Jan

30

2005

Qerry Again Promises To Sign SF 180

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | 1 Comment

Again today, John Qerry has told Tim Russert that he will sign the SF 180 which will allow his military records to be open for all to see, he first told Russert he would sign the form on April 18, 2004, we are still waiting for his pen to move over the form.

Russert found it necessary to badger Qerry into answering with a yes or no to the question, “would you sign the 180?”. After repeated attempts he finally got a meek “yes, I will” from the Senator. Qerry then immediately went on the attack against those who served with him, and who now question his credibility, by insisting that they too should sign the SF 180 to release their records for examination by all. (Dude, I don’t remember them using their service as evidence of their competence to be Commander In Chief, the issue is your resume!) In other words, Qerry is saying to the Swiftboat veterans, if you question my service, I will slime you! Which, as we well know, is the standard operating procedure for libs, they never stand on their own record, they always attack those who are not convinced by their bullshit version of the facts!

Hey Senator, I’m not convinced. And, I doubt that you will ever keep your promise to sign SF 180, because I believe the release of those documents would prove once and for all, that you are a lying piece of trash whose military career was a dishonor to the services! Can I lend you a bandaid Senator?

Taken from the transcript of the April 18th, 2004 edition of NBC’s Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: The Boston Globe reports that your commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibberd has suggested that you perhaps didn’t earn your first Purple Heart and question whether you should have left Vietnam after six months. In order to deal with those kinds of issues, when I asked President Bush about his service in the Texas Guard, he agreed to release all his military records, health records, everything. Would you agree to release all your military records?
SEN. KERRY: I have. I’ve shown them–they’re available to you to come and look at. I think that’s a very unfair characterization by that person. I mean, politics is politics. The medical records show that I had shrapnel removed from my arm. We were in combat. We were in a very, very–probably one of the most frightening–if you ask anybody who was with me, the two guys who were with me, was probably the most frightening night that they had that they were in Vietnam and we’re…

MR. RUSSERT: But you’ll make all your records public.

SEN. KERRY: They are. People can come and see them at headquarters and take a look at them. I’m not going to–but I’ll tell you this. I’m proud of my service….

Update: Full transcript of January 30, 2005 NBC News’ Meet The Press.

Including Qerry on how he won the election, except for the total vote and the electoral college. And, why he did not spend all of the campaign’s money. On Howard Dean. On abortion. On Scalia. The Iraqi elections. and so much more of his particular brand of humor.

Jan

30

2005

Americana: Photo of the Day

Filed Under Religion | Comments Off

The Power In Prayer.JPE

The Power In Prayer?

Also:

New evidence suggests the Shroud of Turin is between 1300 and 3000 years old. 1988 carbon dating may be accurate, but irrelevant.

Jan

29

2005

Cell Phone Spam

Filed Under Economics | Comments Off

My Verizon cell phone has been acting strange these past two weeks. I began getting that display which tells me that I have mail, but when I would check my voice mail there would be nothing new there. When I received a display telling me, “Memory Full New Text Rejected”, I went to their store for answers. It turns out that Verizon had been sending me text messages (a service I was only vaguely aware that my phone was now capable of) offering me mew deals on phones and service and after thirty (30) of these Spams accumlated my “Memory” was filled.

The Verizon tech gave me an 800 number and I have had them block all future Verizon spam. If you are having a similar problem you can call 1-800-922-0204 and have them block it on your phone.

I was also told, by another Verizon user, that they will count the minutes taken for me to receive those text messages against my usage, and Cass says I/you can have them take it off the bill as well. I have never been over my minutes, but you can bet I will check my next bill!

The nerve of these people advertising to me at my cost on my business phone! What are they thinking?

Jan

29

2005

Americana: Photo of the Day

Filed Under Entertainment and Sports | Comments Off

Free Stuff.JPE

GENEROSITY

Jan

29

2005

A New Day Dawns

Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | Comments Off

There is a saying that suggests, people get the government they deserve. Perhaps it has been with that maxim in mind that I have not had a warm feeling for the Iraqi people, until today. There was a brief period in the Eighties, when the Iraqi were fighting our Iranian foes, when I had good thoughts about them, but since, especially since the Gulf War, I have viewed the entire population as extensions of Saddam Hussein. And being associated with Saddam’s image is not a good thing. The invasion of Kuwait, holding Scott Spicher, violations of the “No-Fly” zones which were established to keep Saddam’s military from harming the Iraqis in the north and south, the shots fired at our patrol planes, violations of sanctions, the continued threatening posture toward the USA, and on, and on….

But, today I watched video of exile Iraqis voting for their new government, their faces filled with pride and joy. And, I saw reports from in country that the curfew is being respected, and the people are anxious to vote in spite of the murderous acts of a few animals, and I found myself suddenly very aware that Iraqis are not the beasts I had envisioned. They are going to become a part of the civilized world, they are going to form a government which represents the wishes of the citizenry, for the first time in the lives of many Iraqis it will be their country.

Jan

28

2005

Saved By A Bottle Opener

Filed Under Entertainment and Sports | Comments Off

The strangest escape ever?

Jan

28

2005

The Set Up

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | 1 Comment

If we take the word of ABC News, an organization which does not yet employ Dan Rather, then we are to believe that a leaker within the Cosby investigation has revealed the following:

A source close to the investigation told ABC News that Cosby’s version of what happened between him and the woman and his accuser’s story are similar in many ways. The dispute, the source told ABC News, is whether the contact between Cosby and the woman was consensual.

Of course, those are the facts surrounding the case, if we believe the word of someone who knowingly violated the trust placed in them by the investigators who are looking into the matter. It seems like a dubious source, but, perhaps ABC could whisper the name to Sandy Berger and have him vouch for the source? Perhaps not.

Based on what I surmise of Mr. Cosby’s nature, a conclusion drawn from viewing his work product, and listening to his words; the notion that he is guilty of,

giving her a pill that rendered her semiconscious and fondling her

is absurd!

When I first heard of the charge, my immediate reaction was that someone is getting revenge for the common-sense he has been spreading. Mr. Cosby says that Blacks need to take a larger
role in their future, and everyone who has an interest in making Blacks believe they need big brother to help them out is suddenly mad! The users see that in the future, the gravy train will leave town if they can not continue to convince Blacks that Blacks are victims without the power to improve themselves on their own. If you need to discredit a truth-teller, slime him, right? Isn’t that the way the game is played?

I think some liberal (read narrow left-wing conspiracy) decided that Mr. Cosby was getting too uppity, what with all his talk about personal responsibility leading to opportunity, and the havoc that would ensue for the liberal elites (read mass’ers) if the folk decided they no longer needed handlers was too great a price to pay; so they set him up by duping some poor girl into claiming something that never happened.

But, hey, I could be wrong. Afterall, I am just some guy sitting around in his pajamas with an internet connection. It isn’t as though I am a credentialed journalist with decades of experience behind me. And, I don’t have even a single un-named source to back up my contentions. So, who are you going to believe?

Jan

26

2005

A Boxer’s Dozen

Filed Under Politics | 1 Comment

The following senators voted against today’s confirmation of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State.

Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
John Kerry, D-Mass.
Carl Levin, D-Mich.
James Jeffords, I-Vt.
Jack Reed, D-R.I
Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii
Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

Notice that only three senators from “red” states voted no, all of them bordering on Bluesville: Byrd of West Virginia, Harkin of Iowa (Gore by 0.32% in 2000), and – somewhat suprisingly – “moderate” Evan Bayh of Indiana. One can only assume this is Bayh’s first vote as a 2008 presidential candidate, trying to appeal to Democrat primary voters.

Jan

25

2005

A different “tone” in the Senate

Filed Under Race and Prejudice | 13 Comments

I must be living in an alternate dimension or universe. What else could explain a world in which a former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan can stand in the well of the United States Senate to advocate blocking the acceptance of a black woman nominee for Secretary of State and not one major national newspaper or television network questions the propriety of such an act? And why is it that this formerly hooded gentleman is not being lambasted by his Senate compatriots? Where is the hue and cry of racism?

HELLO! IS ANYONE OUT THERE???

This is a former Ku Klux Klan member… arguing against an eminently well qualified black woman!

ANYONE?

And don’t tell me that he and his cohorts are simply objecting to her nomination because they believe she is unqualified! She has more personal and professional qualifications to hold the position for which she is nominated than do most of those that oppose her have for theirs.

It’s not as if Senators are insensitive to these type issues. It was just a few years back that Senator Trent Lott made an abstract and offhand compliment about a Senate colleague who had once held segregationist beliefs and was drummed out of his political party’s leadership – by the very members of that party. So why isn’t that same thing happening this time?

Some will say that this former Ku Klux Klan member’s actions, and the obvious inaction of his colleagues, cannot possibly be racially motivated because many of these same Senators approved the nomination of Colin Powell four years ago. And I’m sure if you ask them they’ll tell you that some of their best friends… well, you know! Perhaps the formerly hooded gentleman is just misogynistic? But then if that’s true, where are the complaints from the Feminists? No, I don’t think the Klan Senator objects to a woman as Secretary of State either because he was a strong supporter of Madeleine Albright.

It seems evident that the Klan Senator is objecting much more to the nomination of Dr. Rice than he ever did to that of Colon Powell because to his eyes, and in true Klan fashion, Colon Powell is just so much “brighter” than Dr. Rice!

Update: It seems The Dark Truth agrees with me, although he is much more polite than I have been about it. (Stovepipe hat tip: Booker Rising) The Dark Truth also seems to agree that the Democrats may have made a conscious decision to risk some complaints about racism in order to keep their brand of liberalism alive. The thing is, if you find the need to perform CPR it’s pretty much a certainty that something is desperately wrong with the patient.

Jan

23

2005

Will they EVER learn?

Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | 4 Comments

The buzz-buzz-buzz going through Washington is the ever-present swarm of liberal consternation as the journalistic world tries to grasp (not for the first time), “Just who does George Bush think he is?”

As the saying goes, he’s the “Leader of the FREE World” and he’s trying to put some meaning back into that title.

No sooner had the President finished his second inaugural address than critics began to question his meaning – as if his plain-spoken style for the previous four years could provide no clue.

(The speech) has alarmed some critics, who say it suggests a major and potentially mistaken expansion of U.S. foreign policy goals or merely empty rhetoric. They have asked whether the speech’s soaring language has any practical application as the president goes about the gritty work of day-to-day diplomacy, and, if it does not, what meaning does it have?
Persued by these questions, the White House sought to answer them, insisting there is no real change from the policy they have forumulated and enacted for the past three years.
White House officials said yesterday that President Bush’s soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere….

White House officials argued that some observers have read more into the speech than is there. “The speech was carefully and purposely nuanced,” said presidential speechwriter and policy adviser Michael J. Gerson. “We are dealing with a generational struggle. It’s not the work of a year or two.”

The riposte from the media could not have been more scripted.
The speech Bush delivered Thursday at the Capitol appeared to set the United States on a new course in foreign policy, a pivot from the focus on terrorism, which has defined Bush’s presidency since Sept. 11, 2001, to confronting tyranny as the enemy that threatens global security. In the 21-minute speech, Bush mentioned neither Iraq nor terrorism but defined what he called a generations-long struggle to encourage democracy to make America safe from terrorist attack….

Presidential advisers also said they were not trying to roll back the speech on the day after, pointing to language in the address that they said made it clear that the goal of ending tyranny would not be accomplished with cookie-cutter policies or unrealistic ambitions. For example, Bush declared that ending tyranny would not be accomplished primarily through armed conflict, and he made distinctions between dealing with outlaw states that actively support terrorism and those whose human rights records may be poor but that have shown a willingness to change. (my emphasis)

So what we have is a President who tries to deliver an inspirational and decisive call for freedom in the world, a media elite so entangled by their slavishness to politics and bureaucracy that they cannot avoid questioning the meaning and scope of every word, then that same media tries to minimalize the entire package as spin based on their very own own inability to comprehend it.

It’s simple, people. Remember “The Bush Doctrine”? For three years we’ve recited it this way: “You’re with us, or against us.” The President has made it plain that the “us” does not stand for “U.S.” but for democracy, for FREEDOM.

Nations of the world take note: You’re either willing to entertain the notion that your countries should some day embrace the principles of democracy and freedom, or you’re against the long-term goals of the United States of America and the other democratic institutions of the West.

Jan

20

2005

Freedom’s Century

Filed Under Liberty and Democracy | 2 Comments

As the President began his second innagural address today, I told Steve that I thought perhaps he might go so far to make a pledge similar to that made by John F. Kennedy in 1961. Kennedy promised, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”

Almost six years and two presidents after his death, America made good on Jack Kennedy’s promise, with just five months to spare.

I envisioned that George Bush would make the commitment, “We shall ensure to all the people of the earth the right to a democratic government by the end of this century.”

He came close to making that very pledge the policy of the government.

America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world….

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well – a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

Ironic on several levels, the sweeping majesty of the speech is harshly criticized this morning by fellow Republican and speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who seemed to have sat near someone with similar instincts to my own.
George W. Bush’s second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars.
Similar comments could be heard on Fox News last night, where it was noted several times that the President was “swinging for the fences.”

Noonan, however, thought the President and his speeachwriter were swinging too hard.

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that’s an ambition, and if you’re going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn’t expect we’re going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it’s earth.
I tend to agree with Fred Barnes, who spoke on Special Report’s roundtable. “No one said it had to happen in the President’s term.” It certainly didn’t in Kennedy’s case, and I believe Bush is thinking much more long-term than some people are.

Jan

20

2005

“They have seen their last ascendancy”

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment

Emmett Tyrrell has an excellent piece at TownHall.com today, describing the absolute assault on the First Amendment by liberalism. Referring to the furor over Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ contention that men and women are different, Tyrrell writes:

For years now there have been things that one simply cannot say in the presence of progressives. The possibility that men and women have different aptitudes is one of those things. There are others. This means, of course, that there are things progressives are unlikely to hear. When they do hear them they are astonished, and as Professor Hopkins demonstrates, physically convulsed.
These are the fruits of “Political Correctness” – a term which, ironically, Tyrrell never actually uses. Liberalism has banished the freedom to speak frankly about mundane issues, especially when the thought is considered by liberals as stupid or unpopular. And as a result, liberals have grown physically incapable of hearing contrary political ideas.

Contrast this with our discussion yesterday, where liberals refuse to censor themselves regarding highly sensitive military and national security information. On the one hand, the liberal seeks to mute the voice of their opponents with restrictions on their liberty, and on the other he threatens to destroy the country that protects his freedoms through sedition, all the while claiming that he is the victim as he speaks for tyrants.

May God give us the wisdom and courage to defeat these vipers in our midst.

Jan

19

2005

How can a lie this big persist this long?

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | Comments Off

Master blogger Charles Johnson has stumbled across something quite interesting, in direct refutation of a lie peddled by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) during the confirmation hearings for Secretary of State designate Condoleezza Rice.

Despite public rhetoric to the contrary – rhetoric even die-hard pro-war conservatives like myself thought was regrettable fact – Congress never actually authorized the use of military force to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. The act of Congress passed in 2002 which authorized the use of military force by the President in Iraq used phrases like “the risk that the current Iraqi regime will… employ those weapons… combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself.”

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to… defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
What has been cast as mere rhetoric on the part of conservatives – that Iraq’s capabilities were a potential threat even if no weapons existed – turns out to be the very language used in the resolution. It’s amazing that even a hawk such as I had been warped by the mainstream media into believing that the resolution was more specific than it actually was, that Congress had not authorized the President to remove any active threat, but the mere potentiality of a threat, and to enforce UN resolutions requiring active compliance by Hussein’s Iraq.

It’s utterly amazing how the Masters of Newspeak have perfected their Svengali-like craft. I’ve got to stop listening to the news and just read http://thomas.loc.gov for this crap.

Jan

19

2005

The Rice Gambit

Filed Under Foreign Affairs, Liberty and Democracy, Race and Prejudice | 1 Comment

To those critics who contend this slim black woman can’t possibly wield the authority of speaking for the United States of America as her chief diplomat, especially while our reputation among world governments is in such disarray, Condi Rice has a response:

There is no doubt that Iraq is a country that has deep divisions and it is a country where Saddam Hussein exploited those divisions, for instance, with the policy of Arabization in Kirkuk.

And so they have a long and hard road ahead to effect national reconciliation.

But I’ve been, frankly, quite heartened by the fact that the Shia, whenever there’s an attack against them by Zarqawi and his people or by the insurgents, don’t take to the barricades. What they say is, this is going to be a unified Iraq, and we’re not going to fall to sectarian violence.

So I think we need to give them a chance here. You know, the political process, as you well know and you all know better than I, is one of coming to terms with divisions, coming to terms with institutions that mitigate against people’s sense of alienation. It takes time. It takes effort. Sometimes the compromises are a bit imperfect at first. But over time, it gets better.

You know, we’ve had our own history with this. I often say, and I don’t mean it jokingly, that so far I have not seen the Iraqis, or for that matter, the Afghans, make a compromise as bad as the one in 1789 that declared my ancestors to be three-fifths of a man.

So we need to be patient with people as they make these moves to democracy, understand that it will be in small steps, that they will have ups and downs, that the whole process will have ups and downs.

But as long as they’re on a strategic road that is getting them to a government that can actually represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people as a whole, I think they’ve got a chance.

I’ve got one other comment, on a related point. For the last few weeks, as these days approached when Ms. Rice must present herself before the Senate, we’ve heard so much about how our relations with our Allies are so bad right now. “The world hates us!” But to many of these same people criticizing Ms. Rice and complaining about our relations with the world, Colin Powell was their one stalwart in the Bush Administration. (“He’s been a tremendous public servant…” said Chris Dodd.) So, how exactly did these horrible relations degenerate under that “tremedous public servant,” Senator?

Jan

19

2005

Sleepwalking toward the abyss

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

Tony Blankley entitles his latest Washington Times article Espionage by any other name, but I happen to think the last line he writes would have made a more suitable title: Sleepwalking toward the abyss. This is a truly frightening story, and I agree with Mr. Blankley that federal prosecutors should indeed review the information disclosed by Mr. Hersh to determine whether or not his conduct rises to the level of criminal espionage.

Of course the left will no doubt cry that this is just another attempt by the vast right-wing media machine to scare enlightened and thoughtful writers into silent submission. I guarantee they will use terms like a chill wind, casting a shadow, and the ever popular stifling free speech to describe Tony Blankley’s suggestions that federal prosecutors get involved. But that suggestion does not in any way infringe on a persons right to freely express their opinions at all, it merely make the observation that words mean things. Mr. Blankley is, in essence, telling Seymour Hersh (et al) that you can go into a crowded movie theater and scream “FIRE” as loud and as often as you would like – just so long as you are prepared to take the moral responsibility for any injuries that may occur from the stampede, and financial responsibility for defrauding those patrons of their right to watch a movie they paid to see.

What too many in this country fail to understand is that the term “free speech” means that you are free to say (write, sing, etc.) whatever your heart desires, but not free from the consequences those words create.

Next Page →

  • Featured Sponsor

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories