Many of us think “How would I have reacted had that happened to MY son, by a person in a position of trust and authority?” However, I have to wonder if the forgotten victim here isn’t the justice system.

March 22, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Shrillary’s the boss

Since that embarassing incident where Her Highness Shrillary Clinton was criticizing the Dubai Ports deal while her hubby thought it was a good idea and tried to get buddies a couple of jobs there, Her Highness had to re-assert herself in the family food chain. So the edict was handed down:

Hillary wears the pants in the Clinton family.

Well, duh! Everyone knows that she wears the pants, because Bill doesn’t wear any!

But I want to know where this sense of equality is with Her Highness with regards to Bill? I mean, she did once say “I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president!” regarding the release of subpoenaed documents. She felt she was his equal back then (despite the fact that he, not she, was the one elected), but not now? This must be that affirmative action thingee, huh?

March 22, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gallup drops CNN like a bad habit

Gallup has been teaming with CNN in its polling since 1992, back when CNN still had viewers. Gallup says that it’s due in part to CNN’s tanked viewership. CNN disagrees. Whom to believe?

CNN’s take:

“We want to make it clear that the decision to not renew our polling arrangement had to do with GALLUP’s desire to produce their own broadcasts and not about CNN viewership figures. In fact, GALLUP had negotiated with us for four months in an effort to extend the partnership.”

Gallup’s internal memo by by Jim Clifton, Chairman & CEO of Gallup:

We have chosen “not” to renew our contract with CNN.

We have had a great partnership with CNN but it is not the right alignment for our future. The longtime partnership has been very helpful to The Gallup Poll as it put us “back big” fifteen years ago when our famous Gallup Poll had lost most of its national coverage. Our CNN partnership helped us make a great comeback. We had a great run as we just cut our 4000th segment this week.

The Gallup Poll will go on with more polling than ever, but with new distribution channels.

WHY. 1) CNN has far fewer viewers than it did in the past and we feel that our brand was getting lost and diluted combined with the CNN brand. We have only about 200 thousand viewers during our CNN segments.

Ouch. The Clinton News Network has fallen mightily since its glory days of the first Gulf War, hasn’t it? Aw, who cares? Ted Turner has been telling us for years that ratings don’t matter. Apparently, Gallup disagrees. Continuing:

2) We are creating our own e-broadcasting programs and we don’t want to be married to one broadcast network. We don’t want to move to another network like CBS or Fox but rather become our own network. We cannot do this while married to CNN.

Fair enough. However:

3) By dissolving our partnership with CNN we believe that Frank and other Gallup analysts will be seen as more independent so they will be more likely to be invited on a wide variety of television shows rather than primarily linked to CNN. We believe with this new found independence, we will get covered by more broadcast media because we are not the poll of their competitor.

By “independent”, do they mean “unbiased”? No way…after all, who could ever think the Clinton News Network is unbiased?

In closing:

We have offered to help CNN find a new polling partner and to be as helpful as we can during this transition.

How about Zogby? Considering every poll he’s released since 2000 has been slanted towards Democrats (including his laughable poll right before the election in 2004 showing that Kerry would win 311 electoral votes), conflicts of interest, and his rampant family anti-Semitism and terrorism apologist attitudes, Zogby would be a perfect match for CNN!

March 22, 2006 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment