Thursday, May 31, 2007

Hillary Spouts Marxism and No One bats an eye...

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says
Tuesday May 29, 4:41 pm ET
By Holly Ramer, Associated Press Writer
Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity. (Those are the words of Marx, she is advocating communism)

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none." (By killing Liberty and redistribution of wealth?)

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies." (she is advocating communism and government seizure of corporate profit. Are they your values? They certainly are not mine, nor are they the values this country was founded on.)

Clinton spoke at the Manchester School of Technology, which trains high school students for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. The school highlighted one of the nine goals she outlined: increasing support for alternative schools and community colleges.

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said.

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny. (she wants the Government to CONTROL what someone can earn.)

Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance. (Her first thing is redistribution of wealth, the only way to pursue energy independence is to reopen our oil fields and build 10 new refineries, and who is she kidding she wants universal healthcare which has destroyed every healthcare system in every country that it has been attempted.)

In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker, she said. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force. (first of all her base concept is wrong, she is implying that every dime an executive makes is taken away from someone else. Thats not how it works, but once again that is a line straight out of marxism.)

"It's not as if America hasn't been successful these last six years, but the measure of success does not relate to what's happening in households across our country," she said. "It's like trickle down economics, without the trickle." (pure bullshit the economy is doing great, unemployment is the lowest it's ever been, if a democrat was in the whitehouse that would be the headlines at least once a week)

What I find appaling is that she can be honest about advocating Marxism and there is not a single so called reporter that will call her on it, or even point out that that is what she is spouting.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Here is a post for all the IDIOTS who believed Clinton

When he said no more Russion Missiles were pointed at us.

Russia tests new missiles to subdue US air defense

Russia test-launches new intercontinental ballistic missile
05/29/2007 [news] / Russia
The Russian space Forces said that Russia had test-launched new intercontinental ballistic missile Tuesday capable of carrying multiple independent warheads.

Russia to test Iskander tactical missile systems on May 29
05/28/2007 [article] / Russia / News from the Kremlin

Russia is planning to test missiles of the Iskander tactical missile systems on May 29, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov told President Vladimir Putin. The tests will take place at a testing range near Znamensk in the Astrakhan region.

Russia able to stave off US nuclear threat until 2020
04/06/2006 [article] / World / Americas
According to US State Department data, the USA can only dream of attaining nuclear domination over Russia. General-Colonel Viktor Esin announced that until 2020 the USA ’s anti-missile defense systems will not be able to limit the effectiveness of Russian strategic nuclear forces.

Russia strengthens nuclear shield with up-to-date Bulava missile systems
12/21/2005 [article] / Russia

The new strategic missile complex Bulava would be added to Russia's military arsenal by the end of 2007
The head part of the Russian up-to-date Bulava ballistic missile was timely delivered to the Kura range ground in the Kamchatka region. A strategic submarine of Russia's Northern Navy successfully launched the missile from under the sea. Solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile Bulava is capable of carrying up to ten nuclear blocks. Sea-based Bulava complex has common features with silo-based Topol-M missile system. Bulava's action radius reaches 8,000 kilometers

Russia to sell 29 air defense systems to Iran
12/03/2005 [article] / Russia / Politics

The 700-million-dollar transaction is said to become Russia's largest deal since 2000
Russia intends to sell 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems capable of downing cruise missiles and air bombs to Iran. Tor is a solely defensive weapon, which intercepts cruise missiles. The contract to sell 29 Tor M-1 air defense systems to Iran became the largest transaction in Russia since 2000. In 2000, Russia pulled out from the secret agreement with the USA about restricted arms deliveries to Iran. The document was known as the Gore-Chernomyrdin Protocol

Russia tests Topol-M missile to subdue USA's $50-billion air defense
11/02/2005 [article] / Russia

The unpredictable flight trajectory of the Russian missile makes it immune to destruction
Russian strategic troops performed the test launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile RS-12M Topol on November 1. The arsenal of the Russian strategic troops currently has stationary Topol-M missile systems. It is planned to use the systems on both shaft and mobile bases in the future. The USA tested one of the elements of the national ABM system on 15 July 2001. US President Bush informed the Russian administration on 13 December 2001 about the USA's single-handed pullout from the 1972 START Treaty

Russian scientists develop weapons of the future: Integrated soldiers, laser guns and smart tanks
07/08/2005 [article] / Science / Technologies and discoveries

The renowned Kalashnikov gun will most likely have to retire and give way to an automatic gun of the new generation – AN-94
The traditional attitude to the Russian army is rather skeptic: it is most entirely equipped with the Soviet-era defense technology. The legendary reliability of Soviet weapons is known worldwide, although they have their limits too. Kalashnikov guns, Topol missiles, S-300 missile systems, Su-27 pursuit planes, Mi-8 military helicopters, T-72 tanks are reputed to have become perfect examples of the Russian defense power. However, they can be referred to as outdated weapons too. Russian specialists are currently working on new generation of arms that will be added to the arsenal of the Russian Armed Forces in the future

Don't PEE down my back, and tell me it's raining!

Bush Attacks Immigration Deal Opponents

GLYNCO, Ga. (AP) - President Bush attacked opponents of an immigration deal Tuesday, suggesting they "don't want to do what's right for America."
"The fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place,"
Bush said against a backdrop of a huge American flag. (no the question is will they pull their heads out of their asses, and secure the Border)

He described his proposal—which has been agreed to by a bipartisan group of senators—as one that "makes it more likely we can enforce our border—and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America." (Bull it cuts the gurantee from an 850mile fence down to 350, and doesn't increase the border guards at a rate fast enough to overcome natural attrition and supply the needed additional manpower)

Bush spoke at the nation's largest training center for law enforcement.

He chose the get-tough setting as conservative critics blast a Senate proposal as being soft on people who break the law. (which they are) Hoping to blunt that message, Bush emphasized that any new options for immigrants and foreign workers would not start until tougher security is in place. (prove it)

The presidential stop came during a congressional recess, with senators back home and facing pressure from the left and right on the immigration plan. Bush's aim is to build momentum for the legislation, perhaps his best chance for a signature victory in his second term. The Senate expects to resume debate on it next week. (the only support for this bill comes from the assholes we have mistakenly elected)

"A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems," Bush said. (because they won't fix the problem, not because they can't)

"And my answer to the skeptics is: give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving," Bush told students and instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Bush repeatedly cast the matter as one of political courage. (the courage would be in the form of any elected official calling this bill the PIG that it is)

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it (about as narrow as the Grand Canyon) and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it. (this bill is anything but RIGHT for America)

"You can use it to frighten people," Bush said. "Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."
(if you want to be freightened all you have to do is read the bill)

The bill would give temporary legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants, provided they came forward, paid a fine and underwent criminal background checks. To apply for a green card, they would have to pay another fine, learn English, return to their home country and wait in line. (BULLSHIT what this bill does is give LEGAL status to anyone who gets caught here. If arrested and you are discovered to be ILLEGAL, all you have to do is file immediatly for a Z visa and it is the LAW that they have to let you file and let you go within 24 hours. Plus once you file for that visa you are GRANTED LEGAL ALIEN STATUS for two years. Oh and don't worry at the end of that two years you can renew it. You NEVER have to apply for citizenship and you can NEVER be DEPORTED)

The plan also would create a guest worker program. It would allow foreign laborers to come to the U.S. for temporary stints, yet with no guarantee they can eventually gain citizenship. (but with the gurantee that they can't be forced to leave)

Both the new visa plan and the temporary worker program are contingent on other steps coming first. (bullshit) Those include fencing and barriers along the Mexico border, the hiring of more Border Patrol agents and the completion of an identification system to verify employees' legal status.

The legislation would also reshape future immigration decisions. (yeah how to arrange voting rights for them, the bill already gives them Social Security, Welfare, and Medicade) A new point system would prioritize skills and education over family in deciding who can immigrate.

Georgia's senators both played leading roles in producing Bush's deal with the Senate. Yet they have also said they may not support the final bill, depending upon how it is amended.

Bush chastised those who say the proposal offers amnesty to illegal immigrants. He called it empty political rhetoric. (EVEN DEEPER BULLSHIT, when you make them ALL LEGAL ALIENS thats AMNESTY ya idiot)


On The Net:

White House:

Saturday, May 26, 2007

A good Post by Jim Simpson

Friday, May 25, 2007

La Raza La Radicals
By Jim Simpson

Outrages are coming so fast and furious these days that I am numb. It has become difficult to be outraged when practically everything politicians of both parties are doing is outrageous. But a recent proposal in Congress deserves mention. HR 1999, proposed in April by co-sponsors Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ), would provide $10 million a year to a radical immigration group, the National Council of La Raza (meaning “the Race”).

The bill offers funds for “community development and affordable housing projects and programs serving low-and moderate-income households,” for families of “Hispanic origin.” So giving immigrants the same free medical care, education, food, housing and income support available to all low income groups is not enough. Now we have to single them out for special treatment, empowering a radical organization in the process! And the bill does not discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants. I don’t need to tell you where most of the money will go. It is bad enough there are already programs that do this. The real dig is that NCLR gets to distribute the money, keeping them well endowed and cementing their position of influence within the immigrant community.

NCLR challenges the “radical” label that Michelle Malkin, U.S. Congressmen and others have placed on them. On the NCLR website they make a forceful argument claiming they oppose illegal immigration, disavow separatist or racist Hispanic movements and only seek to bring Hispanics into the American mainstream by teaching English, respect for our laws, etc. Sounds truly inspiring. Of course the Congressman who had the guts to call them radicals has since conveniently died, and thus has no way of responding further. I like to be factual. Anyone who reads my columns knows that. So I looked into some of the organizations and causes they support.

Remember proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot initiative that would have denied social services to illegal immigrants? What reasonable person wouldn't agree it’s insane to allow illegal immigrants to not only flagrantly violate our border laws, but then get all kinds of social services to award their criminality once they get here? It passed with 58% support. Any rational taxpaying citizen, Hispanic or otherwise should support it, right? Not La Rasa. They, along with other groups, successfully defeated it in court with the help of then Governor Gray Davis. Here’s their answer, as expressed in an address by former NCLR President Raul Yzaguirre at their 2003 Annual Conference:

Proposition 187 in California and similar proposals elsewhere were ugly efforts to hurt the Latino community. They were direct and blatant attacks.

But we fought back. We didn't passively sit back and accept someone else's fate for us. Maybe we surprised the bigots and the xenophobes. We got angry when they expected us to be meek.

Now the Hispanic community is being assaulted once more. This time they don't want to make you angry, so their tactics are subtle. But no matter how many nice words and glossy photos they hand us, a knife in the back is deadly even if it's delivered with a smile.

“Bigots,” “xenophobes,” that’s what we are. And “a knife in the back is deadly even if it's delivered with a smile.” That last snide remark was aimed at George W. Bush and other Republicans trying to court the Hispanic vote. Not bigoted? Not racist? Not radical? Certainly not grateful. This group has relied extensively on generous American foundation and government grants since its inception in 1968. They received $5.8 million from the Feds in 2005, according to their Annual Report, and now they may well get an additional $10 million/year for their trouble. How nice.

It gets better. Have you heard of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, better known by its acronym MEChA? If you live in California, you have. This group’s website states “We are Chicanos and Chicanas of Aztlán reclaiming the land of out birth…” which according to their revisionist history includes areas of the Southwestern US.

In their answer to critics’ charges of support for this radical separatist group, NCLR explain that MEChA is really just a “student organization whose primary objectives are educational” and that their founding charter’s radical goals don’t matter. To make their pathetic case, they cite, of all things, a passage from an LA Times article by one Gustavo Arellano that “few [MEChA] members take these dated relics of the 1960s seriously, if they even bothered to read them.” So we’re supposed to take the word of a Hispanic LA Times reporter as an answer to this serious charge?!?

I went to the MEChA website. The first page states in bold print “The following documents are essential to the philosophy of MEChA. Every MEChista should be familiar with them,” referring to MEChA’s “National” Constitution, El Plan de Santa Barbara, and El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. The Constitution states in its preamble: “Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza [Race] with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán (emphasis mine).”

To get a flavor for how these “liberated” people think, go to the following Aztlán news link, where the author discusses how the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse saga is being exploited by “Jewish pornographers,” or visit their news site, for a treatise from these enlightened Mexicans on their charming views of Americans. This is the same tripe you’d find coming from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the American Socialist Party or, Daily Kos, or Michael Moore come to think of it. Simply amazing how predictably similar they all are.

The fact is that NCLR has teamed up with blatantly radical groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) to thwart illegal immigration reform at every turn.NCLR’s website has a clean, professional look and their propaganda carries all the buzzwords designed to make them look moderate, very much like the equally-radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). They have similarly wrapped themselves in the mantle of moderation by cultivating friends in both parties, flattering gullible lawmakers.So are they polished? Yes. Do they fool a lot of people? Apparently. Are they really moderate? No.According to WorldNetDaily, NCLR had “virtual veto power” over the most recent Senate immigration proposal. These are the folks pushing immigration policy in the U.S.

Is there anywhere left to turn?

Friday, May 25, 2007

From A Tangled Web


Have a read here and find out how a 15 year girl from Portland, Maine managed to outsmart the climate modellers of the United Nations!

In essence, she applied common sense and science, stuck to the basic data, and has thrown a spanner in the works of the IPCC models! (You know the ones I mean, the sort that can "predict" the weather in 50 years whilst meterologists struggle to predict it three days ahead)

The IPCC predicts..."As a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia and, in New Zealand, in Northland and some eastern regions."

Young Ms Byrnes explains..." just looking at my ENSO 3.4 chart when I was responding to Eduardo's email. It looks like the ENSO has been positive for 95% of the last 6 years. Since Austrailia experiences warm and dry conditions during positive ENSO, six years of drought would not surprise me. But it is headed negative very quickly now, so you might want to dust off your umbrella.

The Australian Press comments..."THE El Nino weather system has run its course and the weather bureau says the worst drought in a century could be coming to an end, as heavy rain soaked parched southeastern Australia. Inland NSW and north-east Victoria enjoyed heavy rainfall today, with reports from 20-30mm falling in some areas and as high as 53mm in country Victoria, Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) senior forecaster Phil King said.

Say it ain't so! As the article concludes...

"Well, if the drought in Australia and New Zealand is indeed ending – and, certainly, early-season rains and snowstorms do not yet prove this – one must question the models being used by the IPCC to forecast climate change in the future. After all, if a long-range forecast issued April 7 ends up being wrong five weeks later, why on earth would we trust these folks from the U.N. to be able to accurately predict what’s going to happen next year, or fifty to a hundred years from now?

Maybe more important, should we actually enact policy changes that could negatively impact the economy on the recommendations of a group that can’t accurately predict events beyond just a month and a half?

Of course, the other likely more pivotal side of this revelation is whether the scientists involved are just incompetent, or willfully malfeasant. As Kristen wrote in her e-mail message to me, “They were probably trying to scare the people of Australia into signing Kyoto.”

Well, if this is the case, then aren’t all involved participating in a shameful scam? Think about it. If this is indeed about getting developed nations to agree to the Kyoto Protocol, isn’t the U.N. best served by predicting calamitous climate events regardless of their merit in order to scare the public into complacent support? If there is evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case – for example, proof of errant predictions by the IPCC – shouldn’t the veracity and integrity of the information emanating from this organization be much more thoroughly scrutinized?"

Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 09:07AM by David Vance

Thursday, May 24, 2007

George Will gets it right

A Bill That Earned Its Doubters

By George F. Will
Thursday, May 24, 2007; A31

Compromise is incessantly praised, and it has produced the proposed immigration legislation. But compromise is the mother of complexity, which, regarding immigration, virtually guarantees -- as the public understands -- weak enforcement and noncompliance.

Although the compromise was announced the day the Census Bureau reported that there now are 100 million nonwhites in America, Americans are skeptical about the legislation, but not because they have suddenly succumbed to nativism. Rather, the public has slowly come to the conclusion that the government cannot be trusted to mean what it says about immigration.

In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone?

Concentrate on border control and on workplace enforcement facilitated by a biometric identification card issued to immigrants who are or will arrive here legally. Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect. Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these children will pass away.

Under current immigration policies, America is importing another underclass, one "with the potential to expand indefinitely," according to Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. To sentimentalists who cling to "the myth of the redeeming power of Hispanic family values, the Hispanic work ethic, and Hispanic virtue," she says:

From 1990 to 2004, Hispanics accounted for 92 percent of the increase in poor people. Only 53 percent of Hispanics earn high school diplomas, the lowest among American ethnic groups. Half of all children born to Hispanic Americans in 2005 were born out of wedlock -- a reliable predictor of social pathologies.

The legislation supposedly would shift policy from emphasizing family unification to emphasizing economic criteria (skills) when setting eligibility for immigrants. Critics say this will sunder families. But the sundering has happened; it was done by illegal immigrants who left family members behind and are free to reunite with their families where they left them.

Anyway, the supposed shift from emphasizing family relations -- the emphasis that results in "chain migration" -- to economic merit may be diluted to nothingness. It is highly suspicious that there was a rush -- fortunately stymied -- to pass this legislation through both houses and get it to conference, where the majority of participants will be Democrats eager to court Hispanic votes.

Some Democrats argue that liberalism's teetering achievement, the welfare state, requires liberal immigration policies. The argument is: Today there are only 3.3 workers for every retiree. In January, the first of 77 million baby boomers begin to retire. By the time they have retired, in 2030, there will be 2.2 workers for every retiree -- but only if the workforce is replenished by 900,000 immigrants a year.

On Monday, however, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation stunned some senators who heard his argument that continuing, under family-based immigration, to import a low-skilled population will cost the welfare state far more than the immigrants' contributions to the economy and government. He argued that low-skilled immigrants are costly to the welfare state at every point in their life cycle and are very costly when elderly. Just the 9 million to 10 million adults already here illegally will, if given amnesty, cost an average of $300,000 -- cumulatively, more than $2.5 trillion-- in various entitlements (Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid, housing, etc.) over 30 years.

To those who say border control is impossible -- often these are the same people who said better policing could not substantially reduce crime, until it did -- one answer is: It took just 34 months for the Manhattan Project to progress from the creation of the town of Oak Ridge in the Tennessee wilderness to the atomic explosion at Alamogordo, N.M. That is what America accomplishes when it is serious.

In an attempt to anesthetize people who sensibly say "border control and workplace enforcement first," important provisions of the legislation would supposedly be "triggered" only when control of the border is "certified" by the president. But in what looks like a parody of the Washington mentality, certification would be triggered not by border control but by the hiring of border control agents and other spending. So, the supposedly hardheaded aspects of the legislation actually rest on the delusion that spending equals the achievement of the intention behind the spending. By that assumption, we have long since tranquilized and democratized Iraq.

More Manure from the House

As gas prices reach record highs throughout the country. (just as they do every summer) The Democrats in the house pass a bill making price guaging by oil companies and gas stations a federal crime.

They are upset that companies like Exxon made $20Billion dollars profit last year. Well lets look at the hypocracy of this assinine charge. First of all oil companies are the largest corporations in the world and they provide us with the vital juice that makes the world spin. That 20Billion comes from a margin of 10% per gallon of gas.

Now congress on the other hand makes a profit of 40-60% per gallon of gas in taxes. So if Exxon made 20Billion, congress made 80-100BILLION off that very same gas. and did nothing to supply it to us.

Now compare those numbers 20Billion to 80-100BILLION and tell me who is gouging us.

The reason the price of gas is so high is simple supply and demand. Now I know that is a concept that is beyond the mental capability of a democrat so try to keep up.

30 years ago we had 18 refineries in this country, we now have 3. 30 years ago 60% of our gas and oil was drilled domesticly (that means in this country) now that number is less than 40%.

If congress REALLY wanted to help the American consumer they could do several things, 1) cut the TAX on gas 20% 2) Pass a bill that frees the oil companies from the environmentalists so they can build more refineries. 3)Pass a bill that frees the oil companies from the environmentalists so they can DRILL more Oil Wells.

But instead they feign outrage, while they piss down our backs and tell us it's raining.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Is he Stoned or just Stupid?

Martinez: Immigration bill could save GOP

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican National Committee Chairman Sen. Mel Martinez rejected the claim that the new immigration bill will anger conservatives and destroy the GOP's chances to win in the 2008 election.

On CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer Sunday, Martinez said immigration "could be the saving of the Republican Party, frankly. And to do nothing would be the wrong thing for the American people." Martinez is optimistic that the controversial legislation will make it through Congress, and he is counting on President Bush "to get us over the finish line."

--CNN Late Edition Producer Ted Metzger

Monday, May 21, 2007

Peanut Farmer

A Good Read

Head Strong Appeals process tortures victims' families
By Michael Smerconish

Thomas and Mary raised seven children: Thomas Jr., Joseph, Joanne, Lawrence, Patrick, Kenny and Danny. They were a religious family, united not only by their Catholic faith, but also by the hardscrabble lives each led in Southwest Philadelphia and in Delaware County.
Thomas Jr. was a cop for five years until he was injured. Joseph worked for a cement company and battled many physical problems. Joanne was a waitress. Lawrence worked as a bartender. Pat has spent 40 years working for Acme, and Kenny worked a variety of jobs, including bartender. Of the seven children, only one became famous, and not in a way that any parent or sibling would ever desire.

The eminent one was Danny Faulkner, and his fame came only upon his execution Dec. 9, 1981. Mumia Abu-Jamal was tried and convicted for that murder one year later. It was a long time ago.

Stamps were 20 cents; Luke had finally married Laura on General Hospital; Olivia Newton-John's "Physical" was atop the charts. President Reagan, nearing the end of his first year in office, was enabling an expansion by the CIA into domestic counterintelligence. And Danny Faulkner liked to spend his Sunday afternoons watching another "Dan" - Dan Fouts - throw touchdowns for the Chargers in San Diego.

In the intervening quarter-century, many Faulkner family members have passed without closure, due to a delay initiated by death-penalty opponents. Danny's mother, Mary, was alive when he was killed and attended every day of the murder trial before passing a few years thereafter. (His father, Thomas, a trolley driver, died when Danny was a boy.) All Danny Faulkner's siblings were still alive at the time of his tragic death, but today, only two are with us: Larry and Pat. Maureen Faulkner, Danny's wife, is very much alive, but both of her parents, who agonizingly accompanied her to trial in 1982, have passed.

Meanwhile, the man who heaped tragedy upon everyone related to the Philly cop still lives, albeit behind bars. Abu-Jamal is now 53.

His attorneys were back in court last week for yet another round in his endless cycle of appeals. His long entanglement in the courts is an embarrassment to our judicial system, but not because an innocent man sits on death row. No: This saga is testament to a system easily manipulated for interminable delay. Consider that, since the death penalty was reinstated in Pennsylvania in 1978, only three have been put to death - and each of them asked for it! Meanwhile, 225 inmates sit on death row.

I no longer fault Abu-Jamal's attorneys for the wait. Instead, I lay blame with those who give lip service to the death penalty, but don't act to enforce it by streamlining the appellate process. Legislators who talk a good game in election season, but lose sight of what a quarter-century of uncertainly does to crime victims like the family of Danny Faulkner.

No wonder Pat Faulkner, Danny's brother, told me he couldn't bring himself to be there in court last week.

"I just don't know how I would react after 25 years, and I don't want to overreact and embarrass my brother's memory with my temper," he said. "You can only hold something in so long."

The murder was in 1981. In 1982, Abu-Jamal was afforded a trial by his peers, which led to his conviction and death sentence. In 1989, his conviction and sentence were upheld by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court. The commonwealth's highest court also rejected subsequent appeals (in 1995, 1996 and 1997, his case was the subject of Post-Conviction Relief Act hearings, which afforded him the opportunity to raise new evidence).

With the state appeals exhausted, Abu-Jamal has turned to the federal courts, where he seeks habeas corpus relief. In 2001, a federal judge upheld the conviction and rejected all but one of the 29 defense arguments.

Perhaps most telling was what that judge, William H. Yohn Jr., noted at the outset: "Since its inception, this matter has negotiated a tortuous procedural course, and this pattern continues today." Tortuous indeed. Just ask Maureen Faulkner.

"In 1982, when Jamal was unanimously sentenced to death by a jury that he helped pick, I never could have even imagined that, seven years into the next century, my family and I would still be taking time from our lives to attend appeals hearings," she told me last week.

"This process is obscene in the way it taints the survivors' lives for so long. You can never move on. There's never any closure: just endless rounds of hearings and motions made by new batches of crusading attorneys. This case has now even tainted the lives of Danny's nieces and nephews, who were just little children when Jamal murdered Danny. It gets out that you are the niece or nephew of Danny Faulkner, and people treat you differently. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, but they can't get away from it. And now some of them will be standing in the courtroom in place of their uncles, who have lived their lives and passed on. And Jamal is still alive on death row writing books and mugging for the camera. It's all so wrong."

Twenty-five years and counting.

Michael Smerconish's column appears on Thursdays in The Daily News and on Sundays in Currents. Michael can be heard from 5:30 to 9 a.m. weekdays on "The Big Talker," WPHT-AM (1210). Contact him via the Web at

Sunday, May 20, 2007

If You Care About the ILLEGAL BILL read this piece by Hewitt

Sunday, May 20, 2007
Summary Of The Fine Print Read, And NZ's Easy To Use Text
Posted by Hugh Hewitt 4:02 PM
UPDATE: Be sure to check out N.Z. Bear's online version of the draft immigration bill which allows for section-by-section comments.

His post explaining his effort is here.

I have spent a lot of my weekend reading the draft bill as was requested by both Jon Kyl and Tony Snow, and not just of me, but of all critics. Here are the relevant posts in order of their appearance:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum. Even were it somehow to improbably make its way to the president's desk, if it does so before these problems are aired and confronted, the Congress would be inviting a monumental distrust of the institution. There is simply too much here to say "Trust us," and move on. The jam down of such a far reaching measure, drafted in secret and very difficult for laymen much less lawyers to read, is fundamentally inconsistent with how we govern ourselves.

For more crucial background, see Powerline's entry on the McCain-Cornyn shouting match.

And Thinking Right has a focus on one aspect of the law which deals with disabled illegal aliens.

You can't race a Dead Horse

Air America to relaunch with A-listers
Published: May 17, 2007 - 2:54 pm

After failing 3 times with NO ratings and NO Money, the left will try again to create a radio chanel, that once again NO ONE will listen to.

(AP) — Air America is scheduling a high-profile lineup of presidential candidates, political players and celebrities for next week as part of the liberal talk network's "relaunch" after suffering financial woes.

Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, along with luminaries like Robert Redford, Paul Newman and Gloria Steinem, are among the more than 30 guests scheduled, the network announced Thursday. Thats what they call an A-List...LOL

New shows are also being added to the schedule, featuring famous correspondents and hosts, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Arianna Huffington and Bob Kerrey. The network also redesigned its Web site, where hosts will regularly blog along with a newly-hired blogger, Nancy Scola. OOOOOH I'm impressed, and their even gonna blog...How much ya wanna bet the blog won't take comments?

Republican(not) Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the subject of persistent presidential speculation despite his denials of any interest, was to tape his interview Thursday, facing questions from a former political foe, Mark Green.

Mr. Green, who lost to Mr. Bloomberg when the former CEO made his first run for City Hall in 2001, is now running Air America with his older brother, Stephen Green. They took it over this year in an attempt to revive the network, which had been losing money.

In a statement, the younger Mr. Green said the headliners kicking off the relaunch will deliver "the kind of news and views we'll be offering for years to come and that no other radio or TV network now provides." Except NBC, CBS, ABC, and all the other leftwing outlets with NO RATINGS.

When the Green brothers took over Air America earlier this year, they pledged to run it as business.

Air America is broadcast on 64 stations nationwide and on XM satellite.

Air America has failed everytime. It will more than likely fail again. What the left fails to understand is 1) Their point of view is already represented on the big 3 of rating losers, and in every major paper in the country. and 2) Talk Radio has to be entertaining as well as political. That seems to be beyond the grasp of the average leftist. People will only listen to someone foaming at the mouth if it's entertaining. They have tried every git that they could roll out. This "new" list Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Arianna Huffington and Bob Kerrey have no Radio savvy and will have no ratings. I hope the Green Brothers have vast expierience in charity fund raising, it's the only way this station will last a year.

The French Surrender AGAIN...LOL

Paris festival called off after anti-American threats

A Paris festival celebrating US music and culture has been called off following a series of anti-American threats, organisers said on Sunday.
Called "Three Days in America", the festival featuring country and gospel concerts, line-dancing, sales of US paraphernalia and a tribute to Elvis Presley was to take place from May 26 to 28 in Saint Cloud, southwest of Paris.

Organisers issued a statement saying they were forced to postpone the event following "persistent pressure and threats of an anti-American nature".

"At first we thought it was a joke when we received a letter with a mixture of threats, mentioning Al-Qaeda and full of spelling mistakes," said Chantal Tenot, the festival's press officer.

But after several threatening phone calls the organisers decided Friday to file a police complaint and call off the event.

Paris anti-terrorism investigators have been alerted and the festival organisers are to meet foreign ministry officials on Monday to discuss the situation, Tenot said.

She said the organisers hoped to reschedule the festival -- which last year drew 15,000 visitors -- in the autumn.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

A Great Speech From Lieberman, Do yourself a favor READ IT!

"Now is the time for choosing"

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) today delivered remarks to a Leadership Meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition. In the address, Senator Lieberman said:
"My friends, as Ronald Reagan once said, now is the time for choosing.
If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved.
But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation.
That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall. It is a choice not just about our foreign policy and our national security and our interests in the Middle East. It is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for. It is about our very soul as a nation. It is about who we are, and who we want to be."

The full text of the speech, as prepared for delivery, is below:

"Thank you so much for that kind introduction. It is a pleasure to be here among so many friends.
Now, I know there are some who are probably wondering—what is a nice Independent Democrat from Connecticut doing at a Republican event like this?
Well, a funny thing happened on the way to reelection last year... And as Rabbi Hillel said, the rest is commentary.
In all seriousness, many of you in this room stood with me last year through the long journey up a winding road that was my 2006 reelection campaign. You came to my side without regard for party affiliation, and you stayed there even after I ran as an Independent but said I would caucus with the Democrats. Your non-partisanship in my race is a model for what our politics should be. I thank you personally and deeply for it. I could not have won without it.
And I pledge to you that I will do everything I can to vindicate your confidence.

We gather at a critical time for the future of our country. The war in Iraq has now become the defining issue for this Congress and for this presidency—although the decisions we will make in the weeks and months ahead about Iraq will have consequences that reach far beyond the terms of anyone now in office.
Part of the disagreement we face over Iraq comes down to a genuine difference of opinion.
On the one hand, there are those who believe, as I do, that the struggle against Islamist extremism really is the central challenge of our time, and that, as General David Petraeus—our commander in Iraq—recently said, Iraq is now the central front of the war against Islamist extremism.
On the other hand, there are those who reject this view—who genuinely believe that the threat of Islamist extremism is overstated, or that Iraq is a distraction from the "real" war on terror, or that the war there is lost, or not worth fighting to win.
It is my deeply held conviction that these people are not only wrong, they are disastrously wrong—and that the withdrawal they demand would be a moral and security catastrophe for the United States, for Iraq, and for the entire Middle East, including Israel and our moderate Arab allies.

Let there be no doubt—an American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran... the two most threatening enemies we face in the world today. It would vindicate the hope of our enemies that America is weak and that we can be driven to retreat by terrorism, and it would confirm the fear of our friends—not only in Iraq, but throughout the world—that we are unreliable allies who will abandon them in the face of danger.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot claim to be tough on terrorism while demanding that our military withdraw from Iraq, because it is the terrorists—particular Al Qaeda—that our military is fighting in Iraq.
You cannot claim to be committed to defeating Al Qaeda, while demanding that we abandon the heart of the Middle East to Al Qaeda.
And you cannot claim to be tough on Iran, while demanding the very thing that the mullahs want most of all—the retreat of the American military from the Middle East in defeat, leaving a vacuum that Iran will rush to fill.

I recognize that this war has been controversial, and there are those who oppose it on principle. I respect that.
But too much of the debate we are having today about withdrawal from Iraq has little or nothing to do with principle, or with reality in Iraq.
It is about politics and partisanship here in Washington.
For many Democrats, if President Bush is for it, they must be against it. If the war is going badly, it is bad for Republicans and it is good for Democrats. It is as simple as that, and it is as wrong as that.

For many Republicans, the unpopularity of this war and this President has begun to shake their will. They say that they have no choice but to abandon General Petraeus and his strategy because the American people tell the pollsters they want out. If previous generations of American leaders had allowed their conduct of war to be shaped by partisanship or public opinion polls, we would not be the strong and free nation we are blessed to be today.
Republicans in Congress delude themselves if they think they will be helping either themselves, their party, or their country if they now attempt to wash their hands of Iraq, out of a sudden sense of political anxiety.

Democrats in Congress delude themselves if they think they will not be held accountable for the bloody consequences of the retreat from Iraq they seek.

The fact is, a loss to Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq would be devastating to our security. These are fateful days and critical decisions we are making about Iraq. We must make them with our eye on the safety of America's next generation, not the outcome of America's next election.
It is to the everlasting credit of President Bush that in the war against Islamist extremism he has shown the courage and steadfastness to stand against the political passions of the moment.
I have never hesitated to express disagreement with the President on any issue when I felt he was wrong—and I have criticized his administration many times for the serious mistakes I believe it made in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

But let me tell you this: I believe that each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not believe that decisions about war should be driven by poll numbers. And each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not confuse what is popular with what is right for our security as a nation. The public opinion polls may not reflect this today, but I believe history will tomorrow.

My friends, as Ronald Reagan once said, now is the time for choosing.
If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved.
But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation.
That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall. It is a choice not just about our foreign policy and our national security and our interests in the Middle East. It is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for. It is about our very soul as a nation. It is about who we are, and who we want to be.

Will this be the moment in history when America gives up—when Al Qaeda breaks our will, when our enemies surge forward, when we turn our backs on our friends and begin a long retreat from our principles and promise as a nation?
Or will this be the moment when America steps forward, when we pull together, when we hold fast to the courage of our convictions, when—with a new strategy, and a new commander on the ground—we begin to turn the tide toward victory in this long and difficult war?

I know that we can rise above the anger and smallness of our politics. I know we can rise to the greatness that this moment demands of us.
The question is—will we choose to do so?

I would like to close today by sharing with you a story from my last visit to Iraq a few months ago. It was in Anbar province in western Iraq—the center of the insurgency—a part of the country that conventional wisdom last year dismissed as hopeless.
In fact, on September 11, 2006, the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting that even the chief of Marine Corps intelligence in Iraq had concluded that Anbar was "lost," and our position there was "beyond repair."
I was in Anbar last December, on a forward operating base just outside Ramadi, the capital of the province. As one of the briefings with our military commanders ended, a colonel who had been sitting in the back of the room came up to me. He said something that I carry with me to this day—something that I hope you will carry with you as well.
He said: "Sir, I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here, we want to finish this fight. And we know we can win it."
Today, five months later, Anbar has been dramatically transformed. Thanks to the bravery, ingenuity, and commitment of our men and women in uniform, shops and schools have reopened, Al Qaeda is on the run, thousands of Iraqis have joined the local police, and—yes—no less than the New York Times reports that we have turned the corner there.

My friends, now is not the time for despair. Now is the time for resolve.
Now is not the time for reflexive partisanship and pandering to public opinion. Now is the time for the kind of patriotism and principle America's voters have always honored.
I ask you to plead with every member of Congress you can in the days and weeks ahead—
Do not surrender to hopelessness.
Do not succumb to defeat.
Do not give in to fear.
Rise above the political pressures of the moment to do what is right for America.
Believe, like that colonel, in why we are fighting in Iraq, and know, as he and his soldiers know, that we can and must win there."

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

We Need to Call The RNC


Immigration Deal Would Grant Amnesty to Parents, Spouses and Children
Kennedy Wins Major Concessions From Republicans

UPDATE: Six conservative senators are demanding that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) negotiate a “full and open debate” on the immigration legislation.

Senate Democrats and Republicans are working feverishly with the White House to put the finishing touches on an immigration proposal that could be announced later today or tomorrow. The deal would give illegal aliens living in the United States amnesty, according to confidential sources. It would also allow illegal aliens to bring their parents, spouses and children into the United States.

Multiple sources on Capitol Hill with knowledge of the proposal said Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) has been able to extract significant concessions from Republicans. The critical part of the deal is a lengthy section that spells out the provisions related to “Z” visas -- or what my sources described as the “Amnesty Title” of the bill. The “Z” visas would be broken down into three categories as follows:

Z-1 -- Illegal alien present and working in the United States up to January 1, 2007
Z-2 -- Parents and spouses of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category
Z-3 -- Children of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category

Read on ...

One section of the proposal grants these “Z” non-immigrants four-year visas for an indefinite period of time. These visas would be given to people not currently in the United States if they are related to a current illegal worker.

Sources indicate that these aliens, along with their dependents, would be allowed to legally remain in the United States under certain conditions for an indefinite period of time, even if they chose not to pursue the so called “pathway to citizenship.”

The burden of proof would be low for illegal aliens to prove that they were continually illegally present in United States. This provision would reward the illegal alien for proving continual illegal presence and illegal employment in the United States with a “Z” visa. This provision in the Kennedy deal, approved by some Republicans, is clearly amnesty under any definition, according to immigration experts whom I consulted.

The proposal would require illegal immigrants to pay a fine to apply for the “Z” visa, but despite that penalty, conservatives are likely characterize this deal as a major sell out to Kennedy and his pro-amnesty allies.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007
A Disaster: The GOP Caves On Border Security
Posted by Hugh Hewitt 6:32 PM
Word is leaking that the GOP in the Senate are on the verge of agreeing to an immigration bill that has --as a concession to the GOP-- less than half of the fencing promised by law last year.

White flag time on the border, and a national security and thus a political disaster.

The GOP are sending around talking points attempting to make this "compromise" defensible, but it won't and shouldn't fly. Agreeing to it takes the party down the tubes on the issue of border security --because it doesn't provide what the public understands to be border security, a very long, very high fence with a very wide gate.

This is McCain's continuing gift to the GOP, and the immigration absolutists' legacy: Lots and lots of promises and no fence worth calling a fence.

Aren't there 41 GOP senators willing to fight for border security? Apparently not. And they will see the result in their depleted coffers and diminished numbers come November '08. All they have to do is fight for border security, but they won't even do that.

UPDATE: Here are the draft talking points from the GOP. Four pages of crap:


Republicans Standing Together to Fight for Tougher Enforcement and an Immigration System That Better Serves American Interests

As negotiations continue, Republicans are demanding the following from the Democrat majority:

v Beefed-up border security. Republicans are insisting on dramatic and immediate improvements to border security, including 18,000 Border Patrol agents and 370 miles of fencing, as part of a continuous effort to protect the borders.

?? Republicans insist that border security improvements must be completed before other reforms can occur. Democrats blocked any "triggers" in last year’s bill.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007


Compliments Drudge
Tues May 15 2007 6:00:01 ET


May 15, 2007

Senator Fred Thompson
American Enterprise Institute
110 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Senator Thompson,

Given that it has been publicly reported in The Weekly Standard, a leading neo-conservative publication, that you support Fidel Castro and the Cuban regime by being a purveyor of fine Cuban exports despite the trade embargo, I was surprised to see your recent op ed in a more traditional conservative outlet, The National Review, regarding my trip to Cuba (I suspect you choose The National Review in an effort to pander to an outlet that had criticized you for your opposition to medical malpractice legislation).

In your May 2, 2007 National Review article, "Paradise Island," you specifically raised concerns about whether my trip to Cuba with 9/11 heroes, who have suffered serious health problems as a result of their exposure to toxic substances at Ground Zero that have gone untreated was somehow going to support Castro ad the Cuban government:

"It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro." []

Putting aside the fact that you, like the Bush Administration, seem far more concerned about the trip to Cuba than the health care of these 9/11 heroes, I was struck by the fact that your concerns (including comments about CastroÕs reported financial worth) apparently do not extend to your own conduct, as reported in The Weekly Standard's April 23, 2007 story, "From the Courthouse to the White House Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role" (emphasis added):

"Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like -- though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars -- Montecristos from Havana." []

In light of your comments regarding Cuba and Castro, do you think the "box upon box of cigars -- Montecristos from Havana" that you have in your office have contributed to CastroÕs reported wealth?

While I will leave it up to the conservatives to debate your hypocrisy and the Treasury Department to determine whether the "box upon box of cigars" violates the trade embargo, I hereby challenge you to a health care debate.

Survey after survey has indicated that health care is one of the top issues to the American voters. Today, more than 46 million people lack health are coverage, including 9 million children. We pay significantly more than any other country in the world -- and get less back. Americans life expectancy is lower than other Ground Zero 9/11 workers live in a society where the Bush Administration has shown more concern about their travel than about their health.

Our debate would provide you an opportunity to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party by continuing to attack me; it would give me a chance to discuss health care and tell you exactly what happened in Cuba, given your apparent inters; and it would provide the American people an opportunity to see just how serious Hollywood can be, with a purported conservative and an avowed progressive Hollywood personality on stage.

Over the course of the debate, we could specifically address the following issues:

(1) Your work as a lobbyist in light of the fact that the health care and insurance industries have maintained the current health care system through their effective control of the political establishment.

(2) The fact that you raised hundred of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the health care and insurance industries.

(3) Discuss the fact, highlighted in yet another conservative outlet The New York Sun, that you inexplicably wanted to cut funding for AIDS research. []

(4) Your relationship with the Frist family and by extension HCA, one of the nation's largest for-profit hospital chains. It has been reported that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (who was renowned for his over-the-television-screen Schiavo diagnosis) is serving as one of your confidantes on your potential presidential campaign. The Frist family has historically controlled HCA, which paid a record $1.7 billion in civil and criminal fines, including a $631 million penalty for Medicaid fraud -- in other words, ripping off the taxpayers.

(5) Discussing whether Arthur Branch, as the District Attorney of Manhattan, supports a woman's right to choose, gun safety reforms, gay marriage, the trans fat ban and anti-smoking laws (which would impact Cuban cigars, including your Montecristos).

Like American Idol, we could even have the country vote to determine which one of us wins the debate. Though in the spirit of full disclosure, I feel obligated to forewarn you that I was the winner of the 1971-72 Detroit Free Press Debate Award for the state of Michigan.

The winner of our health care debate could even light a Victory cigar with one of your Montecristos (though we may want to consider shopping them to the safe house where I have put a master copy of SiCKO in the event that the Bush Administration tries to seize the film).


Michael Moore


Exclusive: Thompson Responds to Michael Moore Challenge

Thursday, May 10, 2007

They're Feeding Us a Load of Shit....

Time for a little honest opinion.

Reading todays headlines is like going down memory lane cracking open a Mad Magazine. No one is more full of themselves and more full of shit at the same time than the MSM. The Democrats are more dangerous but they can only be the way they are due to the assholes who belive that they are the Noble Gaurdians of truth and rightousness. The Friggin Press.

If you are to get your sense of right and wrong in this country from the ideals that are haled and put forth to us as the proper things to believe in, and way to live. By what is known as the Main Stream Media. We would be living in Bizzaro Land.

Look at the issues that this obscenely long pre-presidential election cycle is forcing down our throats. The Democrat debate didn't even create a wisper yet the Republican debate fueled a month long state of prostration over the NON-issue of abortion. Attacking one candidate for flip flopping to pro-life and the other main candidate for sticking to his view of pro-choice.

The MSM is on crusade to abort Romney because he ran as pro-choice when he was trying to get ellected to Governor of the State of Moscow, oh excuse me I meant Massachusetts. While at the same time trying to abort Guiliani for not bowing to the same pressure that made Romney flip and sticking to his guns for a womans right to choose.

They take both sides of the issue as long as it is the side that will damage anyone that they don't want the Republican base to choose. You're not supposed to notice their hypocrisy of attacking both candidates with equal bile from the opposite positions. While I defy you to find a single story on any Democrat's position on this NON-issue.

If you are going to decide your vote for the next President on the issue of abortion you should be castrated so that your genes can't be passed to the next generation. I got sad news for ya. There will always be abortion and half the country will always be against it. Those two things will never change no matter who is President. The whole issue is a distraction used to destroy the rights base. It is a wedge issue for the press to fuck with people because they can. They prey on the morality that they can't comprehend. And to be honest at this point in history the issue is last on what should be on your priority list.

According to the MSM we should be outraged that we are fighting a war to kill people that want to kill us in the name of god. In the process of trying to prevent those people from blowing our children up they want us to believe it is an outrage that we would actually want to spy on those people and then lock them up when we catch them.

We have six Islamic assholes that wanted to kill as many soldiers as they could right here on a military base in friggin New Jersey and we're supposed to be upset that their civil rights were violated because a hero thought he should tell someone that he had a video of maniac Muslims firing machine guns and screaming allah ahbar, and death to America. Well Exxxxccuuuuse Meeee.

The supposed paper of record commits sedition on a weekly basis printing stories about our national security secrets that can only benefit the enemy. While they beat their chests and claim to be the true patriots. Cut me a break, assholes.

Since april 15th (tax day) our soldiers have been out of money. Young men and woman who have volunteered to place their lives on the line to defend us are starting to die due to lack of supplies. While the majority party plays politics with their lives and our safety. They actually believe they will solidify their hold of power with this position. Of course the MSM portrays this as the gospel that we should all follow.

The other gospel that the MSM claims to be written by god is that Man is powerful enough to destroy the planet just with the breath we exhale. What arrogance, you can't tell me if it will rain next Tuesday yet I am supposed to believe that the breath that I exhale will cause Manhattan to be under water in 20 years.

We are giving Billions and Billions of dollars to our enemy because the MSM has championed the destruction of oil production in this country for the last 30years. We have gone from 18 refineries down to 3 and haven't drilled a new well in decades. Yet they have the balls to then write stories decrying the fact that gas is over 3 dollars a gallon.

Bush lied, Bush lied, yet the MSM neglects to tell you that the idiots they are championing who are spouting this bullshit told we the people the same exact things two years before he was elected to justify attacking Iraq the same week that some stains were found on a dress. No Flip Flop there huh.

Jane Harmon spouts that Gitmo should be closed but that we shouldn't release the terrorists and not a single reporter asks her where she thinks they should be held. I know lets put them in our big city prisons so they can share their wahhabist hate doctrin with Americas terminal degenerate victims of our evil capitalistic system the criminal black population. Thats a good combination don't ya think?

The American left and their propaganda wing the MSM are bolshevics. Petty little bureaucrats that want to control our lives with a maze of failed doctrines whose only purpose is to pick our pockets to pay for the elimination of our safety, morality, and freedoms.

The last election was this country's Red October and 08 is our only chance to put the little Leninist bastards back into the obscurity where they belong. Until then the Bolshevics (democrats) Will continue to squander the blood of our children in a slow death of a thousand cuts of funding shouting false outrage over each soldiers death as they feed the Islamic beast propaganda for breakfast and you and I for lunch.

Tell me what is the Bolshevic plan for our peace and safety? Negotiations with the mad little persian who keeps saying he will bring back the twelfth Imam with a blaze of Nuclear fire. You really believe thats viable? They must, the MSM doesn't question that logic they cheer it on.

We're all fuckin doooomed.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Don't bury your heads in the sand.

From Iraq The Model

I had said it over and over again that some of us in Iraq and America are sending wrong messages to the terrorists and the dictators behind them; in fact I wasn't surprised when I saw Zawahiri appear on al-Jazeera to announce America's defeat, not long after Reid did.

Zawahiri claims al-Qaeda has won and Reid claims America has lost but I see only a war that's still ongoing and I see no victory for al-Qaeda or any other entity. On the contrary I see that al-Qaeda has the shortest stick.
We are going through a fierce war and sending more wrong messages could only further complicate an already complicated situation and create more mess that would be exploited by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia for their own purposes—more iron-fist control on the peoples and treasures of the region and pushing the middle east to crises and confrontations with the world not forgetting spreading their dark, backward ideologies.

The American forces should stay in Iraq and yes, reinforcements should be sent if the situation required. Not only that, these forces should be prepared to expand their operations whenever and wherever necessary in the region to strike hard on the nests of evil that not only threaten the middle east but seeking to blackmail the whole world in the ugliest way through pursuing nuclear weapons in a feverish desire to destroy themselves along with everyone else. It's a delusional obsession with power derived from the false belief that only they possess absolute justice while denying the right to exist to anyone who disagrees with them.

We must keep fighting those criminals and tyrants until they realize that the freedom-loving peoples of the region are not alone. Freedom and living in dignity are the aspirations of all mankind and that's what unites us; not death and suicide. When freedom-lovers in other countries reach out for us they are working for the future of everyone tyrants and murderers like Ahmedinejad, Nesrallah, Assad and Qaddafi must realize that we are not their possessions to pass on to their sons or henchmen. We belong to the human civilization and that was the day we gave what we gave to our land and other civilizations. They can't take out our humanity with their ugly crimes and they can't force us to back off. The world should ask them to leave our land before asking the soldiers of freedom to do so.

The cost of liberating Europe was enormous in blood and treasure and thereafter it took half a century of American military presence to protect Europe's nations from subsequent threats—now if that made sense during a cold war, and it did, then I don't understand why would anyone demand a pullout from Iraq (and maybe later the middle east) when the enemies are using every evil technique, from booby trapped dead animals to hijacked civilian aircrafts to kill us and destroy the human civilization.

Yes my friends, I will call for war just as powerfully the bad guys do and I must show them that I'm stronger than they are because those do not understand the language of civilization and reason. They understand only power, and with power they took over their countries and held their peoples hostages. Everything they accomplished was through absolute control over the assets of their nations through murder, torture, repression and intimidation.

The policy of the United States and her allies needs to adjust to make better use of the energy God-or nature or whatever you name it-blessed them with. We need to see a firm policy not afraid of making tough decisions replace the Byzantine debate of withdrawal. This became America's destiny the day it became a superpower. A destiny to show responsibility toward her own people and toward the world, and running away from this responsibility won't do any good.
Otherwise those who prefer to bury their heads in the dirt today will be cursed forever for abandoning their duty when they were most capable. I don't understand why someone who has all the tools for victory would refuse to fight the enemy that reminds us every day that it's evil with all the daily beheadings, torture and violations of all humane laws and values.

Some will keep on blaming America and her policies and they will consider anything America did and does wrong whether America stayed or left, fought or ran away, negotiated or boycotted. There will always be those who blame America for everything that goes wrong in this world but that doesn't mean America has to listen to them. America instead should listen to the spirit of America and what it stands for.
Reaping the fruit won't be today, it will be in the future after patience and great fighting.

Posted by Mohammed

Six arrested in plot to attack NJ army base

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Six New Jersey men have been arrested in what authorities said was a plot to kill soldiers at a U.S. Army installation in New Jersey, local media reported on Tuesday.

Investigators said the men planned to use automatic weapons to enter Fort Dix and kill as many soldiers as possible, according to the Newark Star-Ledger and television stations in Philadelphia and New York.

FBI agents arrested five of the men in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and another elsewhere after members of the group allegedly attempted to buy automatic weapons, the Star-Ledger reported.

The suspects will be charged with terrorism conspiracy on Tuesday in federal court in Camden, New Jersey, according the reports.

The suspects traveled over the last several months from New Jersey to the Pocono mountains area in northeastern Pennsylvania where they practiced firing automatic weapons, the reports said.

Notice how this story "forgets" to mention that the men are MUSLIMS

Monday, May 07, 2007

Fantasy Football, Ramadi-Style

[Steve Schippert]

Another peek at the situation on the ground in Anbar, where al Qaeda is being confronted by Iraqi Sunnis summarily unimpressed with AQI's murderous ways.

"If I find strangers or strange cars, I go to tell my officer. Last week we found some who were insurgents and they were detained," Sahed said matter-of-factly. "The important thing is to make my neighborhood safe."

Kudos to Chris Kraul of the LA Times, who writes of the "tipping point" in Ramadi against al-Qaeda and — in case anyone missed it — for both Iraq itrself and the Americans on the ground fighting for her.

A lead collected by Sahed's crew recently was a case in point. After an attack on a coalition Humvee cost a GI his legs, the group fanned out in Al Tash. The tip soon led them to a "stranger" who had a 155-millimeter artillery shell in his house and said, "Don't worry, I'm using it against the Americans, not you."

Sahed's commander, Maj. Sabaa Yusef Ju, arrested him on the spot.

"We could have never developed that kind of actionable intelligence that fast," said Lt. Jimm Spannagel with the Army 1st Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade. "The PSF speaks the same language, establishes rapport with the locals and inspires trust. It's allowing us to extend our reach."

But, by all means, let's withdraw from Iraq. Winning is impossible, right? In contrast, while Chris Kraul is interviewing Iraqis, the AP is still interviewing bomb fragments and telling an entirely different story. Bill Roggio passed that along this morning to highlight the following opening passage:

Two suicide car bombers attacked a market and a police checkpoint on the outskirts of Ramadi, killing at least 20 people and dealing a blow to recent U.S. claims of success in reclaiming the Sunni city from insurgents.

Consider the undead al-Masri's message meant to assure friend and foe that he is indeed alive. In his message he openly admits having lost control of Anbar when he states that al-Qaeda in Iraq "is capable of taking the initiative in Al-Anbar." Read the AP above and one would think the are close to this aim. They are not.

Car bombs are not control. They are murderous and horrific, but they are not control. Just as US aerial bombardment is not control. (Would detractors please recall their own [right] criticism of Tora Bora?) Yet this is percisely how Harry Reid and others apparently intend on executing an Iraq withdrawal that is (stunningly) "more focused on counterterorism."

For crying out loud, what is Saif Sahed of Ramadi's new Provincial Security Force doing? Forgive the seemingly oft-used refrain, but senators, this is counterterrorism.

Please, please, please... Pay very close attention to the following, gentlemen:

"About 10% of our intelligence is actionable, while 90% of their [PSF] intelligence is actionable," said Lt. Ed Clark, whose Army platoon patrols west Ramadi.

If it's counterterrorism you want, stay out of the way.

What sad commentary that American political leaders are not interested in victory. One gets the sense that it just doesn't matter. There's no other way to put it. We're likely to have more success selling space heaters to the Ice Cream Man.

Washington reminds me today of those who play fantasy football for money. They draft their teams and players before the season. And when Sunday rolls around, they are so invested in their 'fantasy team' that they root for their drafted players even against their own favorite team. The beauty and purity of the game is lost upon them. They are invested...there is money on the line...and besides, their favorite team can lose today and still make the playoffs.

That there is a single representative or senator in Washington invested in defeat is revolting, let alone a driving force of them. And they wonder why those in military service so distrust them. Today we are witnessing the worst fears of American military men and women.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

From Col. Marc, Inside The Green Zone, On War Weariness

Sunday, May 06, 2007
From Col. Marc, Inside The Green Zone, On War Weariness
Posted by Hugh Hewitt
10:56 AM
From my friend, Col. Marc, inside the Green Zone:

I have not been following the news much, just too busy, but occasionally while in the Dining Facility the TV has on CNN. Mostly at the time I am there it is Lou Dobbs. He and some other media outlets have talked about the war weariness of the American people. I have heard him speak of the Presidents poll numbers being down because the American public is tired of four years of constant war. I don't understand it.

I want to look at this war in perspective. First, why is the American people weary of the war. They certainly are not fighting it. The great majority are not even involved or knowledgable of this war. The war is being fought by a very few of the American people. It is they who sacrifice and defend the nation. Of the 300,000,000 people in the US only about 1.5 million are in any way engaged in fighting this war. That is the 150,000 who are overseas deployed in a war zone and the 1.35 million who support or have rotated into and out of the war zone for their combat tour. That is .05% of the Nation carrying the burden of the war. All of those who are making that sacrifice are doing so as volunteers because they believe in the nation in its greatness and in the mission that we are doing. The American people are not even asked to sacrifice for the conduct of the war. There is no rationing, there is no limit on travel, there is no censorship. I can post this email to you and say anything I want as long as it does not contain classified material or contain insubordinate statements. There is no one cutting and pasting my letters. The taxes are not up because of the war. They may go up, but that is a Democratic tactic to gain a bigger budget. It is not to fund the war effort. In fact they want to unfund the war, yet taxes would still go up.

So I ask you how are you all weary of the war? How is it impacting you? Only those who fight it and the few who are related or friends of those in the war zone are really impacted by the war. The casualties are not even heavy. Certainly not the 480 a day during WWII. Those who have given their lives for the safety of the nation in a large part are forgotten by the public at large, only their loved ones know the weariness of loss. Not the public. So again how is the nation weary of the war? Many of them don't even know what is going on over here. They don't pay attention.

What I think is that the news media likes to make the public weary of the war. They constantly mis-state the situation and constantly speak of the weariness. Well I have been here for 41/2 months I work every day. I am tired and separated for my friends and family but I am not weary of the war. Nor are my brother and sister Soldiers Sailors Airmen and Marines. We know the cost and we know what we buy every month we are here. We kill more of the terrorists we draw them from all over the Middle East and kill them here. We have chosen the place and the time for this fight and now the American people must stand up and support their soldiers in the conduct of a war that was voted upon and approved by the Representatives of those same people. The Congress and the people committed us to this war, not just The President. Once you have committed your army to the field you must support it in the field. To do anything else puts us at great risk while fighting to defend you. Tell Harry Reid and Lou Dobbs the war is not lost and you are not weary of it. I am not ready to end this in defeat, so can you do any less?

Saturday, May 05, 2007

The Re-Emergance of the Issue that gave Democrats Control

This is the issue that lost Republicans control of Congress. The lack of commitment by the Republicans in Congress to deal with the ILLEGAL Immigration issue is what kept the base from supporting them. Now once again we will be watching. The President is totaly wrong on this issue, yet this is the issue that he gets support from the too long serving members of our party in congress. Amnesty is NOT acceptable, and that is what both parties are working on giving us. Build the WALL and enforce our LAWS....

Reid sets immigration bill debate
By Stephen Dinan
May 5, 2007
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday set a firm deadline on President Bush's efforts to work out an immigration agreement, announcing he will bypass the normal process and have the Senate debate an old immigration bill unless the White House can produce an acceptable alternative by May 14.
Democrats are worried Republicans are stalling the debate, and fear the White House is moving too far toward the Republican position in its behind-the-scenes negotiations. Mr. Reid's announcement brings the debate back to his terms, but Republicans said the May 14 deadline is unreachable, and that Mr. Reid is short-circuiting the discussions for political reasons.
"I will move to the immigration bill on Wednesday so debate can start on that the following Monday," Mr. Reid announced on the Senate floor yesterday, referring to a parliamentary maneuver that will allow him to bypass the normal committee process and bring a bill of his choosing to the floor.
Mr. Reid has said for months he wanted to have the debate at the end of May, and his office said the move ensures there is a place holder to begin the immigration debate. Staffers said they will accept a substitute bill if Mr. Bush can broker an agreement between Republicans and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the top Democrat in the negotiations.
But the move also means an impending showdown for all sides: Mr. Reid and Democrats, who want a bill the liberal interest groups and immigration advocates can live with; Mr. Bush, who desperately wants a legislative accomplishment; Mr. Kennedy, who is under immense pressure from fellow Democrats not to accept a watered-down bill; Republicans, whose conservative base is split on the issue; and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who supported last year's bill but this year has no House Republicans to water down the final version.
"The Democratic leadership would be taking a very great risk to try to force through that bill from last year," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican. "They may be able to maintain the votes to do it, but I have my doubts."
Asked whether Republicans would try to filibuster, thus forcing the bill to gain 60 votes, he said, "If they try to bring up last year's bill, yes."
Mr. Reid of Nevada plans to use a parliamentary procedure to bring up the bill that passed the Judiciary Committee last year, even though it hasn't been debated at all this year and even though it was rejected in favor of a more conservative bill, which passed the full Senate 62-36 last year.
Among the differences, the committee bill allowed almost all illegal aliens a path to citizenship without ever having to leave the country, while the bill that passed the full Senate only allowed longtime illegal aliens a direct path to citizenship. Those here between two and five years would have an indirect path, and those here less than two years would have been forced to go home.
A majority of Senate Republicans opposed last year's bill, and even some who voted for it have said publicly or privately they wouldn't vote for the same version again this year. So Mr. Bush, who praised last year's bill as "a good immigration bill," is now trying to work on a new alternative that would cut down on who is eligible for citizenship rights, and require immigration enforcement before the new worker program and path to citizenship would take effect.
A senior Republican aide involved in the negotiations called Mr. Reid's move "a threat to fish or cut bait," but said it exposes a division among Democrats as well.
"These guys want the issue, not an accomplishment. This divides his party as much as ours," the aide said, adding that Mr. Reid's move appears designed to force Republicans to filibuster the bill, thus allowing both sides to point fingers at each other.
"He wants us to save Democrats from themselves -- 'Stop me before I take bad votes again.' That's where he is. He wants us to be grown-ups," the aide said.
But Democrats were criticized by Hispanic and immigrant advocacy groups for accepting last year's bill, which they thought was already too harsh toward illegal aliens, and Democrats are wary of the direction Mr. Bush is taking in his negotiations with Republicans.
A leaked set of proposals showed the White House was open to fines as high as $10,000, a much longer wait for citizenship and more stringent criteria for who would be eligible.
"The White House's efforts to help these negotiations may in fact succeed only in making it impossible to thread the needle and get a bill done this year," said one senior Democratic aide who has followed the negotiations.
White House officials, though, continue to say they are optimistic.
"This is a process and discussions are continuing," spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said. "We intend to push towards having an agreement prior to the debate starting on the 14th."
The bill also will be a major test for the Republican presidential candidates, particularly Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas, who have been battered on the campaign trail for their support of last year's bill. Both men, in fact, were sponsors of the committee bill, and both voted for its passage on the Senate floor.
Mr. Brownback already has done an about-face, saying he "would not vote for the same bill" this year because he has since realized it allowed too many immigrants in.
Mr. McCain's office did not return a call yesterday asking whether he would support the bill again.