Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Government schools and “multiculturalism”

What’s in a NAME? This is

When he was governor of Maryland in 2004, Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. stirred a hornet’s nest when he denounced multiculturalism as “bunk” on a talk-radio show. Because many Americans believe multiculturalism merely means teaching children in a wholesome way about diverse cultures, Mr. Ehrlich drew heat.

Now, the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME), the main advocacy organization for multiculturalism, is coming to Baltimore to hold its 17th annual national convention tomorrow through Sunday.

Here is a perfect opportunity to examine the agenda and see if the former governor had a point.

School board members ought to be particularly interested, because they approve the doling out of taxpayers’ money for K-12 teachers from every state to attend the NAME convention.

They ought to be welcome to sit in on any of the workshops and determine what multicultural messages their teachers are absorbing for use in the classroom.

The co-sponsors of multiculturalism’s biggest gathering include several beneficiaries of tax money, including the Maryland affiliate of the National Education Association (a longtime NAME ally), George Mason University and even the Maryland State Department of Education.

School board members could start by attending one of the half- or full-day workshops on Halloween. Here are some of the choices from the NAME program:

“The Unbearable Whiteness of Being: Dismantling White Privilege and Supporting Anti-Racist Education in Our Classrooms and Schools.” Taught by a professor from St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, this session “is designed to help educators identify and deconstruct their own white privilege and in so doing more deeply commit themselves to anti-racist teaching and critical multicultural teaching.”

“Talking About Religious Oppression and Unpacking Christian Privilege.” This session, taught by a team of professors, “will examine the dynamics of Christian privilege and oppression of minority religious groups and nonbelievers as constructed and maintained on three distinct levels: individual, institutional and societal. A historical and legal lecturette will be presented and participants will engage in interactive learning modules.”

“Beyond Celebrating Diversity: Teaching Teachers How to be Critical Multicultural Educators.” Taught by NAME regional director Paul Gorski, founder of the activist group EdChange, this session will start from the premise that multiculturalism’s greatest danger “comes from educators who ostensibly support its goals, but whose work – cultural plunges, food fairs, etc. – reflects a compassionate conservative consciousness rather than social justice. This session focuses on preparing teachers, not for celebrating diversity, but for achieving justice in schools and society.”

Workshops at NAME annual conventions (six of which I have attended since 1993) repeatedly advocate the teaching of “social justice.” That term never seems to be defined, but its users simplify all American life as a saga of the oppressed vs. the oppressors. Skin color, national origin, gender, religion and sexual preference are among the qualities that put all individuals into one category or the other.

There is method in such vagueness. The great free-market economist Friedrich Hayek once observed that entire tomes on social justice never offer a definition. As Michael Novak elaborated in an article in the December 2000 edition of the journal First Things, the term becomes “an instrument of ideological intimidation for the purpose of gaining the power of legal coercion.”

Not just in the daylong institutes but also in more than 150 smaller-group sessions that go on almost hourly throughout a NAME convention, presenters instruct teachers to go back to their schools and become social justice warriors. Those who are white are supposed to transcend their oppressor status by becoming change agents. Those who are Christian should feel just as guilty as the whites for all those their faith has victimized. Nothing but evil has come from the European cultures that led the way in America’s founding.

It is not necessary to accept my contention that ideological indoctrination permeates the multiculturalists’ deliberations. Go to and read the full convention program. Better yet, ask to attend sessions that are of particular interest to you. After all, your tax money is paying for them, and for the lessons that teachers bring back for your children.

“Multiculturalism” is nothing more than judging people based on their race, religion, sexual inclinations, or other group aspect…not on a person’s individual indentity.  Our kids are to be taught to reject their own individual identities and embrace their “group identity”!  “Multiculturalism” doctrine loathes individuality and will not tolerate it.  That’s why it is endorsed by the left.  Dr. King is rolling in his grave.

October 31, 2007 Posted by | bigotry, political correctness, public education | 5 Comments

Justice Stevens turned against death penalty when we killed Pearl Harbor architect

Wow.  Just “wow”!  Just when I thought these bedwetting liberals on the Supreme Court couldn’t appall me any more than they already do, I read this:

[Justice Stevens] won a bronze star for his [World War II] service as a cryptographer, after he helped break the code that informed American officials that Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander of the Japanese Navy and architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, was about to travel to the front. Based on the code-breaking of Stevens and others, U.S. pilots, on Roosevelt’s orders, shot down Yamamoto’s plane in April 1943.

Stevens told me he was troubled by the fact that Yamamoto, a highly intelligent officer who had lived in the United States and become friends with American officers, was shot down with so little apparent deliberation or humanitarian consideration. The experience, he said, raised questions in his mind about the fairness of the death penalty. “I was on the desk, on watch, when I got word that they had shot down Yamamoto in the Solomon Islands, and I remember thinking: This is a particular individual they went out to intercept,” he said. “There is a very different notion when you’re thinking about killing an individual, as opposed to killing a soldier in the line of fire.” Stevens said that, partly as a result of his World War II experience, he has tried on the court to narrow the category of offenders who are eligible for the death penalty and to ensure that it is imposed fairly and accurately. He has been the most outspoken critic of the death penalty on the current court. 

Oh. My. God.

Eugene Volokh has several reasons as to why this is a preposterous, absurd view to take, especially the fact that Yamamoto was a military target who had masterminded the “9/11 of the time” at Pearl Harbor.  But I was perplexed as to how Stevens could possibly connect the targeting of a military commander with the American death penalty.  Volokh does a great job expanding on that:

And where exactly is the connection to the death penalty? Consider the chief arguments against the death penalty: the person being executed might be innocent; it’s just wrong for the state to kill people; others can be kept equally safe by locking the person up for life; the death penalty is likely to be applied in arbitrary or prejudiced ways. None of them work here. 

Indeed, good and decent people have legitimate concerns with the death penalty, most of which for the reasons that are outlined above.  However, none of those reasons are pertinent in the discussion about Yamamoto! Ponders Ace:

Wonder what Stevens thought about our “execution” of al Zarqawi, and how much he regrets not being able to sign a stay of execution for this wonderful man.

Stevens is no spring chicken, and will likely hang it up in the next term or two.  The thought of a younger Stevens getting put onto the Supreme Court is terrifying, which is why it is so important not to let the left regain the keys to the Oval Office.

October 31, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, Supreme Court | 2 Comments

Shrillary was for licenses for criminal aliens…before she was against it

Not only is Her Highness for and then against licenses, she said it before she didn’t say it!  Now that, my friends, is talent!  From Suitably Flip:

Criminey.  Asked in tonight’s debate about why she supports Governor Spitzer’s illegal immigrant voter registration drive, Hillary seemed to accidentally back herself into the corner of estimating the number of illegal immigrants in New York State.  After stammering a bit, she took a swing: “Several million.”  Yowza.  Spitzer himself pegged the number as being between 500,000 and a million.  Still a huge number, but Clinton’s guess was off by as much as a factor of 10, depending on how you take your “several”.  How seriously can we assume she’s analyzed this issue if she can’t even quantify the problem anywhere near the right ballpark in her own state.

Russert went on to press her about whether she does or does not support the plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, something she’s explicitly supported in recent days in New Hampshire.  Ever resolute, she went on to firmly declare that she both does and does not support such a plan, and furthermore, that she both did and did not ever say such a thing in New Hampshire.

Even more amazing is the fact that she’s absolutely right.  She managed to do both.

Video of the Hildebeast’s waffling is here

Kerry redux, 2008 edition.  Friggin’ wonderful.

October 31, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, hypocrisy, illegal immigration | 3 Comments

Kooky Kucinich’s “pots and kettles” moment

Dennis Kucinich, the man who bankrupted Cleveland as mayor and now wants to do the same to America as president, says that he saw a space ship.  Then he says that Bush is the nutjob.

Project much, Kooky?

October 31, 2007 Posted by | hypocrisy, moonbats | 2 Comments

Pe-loco: Shhh! I support Rangel’s tax-thru-the-nose scheme, but not “officially”

The headline reads thusly: “Pelosi finesses tax message”.  I suppose that sounds a lot better than “I think we should implement an oppressive tax structure that returns us to Jimmah Carter’s tax days”, wouldn’t you say?  We call that “trying to polish a turd.”  From The Hill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi  (D-Calif.) is finessing her support of Rep. Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) controversial new tax bill, highlighting Democrats’ concern about how Republicans plan to use it in the 2008 elections.

Following the unveiling of arguably the most politically explosive domestic policy bill of the 110th Congress last Thursday, Pelosi seemed to wholeheartedly support the tax overhaul authored by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel.

“I certainly support his plan,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said to the assembled reporters.

But when the transcript of the briefing came out, words were inserted — highlighted by brackets — clarifying that she supported his goal, if not his specific proposals.

The final transcript read: “I certainly support his plan [to begin tax reform.]”

The distinction is an important one. Rangel was immediately criticized by the GOP as he announced his highly controversial tax plan and Republicans started trying to tie the plan to Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.

The change makes it clear that the House’s Democratic leader is supporting only the concept of changing tax laws, not every one of Rangel’s proposed changes, which would raise taxes for people with higher incomes and cut them for those with lower incomes.

The change didn’t take. Stories in The Associated Press and Congressional Quarterly (CQ) ran the initial quote.

The Federal News Service and LexisNexis transcripts don’t include the change. The CQ transcript, which notes at the top, “AS RELEASED BY REP. PELOSI’S OFFICE,” does include the after-the-fact change in brackets.

Republicans criticized the change, but irritated Pelosi aides said too much is being made of an innocent change that was not intended to deceive.

“It is clear she didn’t say it, but we put in there, in brackets, to clarify her intent,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in an e-mail exchange. “She personally supports Rangel’s plan/bill to begin tax reform, but Congress will work its will.” 

It’s not the first time that Republicans have faulted Democrats for changing the record. After a vote was incorrectly gaveled to a close too early on Aug. 2, Republicans say Democratic leaders scrubbed from The Congressional Record many of the floor comments of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Boehner.

“Don’t like the outcome of a vote? Change it. Don’t like the way transcripts read? Scrub them,” Kennedy added.

Yeah, sure.  San Fran Nan was enthuiastic about just a generic “tax modification”, huh?  What a crock!  Rangel represents the Democrats’ class warfare mentality, and now Peloser and her ilk are trying their best damage control.  They’re afraid that they’ll be seen as the socialist tax-and-spend achievement-averse leftists that they truly are.

Rangel will suffer no repercussions for his socialism.  After all, he represents Harlem, and since most of his constituents are poor enough to pay little to no income taxes anyway, what would they care?

October 30, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, Pelosi, socialism, taxes | 4 Comments

Kos kooks: Bush destroyed my marriage!

Is there anything that the moonbats can’t blame on Bush?  I’m going to go out on a limb and guess “No” on that.  From Right Wing News:

Let this thread over at the Daily Kos be a warning to you: life is bigger than politics. Yes, politics and ideology are important, but you shouldn’t take things to such an extreme that you let it make you miserable or wreck your relationships with your friends or family.

Granted, sometimes you will run into people who are really loud and obnoxious about their political views, so much so that it’s difficult to deal with them, but hopefully people like that will be unusual in your life.

If you’re getting so into politics that it’s destroying your relationships, it might be time to step back and put things in perspective lest you end up like the Kossacks who actually blame George Bush for ruining their friendships and marriages…

angrybird: Have the Bush years taken a toll on your relationships?I wrote a diary a short time ago about how the Bush administration helped ruin my marriage. It wasn’t because my husband was a Bush supporter or anything…it was because of all the stresses from job loses, living without health insurance and getting sick, to my husband being forced to take a job where he wasn’t home much that helped ruin my marriage.

However…I started thinking about other relationships that have indeed been killed because those people where Bush supporters.

…Please share your stories about how the bush administration has taken it’s toll on your relationships; they can be stories from economy related to the personal. I promise you will feel better if you share :-)” 

Well, my large-chested hot college girlfriend and I broke up in 1994, so I guess I should blame that on Bill Clinton.  Just like that, my relationship with them…er, her…was over.  Damn you, Bubba…damn you to hell!  For those of you on the left, this paragraph is sarcasm (the buxom girlfriend part is true, Bubba being the source of our dissolution is not).

You should give yourself a chuckle and read the rest of the bat guano blaming Dubya for moonbats’ inability to maintain a nurturing relationship.  While I don’t get off on broken marriages, I have little sympathy for people whose lives are so wrapped up in politics that it destroys their ability to forge deep emotional bonds with other people.  In short: get a life.

October 30, 2007 Posted by | moonbats | 3 Comments

Romney compares Shrillary to an intern

During an interview with Sean Hannity, Mitt Romney says this about Her Highness:

She hasn’t run anything, and the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern. You need to have experience actually leading and running things. 

That’s preposterous!  I mean, the biggest difference between Hillary and an intern is that Bubba sleeps with an intern.  C’mon, Mitt, be a little more accurate next time!

October 30, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, Romney | 3 Comments

UK residents’ exodus for better health care

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.  Tons of them are leaving the mess known as the National Health System in Britain:

Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS – with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year.

And by the end of the decade 200,000 “health tourists” will fly as far as Malaysa and South Africa for major surgery to avoid long waiting lists and the rising threat of superbugs, according to a new report.

The first survey of Britons opting for treatment overseas shows that fears of hospital infections and frustration of often waiting months for operations are fuelling the increasing trend.

The Brits tell us normal Americans what we already knew: Michael Moore was full of feces in his portrayal of the NHS as the panacea of health care.  Truth is, Moore’s characterizations were, like everything else he puts out, fabrications and distortions:

Sicko, like all Moore’s films, is about an important and emotive subject – healthcare. He contrasts the harsh and exclusive system in the US with the European ideal of universal socialised medicine, equal and free for all, and tries to demonstrate that one is wrong and the other is right. So far, so good; there are cases to be made.

Unfortunately Sicko is a dishonest film. That is not only my opinion. It is the opinion of Professor Lord Robert Winston, the consultant and advocate of the NHS. When asked on BBC Radio 4 whether he recognised the NHS as portrayed in this film, Winston replied: “No, I didn’t. Most of it was filmed at my hospital [the Hammersmith in west London], which is a very good hospital but doesn’t represent what the NHS is like.”

I didn’t recognise it either, from years of visiting NHS hospitals. Moore painted a rose-tinted vision of spotless wards, impeccable treatment, happy patients who laugh away any suggestion of waiting in casualty, and a glamorous young GP who combines his devotion to his patients with a salary of £100,000, a house worth £1m and two cars. All this, and for free.

This, along with an even rosier portrait of the French welfare system, is what Moore says the state can and should provide. You would never guess from Sicko that the NHS is in deep trouble, mired in scandal and incompetence, despite the injection of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

While there are good doctors and nurses and treatments in the NHS, there is so much that is inadequate or bad that it is dishonest to represent it as the envy of the world and a perfect blueprint for national healthcare. It isn’t. 

Sorry, Hilldawg (and other leftists running for president), but I don’t want that kind of crap coming here to America.  Let the Euros keep it.

October 29, 2007 Posted by | Euros, Michael Moore, socialism | 6 Comments

Quote of the day

Irony must have gotten lost in the translation.  From USA Today:

Abdullah told the BBC that Britain was not doing enough in the war on terror. He made the comments hours before arriving in London for a state visit.

“I believe that most countries are not taking this issue too seriously, including, unfortunately, Great Britain,” he said through a translator. “We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain, but unfortunately no action was taken and it may have been able to avert the tragedy.” 

In other news, Ted Kennedrunk doesn’t think that the government has done enough to stop drunken drivers from allowing young women to die a slow, torturous death in rivers and get away with it (Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment).  Seriously, how do you say “sheer, unadulterated gall” in Arabic?

October 29, 2007 Posted by | hypocrisy, quote of the day, religion of peace | 1 Comment

Global “warming” causing killer hurricanes that didn’t happen

The Goron told us in his science fiction flick that global “warming” caused massive killer hurricanes.  If true, then are to conclude that global “warming” no longer exists due to the historic drop in hurricane activity?  From FSU:

Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy). However, the year is not over… 

Indeed, it is not yet over.  However, unless the Rovian Kyoto-crushing climate machine(patent pending) kicks into high gear soon, it’s safe to assume that the rotund female has begun singing.

“Experts” insanely predicted a 2006 hurricane season that would eclipse the busy 2005 season.  It never happened.  They then predicted a busy 2007 season.  It hasn’t happened.  At what point can we stop referring to these people as “experts”?

October 29, 2007 Posted by | global warming | 2 Comments

Criminal aliens may be forced to further criminalize

This is rich!  From the NYT:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s retreat from his plan to permit illegal immigrants to obtain the same kind of driver’s licenses as other New Yorkers drew angry reactions yesterday from civil liberties advocates and immigrant groups, some of whom described the shift as a stunning betrayal. 

In other words, Spitzer has betrayed…criminals!  Oh, the inhumanity!  But check out this nugget:

…The separate licenses could also serve as an invitation for law enforcement to arrest anyone carrying one on immigration charges, said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. She added that the new proposal could send illegal immigrants further into the shadows, compelling them to drive with forged or no licenses and without insurance

Got that?  People who have already broken the law to get here will be forced to further break the law to remain here.  Naturally, that would be our fault, right?  I don’t see why they would hesitate to forge licenses, when they already use stolen/forged Social Security cards.  Then again, I suppose that’s also our fault.

Do these morons even listen to themselves when they talk?

October 29, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration | 4 Comments

Jimmah documentary is box office bomb

The film did about as well as Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter did during his 1980 campaign.  That is to say, it was a thumping of near historic proportions.  From Bryan:

Hollywood director Jonathan Demme seems to have too much money and too little sense. Demme, who directed The Silence of the Lambs and Swimming to Cambodia (no, that second one is not about John Kerry’s Rambo-like exploits and achievements in time travel, fighting under the illegal orders of a president who hadn’t taken office yet) bankrolled Jimmy Carter: The Man from Plains. It’s a documentary that follows the ex-president around as he tours to promote his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

On its first weekend, the film did a whopping 10 grand at the box office in 7 theatres. That works out to about $1500 per theater, not enough to cover a single screening fee.

How surprising. Who wouldn’t want to sit through two hours watching an old man dodge questions about plagiarism, his book’s extreme anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bisa, his illogical equation of Israel with South African apartheid, and his repeat offenses of snuggling with anti-American tinpots? Who wouldn’t want to see the self-righteous man who helped usher in the Iranian mullahcracy hug his Nobel and chastise the president who is having to clean up the mess that Carter left for all of his successors?

How could Demme have misjudged the movie-going public so badly?

Well, he’ll always have public schools and universities sell The Man From Plains to. It’ll probably end up in double features with An Inconvenient Truth with a year. 

Despite the MSM’s spin to the contrary, the irrefutable fact is that Americans do not hold Carter in the same high regard as the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy).

October 29, 2007 Posted by | Carter, dhimmitude, Hollyweirdos | Leave a comment

Rhodes finds real source of CA fires

Fresh from her “drunken stupor”/”walking the dog” wingnut intimidation that wasn’t accident that resulted in her having a few teeth knocked loose from that whacked-out gourd of hers, Air America radio boob Randi Rhodes has discovered just how those wildfires got started in California.  From Ian Schwartz:

Randi Rhodes went on an extremely bizarre rant (even for her standards) during her Air America show this afternoon. Rhodes actually thinks Blackwater played a significant role in the wildfires started by arsonists. Rhodes said she used Google to search for possible reasons why arson was responsible for several fires and Blackwater was the result she yieled. She also came to this conclusion due to the fact that several of Blackwater’s former employees now work for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA). Does the lib talker believe Blackwater and their cohorts in the Schwarzenegger administration intentionally set fire in response to protesters AND to clear more room for their new facilitates in Southern California, thus killing two birds with one stone? “Nobody is saying Blackwater set the fires, that is nobody that doesn’t want their house burned down,” Rhodes said referring to those who protested the company’s westward expansion. Nobody? Read the transcript below the audio to decide for yourself.

I started just doing Google searches to try and figure out. You know, arson, arson, it was like crazy trying to figure out why is that being downplayed? (Because no one other than tinfoil nutters like you is stupid enough to believe that? Just guessin’. – Ed.) Why is that, you know, just a small part of the story? And you know, every time I look for it what comes up, believe it or not, is that Blackwater wants to move to San Diego and build this giant complex in San Diego right where most of the evacuations are taking place and you know. You just know wherever there is fire, this administration will be out there doing what it does best and that is fanning the flames, you know. It just spooks me, I can’t explain to you how creepy this whole thing is that you know, you’ve got these fires. Some of them are thought to be the work of arsonists and in the same breath you’ve got a community that’s on fire that just recently protested Blackwater West. Just recently said no to Blackwater and apparently you don’t do that. I mean, I don’t even know what to think. You know, nobody is saying Blackwater set the fires, that is nobody that doesn’t want their house burned down. Nobody is saying that, but it is all so bizarre that this is America and you have to sort of sit there and wonder … arson, same place Blackwater West wants to be, people protesting. And then you find out that some of the guys that used to work for Blackwater are now in Schwarzenegger’s administration. It’s all so creepy.

Not nearly as creepy as this feeble-minded wench having a mouthpiece for a couple of listeners to hear.  As Allah puts it:

The conspiracy theorist mindset laid bare: identify your enemy, identify some newsworthy misfortune, then connect the two in any way you can. 

To summarize:  It actually wasn’t Bushcheney McRummyburton punishing the Left Coast voters with hellfire and brimstone for rejecting him in 2000 and 2004!  Nope, it was that leftist boogeyman that is quickly catching up to Halliburton on the “rightwing corporations leftards fear will take over America and drink our children’s plasma through crazy straws”, AKA Blackwater.

I would say that moonbattery pays the bills for her, but considering that Air America went bankrupt, I don’t think that’s the case.

October 27, 2007 Posted by | Air America, moonbats | 3 Comments

Dems break campaign promise, start slacking off the workweek

Ah, yes…the most ethical and hard-working Congress evah!  From the NYT:

Shortly after winning a majority last year, Democrats triumphantly declared that they would put Congress back to work, promising an “end to the two-day workweek.” And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point.

But 10 months into the session, with their legislative agenda often in gridlock with the Bush administration and a big election year looming, the Democrats are now planning a lighter schedule when the 110th Congress begins its second year in mid-January.

The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.

Explaining that decision to reporters, Mr. Hoyer said, “I do intend to have more time for members to work in their districts and to be close to their families.”

His comments drew snickers from Republicans, who are quite happy to share their view that the American people did not get much value for all the extra time lawmakers spent in Washington.

“Is this a reward for our accomplishments in 2007?” asked Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip.

It’s a good thing we got rid of those lazy #ss Republicans, and replaced them with lazy #ss Democrats!  Can’t get anything done, so why bother trying, right?

Get this:

“Unlike Congress, the American people do not mistake motion for progress,” said Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, Republican of Michigan. “They want results. And given the approval ratings, they are certainly convinced they aren’t getting them.”

Mr. McCotter said changing the schedule was an example of Democrats’ breaking promises. “They said ‘five-day weeks,’ ” he said. And he scoffed at the notion that Mr. Hoyer was also responding to Republicans who wanted more time in their home districts.

“I wish he had that much concern and was as responsive to Republicans’ calls for input on major legislation,” Mr. McCotter said.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, said the Democrats had to put in the hours to make up for Republican failings last year. “There was so much left undone by the 12 years of Republican control of the Congress, it was absolutely essential that we put our nose to the grindstone,” she said.

So the Republicans failed so badly last year, that the Dems needed to put in extra time…which naturally means that they’re going to put in the needed time by working less!  I’m going to try that line on my boss, and see how that works.  Wish me luck, my friends!

October 27, 2007 Posted by | corruption, hypocrisy | Leave a comment

Quote of the day

From John McCain:

“Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn’t attend. I was tied up at the time.”

While I don’t like McCain at all, I’ve got to give him credit for this quote.  Nice one, sir!

October 26, 2007 Posted by | McCain, quote of the day | 2 Comments

Biden: Iowa schools better than DC schools due to fewer blacks

When he’s not waxing eloquent about the clean, bright, articulate Negro in the race or about the prevelance of Indians at 7-11 stores, he’s busy explaining how Iowan kids do better in schools than those in the nation’s capital.  From CNN’s blog:

In what the Washington Post is describing as a “stumble,” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in an interview with the paper Wednesday that Washington’s high minority population is one of the reasons for the city’s education problems.

Explaining why schools in Iowa are performing better than those in Washington, D.C., Biden told the Post, “There’s less than one percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than four of five percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with.”

Exit question (and yes, I know you see this one coming): What would the level of outrage been had, say, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani or “Teh Fred” said the same thing?

October 26, 2007 Posted by | Biden, bigotry | 8 Comments

Ron Paul accepts big #ss donation from Truther head honcho

For those of you who don’t know, Truthers (or, as we normal Americans derisively call them, “Troofers”) are the barking moonbats who think that Bush engineered 9/11 for (insert paranoid asshat reason here).  The head of the Troofer movement is certifiable nutbar Alex Jones, who actually has a radio show.  (Sidebar: if he really thinks the government’s out to shut him up from “exposing the truth about 9/11”, how does he explain the fact that they allow him to have a radio show?)

Republican presidential candidate and Bircheresque crank Ron Paul routinely goes on Jones’ radio show for some mutual man-love.  Now, we find out that the 9/11 Nutter donated $2,300 to Paul’s campaign.  But hey, just because Paul lowers himself into the gutter with Jones, and just because Jones would donate $2,300 to Paul, and just because Paul won’t condemn the Troofer “movement” like Bubba did, does not mean that Paul is a Troofer, m’kay?  I mean, I’m sure Jones would gladly plunk down $2,300 to any other politician who subscribes to the heresy that 9/11 was committed by jihadist camelhumpers and not Bushrummy McHitlerburton!  For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.

As Ace superbly states it:

I don’t completely buy that a candidate isn’t responsible for his supporters. If a campaign attracts so many malcontents, racists, anti-semites, paranoids, America-haters, conspiracy-mongers, and political pornographers, well, I assume there’s a reason for this grand crossing-the-streams of weirdness.

October 26, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, Ron Paul | 1 Comment

Props to Bubba for challenging Truther

Yes, I said that Bubba deserves credit for this.  I may never say that again, but I call it like I see it.  From WCCO:

Clinton’s 50-minute speech, which started about an hour behind schedule, was derailed briefly by several hecklers in the audience who shouted that the 2001 terrorist attacks were a fraud. Rather than ignoring them, Clinton seemed to relish a direct confrontation.

“A fraud? No, it wasn’t a fraud,” Clinton said, as the crowd cheered him on. “I’ll be glad to talk to you if you shut up and let me talk.”

When another heckler shouted that the attacks were an “inside job,” Clinton took even greater umbrage.

“An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job,” Clinton said. “You guys have got to be careful, you’re going to give Minnesota a bad reputation.” 

Minnesota has a bad reputation for a number of things, like entertaining the notion of sending moonbat and not-that-funny “comedian” Al Franken to the Senate, not to mention them sending Keith Ellison to the House.

Bubba’s still a slimy SOB, but on this single occasion, I give the man his due. Troofers iz dum!

October 25, 2007 Posted by | Bill Clinton, moonbats | 2 Comments

Recovering Libertarian

This is an awesome column by Stephen Green that I certainly relate to and that really got me thinking.  Please read the column, excerpts of which follow:

… Being a Libertarian was hard work, but I set right at it. I even went so far as to read the entire party platform. Pro-choice? Right on! Free trade? Hell, yes! Privatize all the schools? Start with mine! Abolish that Social Security Ponzi scheme? I was never going to see a dime, anyway! Bring all our troops home from Europe and Japan and South Korea and everywhere else and close half our embassies and cut defense spending at least in half and forget about enforcing freedom of the seas? Whoa, Nelly! “But,” I rationalized, “they don’t really mean all that stuff. A Libertarian president wouldn’t be that naive.”

But come election day, I held my nose, covered my eyes and pulled the lever for George HW Bush — no easy feat with only two hands. There was still a Cold War to be won. I could be a real Libertarian — we all would be! — once the Soviets caved in.

Almost exactly a year later, that’s exactly what happened. On November 9, 1989, the people of East Berlin took hammers and chisels and even their bare hands to that Wall. Soon, the governments of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, and even Romania had fallen — mostly peacefully. The peoples of Eastern Europe had liberated themselves from Communist oppression, and at long last I was free to throw off the last shackles of my Republican heritage.

I changed my party affiliation to Libertarian, smiling all the way back from the voter registrar’s office.

In 2000, I changed my party registration back to Republican for one reason, and one good Libertarian reason only: To vote against John McCain (and his statist threats of campaign finance reform) in the primary. I fully intended to switch back before the next general election.

Then we all woke up one morning to learn that airliners had crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and into the wooded hills of Pennsylvania. “Well, here’s a war even a good Libertarian like me can support.” We’d been attacked, directly, and we knew who the culprits were and where their protectors and sponsors were. We would go after them with such righteous fury that no one would dare strike New York City ever again.

Boy, was I wrong.

The angry folks at Liberty were mad at most everybody but Islamic terrorists. One even went so far as to denounce the Afghan War as “racist.” It was all imperialism this, and blowback that, and without a care in the world for protecting American lives, commerce, or, well, liberty. Then Postrel turned over Reason to Nick Gillespie, who seemed more interested in presenting libertarianism as something hip, arch, fun — and ultimately unserious. Such should have been no surprise, coming from the former editor of a magazine called Suck.

I felt abandoned, betrayed, by my comrades. By my former comrades.

If Libertarians couldn’t agree about the clear-cut case for war in Afghanistan, you can imagine how Iraq must have divided us. I had to stop reading Liberty months before my subscription finally, mercifully, ran out. Blogger friends of mine stopped emailing me. Ron Paul, whose name once graced the back of my first car, started sounding to me, less like a principled defender of American liberty, and more like a suited-up reject from the Summer of Love. …

When I started this blog in 2004, I idenitified myself as a libertarian.  Since then, I’ve noticed that while I am libertarian on a number of issues that conservatives reject (such as legalization of prostitution and drugs), I am conservative on a number of issues that libertarians reject (I support the war against Islamic terrorism, I’m not reflexively anti-religion, etc.).  I eventually identified myself as neo-libertarian, which may be a more accurate description.  Or perhaps, I can best be identified as either (a) a libertarian with conservative leanings; or (b) a conservative with libertarian leanings.

In other words, I think that we are all entitled to life, liberty, and property that cannot be denied or deprived without due process, and we should be able to exercise those rights in any manner that we see fit so long as the exercise thereof doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights to do the same.  I also think that without a strong national security system (which libertarians tend to trivialize in importance), all of our rights and freedoms mean nothing.

October 25, 2007 Posted by | libertarian | 5 Comments

Criminal aliens stealing fire relief supplies

From San Diego:

Six illegal immigrants who were suspected of stealing relief supplies from Qualcomm Stadium were arrested by Border Patrol agents after San Diego police stopped them Wednesday morning.

A woman who had been evacuated to the stadium told officers she saw the group load up two pickup trucks and a car with cots and other supplies, leave and then return, said police Sgt. Jesse Cesen~a.

When officers stopped them, a member of the group said they were being paid to take things of value from the stadium.

“They were stealing a lot of stuff,” Cesen~a said. “We took the stuff back and we escorted them out. They were stealing from the people in need.”

Because some members of the group spoke Spanish, officers called Border Patrol agents at the stadium for relief efforts. They determined the people were in the country illegally and arrested them.

I wonder if this is what Jorgé W. Bush had in mind when he said “jobs that Americans won’t do”? If so, he’s correct: I don’t know any Americans who would steal emergency aid (not counting those who work for the U.N., I mean).

I also wonder if a former friend of mine considers these officers to be “quacking” bigots for arresting the thieving hombrés.

October 25, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration | Leave a comment

TNR: The Army publicized documents that…uh…we wanted publicized!

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, here we have TNR trying to blame the Army for TNR’s own malfeasance.  As Allah characterizes it, “TNR very angry that Army didn’t let them pretend Beauchamp conversation never happened.”  Observe:

Reminds me of when Dan Rather said, in the midst of Rathergate, with a very straight face, that if the memos turned out to be fake he’d like to be the one to break that story.

Sometimes those big scoops need to be “helped along” a bit by outside parties, n’est-ce pas?

Franklin Foer, editor of The New Republic, said in an interview that the documents Matt Drudge posted this afternoon–and removed several hours later without explanation–could have only come from the Army.

Mr. Foer said he called TNR’s contact there, Major Kirk Luedeke, as soon as the documents appeared on Drudge’s Web site. According to Mr. Foer, Major Luedeke told him that the Army was “investigating the source of the leak,” though they did not explicitly take responsibility for it.

“It’s maddening to see the Army selectively leak to the Drudge Report things that we’ve been trying to obtain from them through Freedom of Information Act requests,” Mr. Foer said. “This fits a pattern in this case where the army has leaked a lot of stuff to right wing blogs.”

Mr. Foer said TNR had been trying since July to get access to some of the documents Mr. Drudge posted, but that the Army had not cooperated.

So Foer couldn’t report on a conversation he himself participated in because the record wasn’t complete yet? Re-read that transcript again. Foer and Scoblic are telling Beauchamp, with no little amount of desperation, that they’re going to have to walk away from the piece if he doesn’t talk to them. Which he doesn’t. By their own formulation his protracted “no comment” is hugely significant and thus, one would think, should merit some kind of mention in TNR, whether or not a new report might be warranted later if further documents were released.

Their defense here is obviously going to be that Beauchamp did offer to “talk” to them, sort of, by promising to release the statements he gave to the Army and that they were simply waiting until they had that material to report the conversation. But … why don’t they have that material yet? Beauchamp agreed to release it to them in part 2 of the transcript, but here we are six weeks later and still no report from TNR. Like Ace says, there are only two possibilities:

1) Beauchamp never authorized the release of these documents to TNR, and TNR is trying to claim the Army has a special duty to give them to TNR, even with Beauchamp stubbornly refusing to sign the release.

2) Beauchamp did authorize the release of all documents specifically pertaining to himself, which is all he could authorize, but that authorization does not cover the statements made by other troops in the unit. So TNR is spinning its failure to get permission from the other soldiers to view their statements as A) due to Army non-cooperation and B) absolving them from having to report any further on the story until they get these documents (which they never will).

They’re “waiting for all the facts to come in” before they do any further reporting on the story, in other words. And since there are no more facts forthcoming, voila: story’s over. Frankly, I’m surprised the Army didn’t leak Beauchamp’s statements and the report of its investigation to TNR just to call their bluff and force their hand.

Update: Says See-Dub, “So we are to believe that the army was previously stonewalling on these documents that show that A: the troops aren’t psychopathic dog-smashers and B: their effete liberal critics were printing falsehoods about them? Documents numerous sources had already FOIA’d? But now they ‘leak’ it?”

Update: Captain Ed’s on the same wavelength. “Just the fact that TNR needed an FOIA request to find out what the Army discovered should have informed them of Beauchamp’s credbility.” 

To summarize: the Army is evil for killing dogs, mocking disfigured women, etc., and then they’re evil again for not letting TNR’s slander go unanswered by proving (to the MSM’s chagrin) that the Army doesn’t kill dogs or mock disfigured women.  Got it?

October 25, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Drudge buries TNR, Beauchamp

To the leftist rag The New Republic: game over, b#tch.  You lost.  I first commented on the Scott Beauchamp “Winter Soldier Syndrome” story here.  But now, Drudge drives a stake into the heart of this fiasco:

WED Oct 24 2007 12:29:44 ET

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained internal documents from the investigation of THE NEW REPUBLIC’S “Baghdad Diarist”, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private turned war correspondent who reported tales of military malfeasance from the Iraq War front.

The documents appear to expose that once the veracity of Beauchamp’s diaries were called into question, and an Army investigation ensued, THE NEW REPUBLIC has failed to publicly account for publishing slanderous falsehoods about the U.S. military in a time of war.

Document 1: Beauchamp Refuses to Stand by Story (Beauchamp Transcript Part 1)

THE NEW REPUBLIC has been standing behind the stories from their Baghdad Diarist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, since questions were first raised about their accuracy over the summer. On August 10, the editors at TNR accused the Army of “stonewalling” their investigation into the stories by preventing them from speaking with Beauchamp. The DRUDGE REPORT has since obtained the transcript of a September 7 call between TNR editor Frank Foer, TNR executive editor Peter Scoblic, and Private Beauchamp. During the call, Beauchamp declines to stand by his stories, telling his editors that “I just want it to end. I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything really.” The editors respond that “we just can’t, in good conscience, continue to defend the piece” without an explanation, but Beauchamp responds only that he “doesn’t care what the public thinks.” The editors then ask Beauchamp to cancel scheduled interviews with the WASHINGTON POST and NEWSWEEK.

Document 2: Beauchamp Admits to “Gross Exaggerations and Inaccurate Allegations” (Beauchamp Transcript Part 2)

The DRUDGE REPORT has also obtained a signed “Memorandum for Record” in which Beauchamp recants his stories and concedes the facts of the Army’s investigation — that his stories contained “gross exaggerations and inaccurate allegations of misconduct” by his fellow soldiers.

Document 3: Army Investigation: Tales “Completely Fabricated,” Beauchamp Wanted to be Hemingway

The third document obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT is the Army’s official report on the investigation into the allegations made by Private Beauchamp. The Army concluded that Beauchamp had “completely fabricated” the story of mocking a disfigured woman, that his description of a “Saddam-era dumping ground” was false, and that claims that he and his men had deliberately targeted dogs with their armored vehicles was “completely unfounded.” Further the report stated “that Private Beauchamp desired to use his experiences to enhance his writing and provide legitimacy to his work possibly becoming the next Hemingway.”

The report concludes that “Private Beauchamp takes small bits of truth and twists and exaggerates them into fictional accounts that he puts forth as the whole truth for public consumption.”

Hot Air does some in-depth analyzing.  It’s clear what the outcome is, though: whatever credibility TNR thought they had is deader than Ted Kennedrunk’s liver.

October 24, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias, shameful | 5 Comments

Hilldawg trashes Mississippians

Not that she stood a Rolex’s chance in Detroit of competing in Ole Miss, but this isn’t exactly the best way to erase that stereotype (a well earned one) of being a northeastern liberal elitist:

Check out this new column by David Yepsen in the Des Moines Register.

In it, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, suggests that one of the reasons she’s not doing as well in Iowa as she is nationally or in other states is because she’s a woman and Iowa has “never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress.”

She says that’s the case with Mississippi, too.

But then she seems to imply she’s not surprised that’s the case down South, but given the “quality,” “openness” and “communitarianism” of Iowa she is surprised that’s the case in Iowa.

Hard not to read that as a slam on Mississippi.

“I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress,” she said. “There has got to be something at work here…

“I think not only do I have to bring people to me, I have to maybe reassure people here maybe more than I do in New Hampshire, which has had a woman governor…

“I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That’s not what I see. That’s not the quality. That’s not the communitarianism, that’s not the openness I see in Iowa.”

Doesn’t that sound like she’s saying she expects Mississippi to be backward but not Iowa?

I asked Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer about this. His response: “Clearly, she was referring to the historical fact that a woman has never been elected Governor or to the House or Senate from those states.”


I’m guessing Her Highness won’t be displaying her fake Southern accent in Mississippi anytime soon.

October 24, 2007 Posted by | bigotry, Hillary, shameful | 7 Comments

Satire alert

You absolutely must read this by The Nose On Your Face!  It’s the Employee Entrance Exam for the NY Times.  Excerpts:

3. The War in Iraq can best be described as:
a. An unmitigated disaster. And illegal.
b. The Mesopotamian Vietnam. And illegal.
c. Illegal. And Illegal.
d. Started by Bush on a dare from one of his “Skull & Bones” buddies after a week-long cocaine bender. And illegal.

5. Why are conservatives so stupid?
a. Because if they were brilliant, they would then be called “liberals.”
b. Studies show that over time, repeatedly running over spotted owls in an SUV and then drinking their blood from your personalized “frat mug” can lower IQ’s by nearly 65%.
c. That is a patently unfair statement. It is not right to stereotype an entire ideology like that. I am deeply offended… almost had you! Actually, I think it’s because of lead exposure from their weekly oil baths.
d. Why is Rosie O’Donnell so reasonable? Why does Bush hate black people? I don’t know, that’s just the way it is.

13. True or Not False: As a boy, Ronald Reagan shaved baby squirrels with a rusty straight razor and then Super-Glued them to the holster of his six-shooter for decorative purposes.
a. True
b. Not False

Go read the rest, and enjoy the hilarity of (a) the post and (b) the comments section, which are rife with humor-impaired moonbats getting bent.

October 24, 2007 Posted by | media bias, satire | 4 Comments

Euros take away foster child because parents won’t endorse homosexuality

This would be impossible to believe, were it not in Eurotrashland.  From Hot Air:

The boy’s been placed now with a kindly atheist family that’s promising to teach him well “the ways of teh ghey.” No no, kidding. He’s languishing in a youth hostel — after having lived with the couple for two years.

It seems they didn’t love thy neighbor quite enough to suit British law.

The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council’s social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour’s new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings…

Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: “I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.

“We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God.”…

Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.

Muslim groups are complaining too, so maybe Christians can ride the coattails of “Islamophobia” to eventual victory here. Exit question: With Britain needing an extra 8,000 foster parents to meet demand, is it time for Britain to do something daring and consider religious families? 

We are reminded of the last time the Euros caved in to queer political correctness: pedophile foster parents sexually abused children in their care because of a P.C. fear of offending gays.  Absurdity abounds in Eurotrashland.

Shortage of foster parents?  Cool, the Euros have an answer: make the number even smaller.  Bloody brilliant, Limeys.

October 24, 2007 Posted by | bigotry, Euros, gay, political correctness | 16 Comments

Obama’s children donors

Not to be outdone by Shrillary’s Hsu-shining corruption, Barry O is angling for some of his own.  Apparently, not only is Osamabama running for the children, but he’s running bankrolled by the children.  From the Washington comPost:

Elrick Williams’s toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year’s presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama.

Such campaign donations from young children would almost certainly run afoul of campaign finance regulations, several campaign lawyers said. But as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.

“It’s not difficult for a banker or a trial lawyer or a hedge fund manager to come up with $2,300, and they’re often left wanting to do more,” said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. “That’s when they look across the dinner table at their children and see an opportunity.”

Asked about the Williams family giving, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, “As a policy, we don’t take donations from anyone under the age of 15.” After being asked by The Post about the matter, he said the children’s donations will be returned.

How about “as a policy, we don’t take donations from anyone still using a teething ring”? That would be a nice start.

October 24, 2007 Posted by | corruption, Obama | 2 Comments

Reid: CA wildfires result of global “warming”

The sleazy unpopular senator from Nevada has a theory as to what’s behind the recent spate of wildfires in southern California:

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package. 

See, if those mean ol’ Republicans would have voted on Reid’s energy plan, then Reid could have stopped global “warming” and southern California wouldn’t be roasting right now.

And to think I thought arsonists may have had something to do with some of these fires!

Wait, Harry, let me guess: global “warming” caused these otherwise decent chaps to lose their minds and go on an arson spree. Is that it?


October 24, 2007 Posted by | global warming, Reid | 1 Comment

“Bush fibbed, people lived!!!”

So sayeth the Mudville Gazette.  Actually, the MSM says it, too, just not in so many words.  Excerpts:

Want more evidence of victory in Iraq? Look no further than Newsweek’s amazing attempt at spin:

The Bush administration is starving for good news out of Iraq, and it may finally have some: new U.S. government statistics showing that violent attacks of all kinds are down to levels not seen since 2005. But until recently, the administration appears to have resisted acknowledging a key element of the new data, because it flies in the face of President George W. Bush’s ongoing rhetorical confrontation with Iran’s clerical regime. According to three senior U.S. officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, the decline in Iraq violence also includes a decrease in the number of attacks attributable to insurgents backed or armed by Iran. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell confirmed to NEWSWEEK that “there has indeed been a drop” in such attacks, but he added that “it’s not entirely clear what the reason for that is.”

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Bush administration has now been accused of trying to cover up good news from Iraq. The second paragraph just piles on the ignorance – with a shocking secret revealed:

Overall trends show a significant drop in violence over the last several months, according to previously unpublished military statistics obtained by NEWSWEEK. During a single week in mid-September, attacks in Iraq totaled about 900—down from about 1,700 a week in June. The number of attacks increased slightly in late September and early October during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. But according to the statistics, the just-ended Ramadan holiday was significantly less violent this year than in the previous two years.

I call on all mainstream media outlets everywhere to join Newsweek’s effort to expose this massive coverup!!!!

This also helps explain why so many Democratic Senators attacked General Petraeus’ credibility a few weeks ago: Just like in ’03, that tricksy Bush had fooled them again! (Bush fibbed, people lived!!!)

Just wait til they discover this never-before published quadruple super secret news from the UN:

Iraq: Violence-related deaths drop ‘remarkably’, say authorities and UNBAGHDAD, 21 October 2007 (IRIN) – Iraqis are breathing a sigh of relief as violence in their war-torn country is ebbing and the number of violence-related victims has dropped sharply since the beginning of this year, according to statistics compiled by the country’s interior, defence and health ministries.

“Violence-related deaths in September dropped remarkably to levels not seen in more than a year as the number [of violence-related deaths] stood at 290 while in September 2006 the number was about 1,400,” Adel Muhsin, the health ministry’s inspector-general, told IRIN in a phone interview.

According to the ministry’s statistics, between January and the end of September 2007, the number of violent deaths involving civilian, police and military in all of Iraq was about 7,100, against 27,000 in the same period of 2006.

According to Muhsin, the average number of dead bodies sent to Baghdad’s main morgue just over a year ago was between 100 and 150 a day. Now, it is no more than 10 bodies a day, and about 50 percent of them are dying in normal circumstances. … 

Meanwhile, CNN and the Washington Post continue to execute the Bush coverup!

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?

ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we’re at the beginning of a trend — and it’s not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on “LOU DOBBS TONIGHT.” Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don’t know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that’s the problem, we don’t know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress.

KURTZ: But let’s say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that’s certainly — that, by any definition, is news.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

October 23, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias | 2 Comments

The left’s “war on children”

Excellent nail-on-the-head column by Mark Steyn, rebutting the “GOP hates kids” bullS-CHIP debate.  Excerpts:

One assumes he means some illegal Republican Party “war on children.” Last Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, as is the fashion, used the phrase “the children” like some twitchy verbal tic, a kind of Democrat Tourette’s syndrome: “This is a discussion about America’s children … We could establish ourselves as the children’s Congress … Come forward on behalf of the children … I tried to do that when I was sworn in as speaker surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: we are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children.”

Etc. So what is the best thing America could do “for the children”? Well, it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. Most of us understand, for example, that Social Security needs to be “fixed” – or we’ll have to raise taxes, or the retirement age, or cut benefits, etc. But, just to get the entitlements debate in perspective, projected public pensions liabilities in the United States are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8 percent of our gross domestic product. In Greece, the equivalent figure is 25 percent – that’s not a matter of raising taxes or tweaking retirement age; that’s total societal collapse.

So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I paid my taxes, I want my benefits.

And so, in a democratic system today’s electors vote to keep the government gravy coming and leave it to tomorrow for “the children” to worry about. That’s the real “war on children” – and every time you add a new entitlement to the budget you make it less and less likely they’ll win it. 

…As I point out in my book, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable communitarianism: Once a fellow’s enjoying the fruits of Euro-style entitlements, he couldn’t give a hoot about the general societal interest; he’s got his, and who cares if it’s going to bankrupt the state a generation hence?

That’s the real “war on children”: in Europe, it’s killing their future. Don’t make the same mistake here.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.  It’s not long, but it is as entertaining as it is enlightening.

October 23, 2007 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, socialism | 3 Comments

Yon calls out the MSM

Michael Yon, correspondent from Afghanistan and Iraq who constantly reports both good and bad news (yes, lefties, there actually is good news from Iraq, and lots of it), is mystified at the disconnect between the reality of Iraq and the steaming pile of bovine loaf that the MSM feeds us.  He’s finally had it!

He’s offering FREE SYNDICATION of his dispatches to National Newspaper Association members.

…Although it took a little back and forth, and some additional pressure from all the other bloggers who started tracking on the topic, the AP finally dispatched a reporter to the scene. The resulting article was picked up by at least one other major media outlet, reaching thousands more people. This got me to thinking: what if I made a similar offer on a more permanent basis to a large media syndication, say, the National Newspaper Association?…

A ballsy move from a guy who sounds pretty damned pissed off. Also in this piece is a brutal take down of the media’s apparently bogus portrayal that Basra is falling apart in the wake of the Brit draw down. Bob Owens at CY gets props for leaning on AP hard too. 

You go, sir!

October 23, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias | Leave a comment