politicalpartypoop.com

Clinton’s finger-wagging moment
Slick Willie’s Day of Rage
Clinton’s excuses; Ace fact-checks
Wallace did challenge Bush admin
Viera gushes; Olby drools
Newsmax audio tape of BC

WATCH HOT AIR HERE

Another good post via Right Wing News: 

Over at the wildly popular liberal blog, The Smirking Chimp, there are a couple of posts, both on the front page, that merit a closer look.

First, there’s a column from Gary Vance called “How Can Any Christian Support the GOP?” Here’s a quote from that column:

 

“Many Democratic candidates have become more open about their religious faith during this election cycle in an attempt to appeal to the Christian values driven voting bloc. Critics on the Right ridicule this effort as being nothing more than shallow and insincere religious grandstanding.”

 

Is it “shallow and insincere grandstanding?” In a word, yes. Witness another post from the front page called, “Religion or Reality. Choose,” by W. Christopher Epler, which is representative of how a significant portion of the Democrats’ liberal base feels about Christians. Here’s an excerpt from the column:

 

“Religious fanaticism is simply institutionalized psychosis and if we ever needed all the help we could get from reality folk (mystics) and courageous scientists, it’s now. 

Our planet cannot be pummeled much longer by these nut cases without passing infinitely tragic points of no return.

T.S. Elliot spoke of ending with a bang or a whimper. Let’s not permit Mother Nature and our beloved (and one and only!) planet Earth to end with a Bush/Republican whimper.”

 

Certainly, you can be a Christian and a Democrat. Moreover, there are plenty of Christians who do feel comfortable with the Democratic Party and feel that it best represents their views as Christians.

But, isn’t there a point where as a Christian Democrat, you have to say, “Enough is enough?” Isn’t there a point where you have to say, “I can’t be part of a political party where the view that religion is “institutionalized psychosis” is a mainstream view that most liberals either agree with or don’t think is worthy of being challenged?

Isn’t there a point where you have to say, “Look, you can’t have my vote if I am going to be sneered at like this day in and day out. You can’t have my vote if support for the ACLU comes above support for Christianity. You can’t have my vote when liberals laughingly mock Christianity without the slightest fear that it will hurt their standing in the party. I’m not insisting that the Democratic Party agree with me on every issue, but they should show me a modicum of respect as a Christian.”

You’d think that the Christians in the Democratic Party would insist on at least that much, but so far, it’s not happening.

This may be old news to some, but except for the night Rush spoke on her “free speech” segment I have not watched CBS news. Katie is not so perky there.

Posted by Brent Baker Newsbusters

On Thursday night, for the second time in about two weeks, the CBS Evening News turned over its “freeSpeech” segment to a sympathetic person pleading for the rights of illegal aliens, this time a successful illegal who’s done well. (So far, CBS has not run a commentary from anyone advocating a crackdown on illegal aliens.) Identifying him as an “illegal immigrant,” CBS concealed the identity of “Carlos” by using a fake name and putting him in shadow. He explained: “I cannot show you my face tonight because if I were identified I could be deported. After hearing my story, I hope that you will question whether this is what I deserve.” The college-age “Carlos,” whose family came in on a tourist visa when he was eleven and overstayed their visas, asserted: “Almost from the beginning my parents paid taxes, and two years after we arrived here, they applied for legal residency. Believe it or not, our application is still pending. That means my parents and sister and I can still be deported even though we did everything we were supposed to do to try to become legal.” Except follow the rules for their visa.

“Carlos” concluded: “I ended up graduating fifth in my high school class and have since graduated college and I hope to become a lawyer. But because I am undocumented, I could never get a license to practice law and that puts me in a state of limbo. I’ve grown up here and I feel American — I just lack the piece of paper that validates it.” (Transcript follows)

Back on September 6, Katie Couric’s second night, as recounted in a NewsBusters item, CBS employed the “freeSpeech” feature to help plug a protest in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants. CBS put a soft and sympathetic edge on the topic by showcasing a Los Angeles Times reporter, Sonia Nazario, concerned about mothers in the U.S. separated from their kids south of the border. Couric set up Nazario by pointing out how there would be “a demonstration in favor of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.” The “freeSpeech” segment, Couric explained, would focus “on mothers who come here illegally, and the children they leave behind.” Nazario began: “If we are going to start to solve our immigration problem and stay true to our family values, we need to understand the plight of hundreds of thousands of mothers now in the U.S. and the children they felt forced to leave behind in Central America. It’s a humanitarian crisis.”

Katie Couric set up the “freeSpeech” segment on the September 21 CBS Evening News:

“Last week, the House voted to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border, and today it approved tough prison sentences for illegal immigrants caught tunneling under it. But Congress has no plans to do anything about the millions of illegal immigrants already here. In tonight’s ‘freeSpeech,’ you’ll hear from one of them. At his request, we’re concealing his identity. ‘Carlos,’ as we call him, has been in the U.S. More than a decade and recently graduated from college.”

“Carlos,” in shadow:

“I cannot show you my face tonight because if I were identified I could be deported. After hearing my story, I hope that you will question whether this is what I deserve. My parents and I came here from Guatemala on a six month tourist visa. I was eleven years old. Before we left, our family business went bankrupt. We had lost our home there, and my parents could not afford to pay for school. So with the money we got from selling all our furniture, my parents bought airplane tickets and we came to the U.S. because it was our last hope. 

“Within a year of my arrival, I was already in regular English classes and on the Honor Roll. My dad got a job in construction, my mom cleaned houses. Three nights a week, my parents, my nine year old sister and I used to pick up the garbage at a factory. On weekends, we collected bottles to recycle. Almost from the beginning, my parents paid taxes, and two years after we arrived here, they applied for legal residency. Believe it or not, our application is still pending. That means my parents and sister and I can still be deported even though we did everything we were supposed to do to try to become legal.

“I ended up graduating fifth in my high school class and have since graduated college and I hope to become a lawyer. But because I am undocumented, I could never get a license to practice law and that puts me in a state of limbo. I’ve grown up here and I feel American — I just lack the piece of paper that validates it.”

At the bottom of the CBSNews.com page with the text of “Carlos,” CBS News posted this plug, with “English” in lower case:

“Carlos” is a young man who arrived in the United States without speaking english over 10 years ago, and recently graduated college. He aspires to become a lawyer. 

His future and the future of thousands of other students who have grown up in the U.S. depends on the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) now pending in Congress. For more information visit the website, www.dontjustdreamact.com.

For video of “Carlos,” check CBSNews.com’s “freeSpeech” page.

 This only reminds me to NEVER, EVER go see a movie he is in or is the major star in.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Mel Gibson has returned to the spotlight to promote his upcoming movie “Apocalypto,” and to criticize the war in Iraq, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Almost two months after he railed against Jews when he was arrested for driving drunk in Malibu, the actor made a surprise appearance Friday at Fantastic Fest, an event in Austin, Texas, devoted to new science fiction, horror and fantasy films, the trade paper said in its Monday edition.

READ THE REST

A mature, modest and (almost) scandal-free George Michael took the stage in his first solo concert in 15 years. But the pop star couldn’t resist making another controversial dig at George Bush.

At the end of the first set Michael sang his 2002 controversial anti-Bush song “Shoot the Dog.”

During the number, an enormous balloon depicting a cartoon-ish George Bush rose out of centre stage, drawing whoops and yells from the crowd. But the real surprise came when Michael leaned down to unzip the balloon’s trousers, and out popped a British bulldog draped with the UK flag. The dog was stuck to the balloon’s inflated crotch, wagging its tail. ARTICLE LINK

 

 

 

“I’m not saying that I have an open relationship with my boyfriend but he knows who I am,” Michael said. “He knows that I’m generally oversexed, so he’s been very, very good. … We love each other and he understands that it was a stupid mistake and he’s forgiven me, I hope.”

By Larry Elder - Article Link
Is political correctness a “hate crime”? The federal government defines hate crimes as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.”

Consider the case of Dr. Richard Zeller, formerly a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio. After 25 years of teaching at the school, Dr. Zeller retired in protest. Why? He wanted to teach a course on political correctness.

From talking to students, Zeller learned that many felt pressured to adopt politically correct views in order to get a passing grade. One student told Zeller that, in order to get a good grade, a professor virtually forced the student to agree that all whites are racist. Another student said that he felt pressured to adopt a “pro-choice” position on abortion, even though he considered himself staunchly pro-life.

Professor Zeller got an idea. What about a course on political correctness, on the tyranny within academia that forces students to conform to a prescribed set of views?

Zeller put together a proposed course curriculum. He included books like “Illiberal Education” by Dinesh D’Souza; “The Bell Curve” by Herrnstein and Murray; “Two Steps Ahead of the Thought Police” by John Leo; “Inside American Education” by Thomas Sowell; “A Nation of Victims,” by Charles Sykes; and “Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action,” by S. Yates.

But Zeller’s sociology colleagues said “no” to the course. Zeller protested, and ultimately the sociology department voted on whether or not he could teach the course. Zeller lost 9-5. Zeller then attempted to teach the course in other departments, but no other department granted approval. So much for academic freedom, for diversity of thought. Not only that, Zeller found friends few and far between.

For example, one newspaper quoted BGSU’s Dr. Kathleen Dixon, the Director of Women’s Studies, who said of Zeller’s attempted course, “We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!” We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech?!

A BGSU ethnic studies professor said that Zeller’s attitude would help students ” … feel good about the ruling paradigm, which since the inception of the United States, has said that genocide is good, racism is better, and exploitation of the women and poor is the best way to go.” Gee, poor Zeller thought he was simply teaching a course on political correctness.

How about professor Gary Lee, the BGSU Sociology Department Chairman, who said, “Unfortunately, tenure protects the incompetent and malicious; Rich has tenure, so he cannot be fired without cause.” Fired? For wanting to teach a course in political correctness?

For good measure, Zeller also received death threats, and someone wrote “Zeller you die” on sanitary napkins left on the professor’s front porch at home. Weary of the battle, Dr. Zeller offered his resignation. In a letter to the school, Zeller expressed his frustration and anger. He directs his concern, said the professor, not at himself, but at the students deprived of an education that challenges assumptions and questions the status quo.

Zeller said, “But don’t cry for me. I’m doing just fine, thank you. Cry out, instead, for the students who regularly get intellectually mugged on the BGSU campus: the traditionalist who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but can’t say so for fear of failing; the conservative who believes in minimizing government interference in our lives and says so in a sociology class; the woman who believes that abortion is murder, but must write a pro-choice essay to pass English 111; and all of those who have “adjusted” and “self-censored” their ideas so that they can pass their classes.

Zeller also said, “BGSU has sold its soul to the thought police of political correctness. There was a time that … honorable people could disagree honorably; now, any challenge to the campus sacred cows (feminism, affirmative action, and multiculturalism) is denounced as evil.”

About Zeller’s travails, the Christian Science Monitor’s Sanford Pinsker said, “Amid all the self-congratulatory talk about diversity one hears on American campuses, it is not at all clear that intellectual diversity is alive and well. If the result of Zeller’s pressing for a course that might expose students to controversial thinkers and books had been an honest debate–rather than an exercise in character assassination–all of us might well have benefited. As it stands, however, everyone at BGSU has lost.”

Or, as BGSU’s Women’s Studies Director might have put it, BGSU prevents any discussion about any topic that suggests we prevent any discussion about any topic. Got that?

I think the criticism he getting to him just a tad, you think!?
No wonder he tried so hard to get the 9/11 movie stopped.
The thing is I, as a “right winger” (his words in the Fox interview) don’t “blame” him for inaction.
I don’t know about anybody else on the right but I think dude just had a different focus for his administration, and got distracted with stupid shit like M.L.
Clinton was simply the type of guy who wanted to be liked, by every damm body and did not want to take risks and take decisive action. Any Democrat would have been the same type of president and tried shoving diplomacy down our collective throats and hoped that those terrorists would just go away and be nice.  

WASHINGTON (Reuters) (Article Link) - Former President Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, accused the Bush administration of doing far less to stop the al Qaeda leader before the September 11 attacks.
In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on “Fox News Sunday,” the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted “right-wingers” for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden.
“But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now,” Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden’s danger. “They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.”
The September 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after President George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in January 2001.
“I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him,” Clinton said.

He added HE had drawn up plans to go into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and launch an attack against bin Laden after the attack on the Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

Sorry people but he is fucking lying there. Ok picture ANY president sitting in a dark room, drinking some wine, clothes wrinkled, intently looking at a detailed map, telling his minions,
 “ok folks” (remember to use you Clinton voice) “ya see were, gonna send out troops, up yander, were gonna flank our boys over this ridge, hit them with the heavy artillery and blast those terrorist sons of bitches out of those caves and pin then down HERE! I think we have us a plan y’all, call the Joint Chiefs and get them in here so I can brief them on what we is gonna do”

“Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, (cough, liar…) overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan — which we got after 9/11,” Clinton said.
The former president complained at the time the CIA and FBI refused to certify bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole attack.
“While I was there, they refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters, refuel at night,” he said.
Earlier this month, Clinton dismissed as “indisputably wrong” a U.S. television show that suggested her was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to confront the Islamic militant threat that culminated in the September 11 attacks.

“Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole,  (cough, liar…) overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan — which we got after 9/11,” Clinton said.The former president complained at the time the CIA and FBI refused to certify bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole attack.”While I was there, they refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters, refuel at night,” he said.Earlier this month, Clinton dismissed as “indisputably wrong” a U.S. television show that suggested her was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to confront the Islamic militant threat that culminated in the September 11 attacks.
 

DALLAS — About a dozen residents of a Dallas neighborhood beat a man after reports that he had been showing pornographic pictures to children on a playground, police said.
Brandon Scott Burke, 20, showed up Wednesday at an Oak Cliff apartment complex and was alleged to have shown a magazine with pictures of naked women to some of the children playing there, police said.
When one of the mothers saw him and asked Burke what he was doing, he tried to run and the woman started screaming, said Elizabeth Williams, the mother of another child. According to a police report, Burke said about 15 men “jumped him and hit him repeatedly on the face with their fists.” He suffered minor injuries, police said.
At least four children saw the nude pictures, police said. Burke was arrested on suspicion of harmful display to a minor.

Here is a good post from Right Wing news.  This post points out just how crazy your typical crazy ass liberals are. Hell I know they AGREED with and LIKED what Chavez had to say. Democrats, including former presidents have been saying this shit for years now.
Why do you think that this idiot had the balls to come to this country and call out OUR president. Dude has CNN and I’m sure he is a big fan of Keith Olberman. He has Belafonte and Glover on speed dial. Of course he was comfortable with trashing OUR president.   
I found the responses by the top libs curious. But as RWN points out these liberals are out for blood. They are more specifically geared towards destroying the credibility of this president and undermining this country.
These people are lunatics and are fuelled by anger.
Fucken dumb ass liberals are too stupid to realize that a verbal bitch slap to the president is a bitch slap to ALL AMERICANS.
His rant pissed me off because he is nothing but a punk ass wannabe dictator crying for world attention. Reminds me of a yapping lap dog.
 

Hugo Chavez made some moronic and rude comments about Bush at the UN, which included:

 

“The devil is right at home. The devil — the devil, himself, is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. 

“Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.”

 

In response, Charles Rangel verbally socked him one:

 

“An attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans…’You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State’…” — Charles Rangel

 

Americans aren’t particularly fond of way over-the-top attacks on the President in any case and they certainly don’t want to hear them from some tinpot thug, Castro-wannabe whom we were gracious enough to allow to enter our country. So, Rangel’s comments were good politics and, if you ask me, just common decency.

But, of course, not everyone agrees — like the folks over at the Democratic Underground, in a thread called Rangel: An attack on (CHIMPY) is an attack on all Americans…

As you read these comments, note the poisonous hatred towards Bush which is so extreme, so out of control, that these people are actually spewing massive amounts of venom at an ultra-left winger like Charles Rangel just because he defended George Bush. Apparently, for these people, being a loyal Democrat means NEVER saying a kind word for the other side, cooperating with them , or defending them for ANY REASON, no matter how justified it may be. Some of these comments are just….wow, you’ll see:

 

Moochy: Oh brother. Nationalism is a poison… Thanks Rangel.

xchrom: then tell your president to stop trying to overthrow legitimately elected governments.

RandiRhodesArchives: that he needs to switch parties! and he can take Zell LIEbushlover with him too!

malaise: Attack? How is calling him the devil an attack. Doesn’t Bushco call people terrorists with no evidence. Bush is the fugging anti-christ. Charlie knows a Dem backlash is coming for Chavez speaking at a Baptist Church in Harlem

OneBlueSky: when that president represents an immediate threat to world peace . . .and, indeed, to the survival of humanity and of the planet itself, I’d say that criticism is quite appropriate — anytime, any place, and by anyone . . .

Generic Other: Evil translates into many languages. F*ck ALL BUsh apologists. I am not offended by the g*ddamn truth.

Rex: Well then he can go and goosestep with his new best friend George Bush. I hear Lieberman was a great progressive at one time and p*ssed his whole career away due to a kiss by the Devil.

michael_1166: Tell you what, Mr. Rangel: I’m just an ordinary German citizen, but I’m not only refraining from visiting your country, I also won’t buy any American products unless your mass murdering president is behind bars.

Skidmore: You know, none of us here could possibly hate this country as much as the chickenhawks voted for these imbeciles that head this Mickey Mouse administration (yeah, I’m calling Boosh & Cheney names so sue me) and the Mickey Mouse Club Congress y’all installed with them. By the time they are done, America will be unrecognizable and no longer sovereign. Land of the free and home of the brave, my ass. Bunch of cowards lined up behind a coward and a bunch of Christian fanatics trying to bring Armageddon on cause they’ve been told that Mickey and the gang are put there by God. Handed the nation over Bin Laden and the terraists a long time ago. “They wanna kill us all.” Inless we go shopping, of course. Shop till you drop, but my guess is y’all won’t wear a uniform and actually go fight. Of course, there are those lucrative positions with KBR & Halliburton in which you can always make megabucks in and retire after a year.

LaPera: SO F*CK YOU CHARLIE RANGEL! Yes, Bush with his war mongering, killer of the poor and his imperialism certainly is the “devil”…But, we all knew this! Viva Chavez! Bravo!!

El Zopilote: What is U.S. Congressman Charles Rangél doing? Is he betraying the Democratic Party? He’s bashing Hugo Chavez and defending Bush. It is very disturbing and alarming to see a Democrat, especially a monority, to critize an international Hispanic leader and ally by expressing sympathy for Bush and his racist Republicans. Has Mr. Rangél gone loco? Has he turned into a rogue Democrat? Is he a traitor? Hopefully Mr. Rangél has an ulterior motive. But as Democrats we must be careful not to create the slightest impression that our strong united coalition has a crack in it. I consider all minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics of course, Muslims, American Indians and all to be my brothers in the cause of solidarity). We must remain united. Solidarity is the key to victory. We do not need dissent.

THESE PEOPLE NEED A GOOD STIFF DRINK OR MAYBE THEY NEED TO GET LAID!

Entry from Kos

Arianna:

 

 

Democrats have decided that the way to win in November is — I kid you not — to make the economy the central issue of the campaign.

“We’ve got to go on the offensive,” explained a senior Democratic aide, “and keep our eye on the ball — and that’s the economy.”

“We’re not going to win 15 seats on the war in Iraq,” said another Democratic staffer, insisting it is the economy that will, in the words of Roll Call, “bring the party across the goal line.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow is quoted as saying the 2006 election “is all about jobs.”

And, in a memo sent to Democratic staffers, the party’s Senate leadership claimed “while Iraq may be high among the concerns of the American people, it is a distant reality in comparison to the day to day challenges many families face filing their gas tanks, paying for college, saving for retirement and securing a job.”

A distant reality? Oh. My. God.

 

 

See, that’s why I don’t think we’re going to win back the House or Senate. Because you can always trust Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

For the record, we heard this in 2002. We heard it in 2004. I gave the argument the benefit of the doubt those years. I think I actually bought it in 2002. But apparently our vaunted leadership in DC is incapable of learning lessons.

They obsess about 1968, yet they couldn’t be bothered with the far more relevant years of 2002 and 2004. I don’t understand it.

More Arianna:

 

 

The 2006 election — and with it control of the House and the power to investigate the Bush administration’s abundant outrages — is there for the taking… if only Democrats would put down the economy crack pipe and put their energy into hammering Bush and the GOP for their many tragic foreign policy and national security failures, which have combined to make America far less safe.

The numbers couldn’t be any clearer. Seventy-seven percent of voters think that it’s time to give new people a shot at running Congress. But while Democrats continue to hold a lead when voters are asked which party they plan to support in November, Republicans are making significant gains in convincing voters they are better able to handle national security and the war on terrorism. According to a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll, voters give the GOP a whopping 17 point advantage on the “who’ll keep us safe?” question (nearly double the number who felt that way in June). At the same time, 56 percent of voters don’t believe that America is making progress in Iraq. (What’s more, Bush’s numbers on the economy have greatly improved in the last three months).

Which is why Democrats can’t take their eye off the real ball — making the case that Iraq is not, as Bush continues to claim, the centerpiece of the war on terror, and has, in fact, compromised America’s ability to combat terrorists and protect our homeland.

 

 

I’ll be shocked if we wake up on election day controlling either chamber of Congress. If we do, it’ll be because enough candidates decide to give those DC consultants and staffers the middle finger and run the race they know they need to run to win.

Found this while blog trolling, interesting.  

The web site for the Sultanate of Oman’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs must be run by bigoted Islamophobic crusaders, because their history section contains an outrageously Islamophobic (i.e. truthful) description of Islam’s reign of fear and persecution in the Gulf: Oman during Islam.

After God empowered Muslims to enter Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by use of fear. This was particularly evident in the tribe of Quraysh, who had responded to the Prophet Muhammad’s new message of Islam with unrelenting persecution, eventually putting its resources in the service of the ever growing new religion. The Prophet then saw it preferable to contact neighbouring kings and rulers, including the two kings of Oman, Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, through peaceful means. History books tell us that the prophet had sent messages to the people of Oman, including a letter carried by military escort from Amr Inn Al Aas to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, in which he wrote: ‘In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, from Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, peace be on those who choose the right path. Embrace Islam, and you shall be safe. I am God’s messenger to all humanity, here to alert all those alive that non believers are condemned. If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy’.

                                                                                   

By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com

“It was a good attack” – if you like mangled, bloody children.

Four Canadian soldiers dead, dozens of soldiers and civilians wounded, including numerous children, and that’s how bloodthirsty, Taliban “spiritual” leader Mullah Hassan summed up a “successful” suicide attack in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan last Monday. Fifteen additional innocent people were also killed across that suffering country in other coldly calculated suicide bombings that day.  
The Canadian soldiers, who are in a tough fight to reclaim the province and former Taliban stronghold from these murderous thugs, were part of a patrol stopped near villages in a rural area. The Canucks, whose contingent numbers about 2,200 in Afghanistan, were handing out toys and school supplies when a suicide bomber on a bicycle blew himself up, causing indescribable carnage. The Globe and Mail, a Canadian national newspaper in which Hassan’s heartless quote appeared, also cited a local farmer who said “all the children were crying and bloody”, while there were bloodstains and chunks of flesh left on the road. It was also the second suicide attack against Canadian troops in as many days.
“Every time we get the chance, we will kill Canadian soldiers. And the ordinary people must learn to stay away from foreigners,” continued Hassan in another proud, jihad moment.
A Liberal government committed Canadian troop to Afghanistan in 2002. Since then, they have suffered 36 deaths, including one diplomat. Their stellar performance on the battlefield, however, has earned them high praise from many quarters, including Condoleeza Rice. On a recent visit to Canada, the U.S. Secretary of State called the Canadian soldiers “fierce fighters”, saying the Taliban have “learned a tough lesson from that.”
But while Canadian troops are pounding the Taliban, incredibly, it is the Canadian Left that has not learned Afghanistan’s lessons. The leader of Canada’s socialist New Democratic Party, which is home to a myriad of current and former Maoists, Trotskyites and other  assorted Marxist-Leninists, has recklessly and repeatedly called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, breaching our NATO agreement that has already passed Parliament.
“There is no sign that it is making the Taliban weaker or the world safer,” said Layton at recent NDP party conference in Quebec. “There is no hope of changing the realities on the ground in Afghanistan - with the forces we have or can commit.”
In his appeasement comments, Canada’s Neville Chamberlain went even further - if that is possible. The leader of Canada’s third largest political party, which has 29 seats in the House of Commons, has actually called for negotiations with the Taliban, a gang of cutthroats that currently murders Afghan teachers for teaching girls, saying this is not the right mission for Canada. Which then begs the question: What is there to be talked about? Layton might as well just show up with a white flag; and then you can bet the Taliban will be eager to talk to him.

READ THE REST HERE

Sheik rejects pope’s gestures to Muslims,
calls for holy war against ‘this little racist’

World News Daily - JERUSALEM – Pope Benedict XVI’s apologies for worldwide reaction to his remarks about Islam and his invitation today for Muslim leaders to meet with him next week are “mere diplomatic acts” and prove the pontiff does not really regret his words, a prominent Gaza Strip preacher told WorldNetDaily.

Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza’s Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement, which seeks to make secular Muslims more religious, called for holy war against the pope.

He said Christian leaders such as Benedict are “afraid” because they realize Islam is Allah’s favorite religion and they are going to hell unless they convert. The Gaza preacher declared the “green flag of Muhammad” would soon be raised over the Vatican.

“We did not need the words of the pope in order to understand that this is a Crusader war against Islam and it is our holy duty to fight all those who support the pope, who follow him and who did not condemn what this small racist had to say,” said Abu Saqer, speaking to WND from the southern Gaza city of Khan Yunis.

“The day will soon come when the green flag of La Illah Illah Allah (There is no god but Allah) and Muhammad Rasul Allah (Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah) will be raised upon the Vatican and all around the world and on the fortresses of those who want to destroy Islam, because they know that this religion obliges them to face the truth that Islam is Allah’s favorite religion. And until they join Islam, hell is their last station,” Abu Saqer said.

READ THE REST IF YOU WANT, BUT WHY BOTHER 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of President George W. Bush’s fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a “thug” for his remark that Bush is like the devil.

“Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez’ comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

“Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations,” said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. “He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela.”

Simon Bolivar led the fight for independence against Spanish rule in several South American countries in the early 19th century and is cited by Chavez as a political model.

Chavez, a vociferous critic of Bush and the United States, has allied himself with U.S. opponents Cuba and Iran and has led a resurgence of left-wing populism in Latin America.

“The devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Right here,” Chavez said as he stood at the U.N. podium where Bush spoke the day before.

“It smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of,” Chavez said.

His remarks drew applause from many of the delegates.

Bush administration officials have not responded directly to Chavez’s remarks.

“I am not going to dignify a comment by the Venezuelan president to the president of the United States. I think it is not becoming for a head of state,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday.

 According to Weiner, “Impeachment is not on Conyers’ current agenda. It is only a red herring on the Republican agenda.”
Hmmm then what about this: ImpeachPAC - Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney

Also these nuts from the Impeach Bush Coalition has had that silly “Impeach Bush” graphic on their blogs for well over a year. So wait, is this going to be the Democratic strategy, tell the lunatic left to stifle the impeachment talk until after the elections? This is why I thank God I’m not a liberal Democrat.
You people are that deceitful that you would “attempt” to conceal your true thought process and principals for votes? Duh, your Democrats!   

(CNSNews.com - Article link) - Democrats and liberal advocacy groups have been talking about impeaching President George W. Bush for months. But when Republicans say the president indeed may be impeached if Democrats regain control of Congress, they’re just trying to scare people, a Democratic operative says.
In an op-ed column in Thursday’s Detroit Free Press, Robert Weiner, a former press secretary to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), accused Republicans of “trying to create hysteria about the likelihood of impeaching President Bush.”
According to Weiner, “Impeachment is not on Conyers’ current agenda. It is only a red herring on the Republican agenda.”
(In a Democratic House, Conyers would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and thus a key player in deciding to impeach, or bring charges against, the president.)
Weiner (who also worked for the Clinton White House) says Conyers “has told me directly: ‘I’m not going to conduct an impeachment. That would take all of our time. I would not want to bring an impeachment investigation because that would drain time and energy from the work that needs to be done, and it would take away the country’s attention from issues that need to be addressed.’”
Weiner said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who would become speaker of a Democrat-controlled House, said last May that “Democrats are not about impeachment. Democrats are about bringing the country together.” (You don’t decide to impeach, Pelosi said at the time, until the facts and “investigations” lead you there. She left the question open.)
The Republican National Committee insists that the real Democratic agenda is impeachment — spurred by hatred for George W. Bush as well as payback for what happened to Bill Clinton.
A number of Democrat/liberal websites, groups and individuals certainly do want Bush impeached on a variety of grounds — including the invasion of Iraq, the NSA wiretapping program, and alleged abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.
Various cities and towns have passed impeachment resolutions, urging Congress to act against the president. A number of Democratic politicians, Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer among them, have mused about impeaching Bush. And groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union also have pressed the impeachment issue.
Based on the sentiment of liberal grassroots groups, Conyers — if he becomes Judiciary Committee chairman in a Democratic House — would find himself under tremendous pressure to bring charges against the president in a time of war, as CNSNews.com has noted

(see reports below).

See Earlier Stories:
Impeachment Teach-Ins Seek to Oust Bush, Sell Books (21 July 2006)
Impeaching Bush Is ‘Cause Worth Fighting for,’ Actor Says (17 Feb. 2006)
ACLU Panel Urges Impeachment Over NSA Spying (21 Feb. 2006)
Kerry’s Impeachment Crack Not Funny, Republicans Say (16 Dec. 2005)
Has Bush Committed an Impeachable Offense,’ Senator Asks (20 Dec. 2005)

@

You mean with all of the liberal bloggers pushing their followers by begging and pleading people to watch this complete moron and his anti-American, anti-Bush tirades dude is STILL near the bottom of the cable ratings?
Why, why why!? Hell even that slimeball Nancy Grace has almost twice the audience that Olbermann does. No wonder liberals are always so unhappy. 

CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES. SEPT 19, 2006
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O’REILLY 1,932,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,405,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,396,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,381,000
FNC GRETA 1,284,000
CNN WOLF BLITZER 912,000
CNN LOU DOBBS 848,000
CNN COOPER 790,000
CNN ZAHN 783,000
CNNHN GRACE 770,000
CNN KING 706,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 444,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 444,000
CNNHN BECK 425,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 413,000

I missed this post from Right Wing News, this pissed me off as well. I am seeing way too much of this bullshit.

This is an appalling story on so many different levels:

 

“Velasco Elementary School’s principal said he has been taken aback by a controversy that has arisen from his campus’ Mexican Independence Day celebration, and he apologizes for offending parents. 

During a short school assembly Friday, several parent volunteers read a pledge of allegiance to the Mexican flag. Since a parent complained on the Chris Baker show on NewsRadio 740 KTRH that afternoon, the issue has become a focal point of some Houston talk radio shows.

…At about 10 a.m. Friday, students and parents gathered in the gym for an assembly commemorating Diez y Seis de Septiembre, Sept. 16, when Mexico celebrates its independence from Spain. The school’s bilingual classes from different grade levels performed songs, Williams said.Everyone was given a small Mexican flag and a group of six or seven parents recited the pledge from a script, Williams said. The students did not recite it, he said.

“My students don’t even know the Mexican pledge,” Williams said. “In the minds of my little kids here at the elementary school … they were simply holding a flag.”

He said the audience did stand as a sign of respect because that is the custom with which students are familiar.

“What we normally do is we stand for any pledge that’s given,” he said. “They can only relate to the U.S. pledge and the Texas pledge.”

 

This seems so obvious that it shouldn’t have to be said, but apparently some people need to be reminded that this isn’t Mexico.

Let me repeat that: this is not Mexico.

Sept. 16th isn’t a holiday here and quite frankly, the fact that Mexico became independent from Spain on that date shouldn’t be a cause for celebration for any American student. Moreover, American children shouldn’t be asked to hold a foreign flag, nor should the recitation of a pledge of allegiance to a foreign power be part of an event at a school.

We certainly shouldn’t expect Mexican school children to celebrate the 4th of July and similarly, no American school children should be attending a “Mexican Independence Day celebration,” at an elementary school.

Was checking out Dr. Phil this afternoon, only caught the first part, gonna have to check out tonight (Wednesday). But apparently there is this website called www.dontdatehimgirl.com (Don’t Date Him Girl dot com). It’s a site where women (and men I think) can post bad experiences they had with men and write all kinds of bad shit on them. Here is a tidbit from the site.

It’s Wednesday, September 20, 2006! Check out DDHG founder Tasha Joseph as she defends this website in front of a hostile audience on Dr. Phil on his show this afternoon! Show your support for DontDateHimGirl.com by logging on to Dr. Phil’s site and posting your comments! Also on DDHG, check out the new features in the member forum! Send e-mail to other DDHG members and post new topics instantly! And don’t forget,ladies, oming soon… GreatGuysToDate.com! Stay tuned!  

Now as a dude my first reaction should be “this is a bad thing, and men are getting a raw deal” because some skank can get on this site and say all kinds of mean nasty shit about a dude and most of it could be a total lie.
That was the subject of Dr. Phil’s show today, go to Dr. Phil.com and check out the discussion.
Basically this dude had some damaging stuff posted about him and he wants to sue the website owner claiming she is responsible. I don’t agree because SHE the website owner is not writing the material on these dudes.
What may be surprisingly to some is I tend to side with her and the site. Mostly because I know how fucked up men are.
Most women are looking for a stable, loving, honest, solid relationship or even friendship. But let’s face it, men are a bunch of fucken liars. Men will lie about every damm thing. Yes women lie too, the more make-up… fake boobs ect.
Look at the Dateline “to catch a predator” series. These bunch of pervert bastard men driving hours to hook up with an underage hardly legal teenager.
Now I know some of you might be asking “well Snoop are you in that category, liar that tis?” Yes, I did not tell any significant fish tales after my divorce during my time on the old AOL.love.com which is now Match.com now.
I was not interested in hooking up long term with anybody, I was just interested in hooking up, until I met the current Mrs. Snoop.
Hell I did not flat lie to anybody, I just stopped calling and e-mailing when I grew tired. Which I know is just as bad. I had no reason to lie, my life during that time was an open book, I was a very active community guy.
I wondered if this site existed back then, what would have been said about me. 
I engaged in questionable behaviors because I for a time was thinking very selfishly, as MOST men do.
You know however women fail to act on their God given intuition. It’s is easy to pick up on whether or not a guy is “in to you” or not.
But more than that women ignore questionable behavior, the crude rude habits of most men tend to be laughed off during the dating cycle and early in a relationship.
However thinking about this site, if a guy smelled bad, dressed like a bum, was broke, was stupid and you though about that enough to write about it on a website why the fuck were you dating him in the first place?
If you are constantly with men who exhibit the qualities of a third world sewer rat, it’s not the men that are the issue, IT’S YOU!
I have always said, Mrs. Snoop and the former Mrs. Snoop would verify, men are as fuck up as women allow them to be.
If you have issue with that, for the women who happen to read this, take a close look at your mate. Is his teeth fucked up, is he always watching sports, does he refuse to clean the home, does he dress like a bum, is he crude, rude to people, is he a racist bastard, how does he treat your friends, does he himself have friends, can you carry on a simple conversation with him, is he an idiot, has he cheated on you, emotionally or physically?
If you answered yes to any of this, then why are you with dude? If you answered yes, then it must bother you, but he had those fucked up qualities before you met, you only managed to nurture those qualities.
So there again, as to this website, if you are angry enough to trash some dude on a website, after daiting it probably is not the first time you hooked up with a loser. Instead of spending your time ranting to other women about your screw-up (his bad or evil qualities), you should be taking a closer look at yourself.  

Miranda rights for terrorists?!
The trap; Geneva Contention
Applying Geneva will destroy it

 

WATCH HOT AIR HERE

 

 

You Have the Right to Remain Silent…

McCain, Miranda, and Common Article 3.By Andrew McCarthy - National Review 

A number of friends and colleagues (both conservative and liberal) have either quarreled with or expressed alarm about my contention that the 2005 McCain Amendment conferred Miranda rights on alien enemy combatants. This contention has been the subject of a 2005 article (here) and a Corner Post (on Tuesday). They say I am making the McCain Amendment out to be much more consequential than it was — which is funny because, at the time, they all seemed to think it was pretty consequential. Why else did we need to pass it?

For my part, the argument is welcome, and I’d be delighted to be wrong — although you may not want to bet the ranch that I am (as Congress and the president have already done).

To oversimplify for explanation’s sake, the McCain amendment extends the Fifth Amendment privilege to alien enemy combatants held overseas. It did this for the express purpose of clarifying the meaning of the terms “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment” (CID) in the United Nations Convention Against Torture. (That itself is ironic because Senator McCain, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and others who supported the McCain Amendment are now faulting the Bush administration for trying to clarify impossibly vague terms in the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3.)

Now, the Fifth Amendment encompasses many things that plainly have nothing to do with CID. For example, it specifies a right to a grand-jury indictment, to double-jeopardy protection, and to just compensation for any government taking of property. It also has one protection that undoubtedly does relate to CID, namely, the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (Due process has been held by the Supreme Court, in Rochin v. California (1952), for example, to prohibit government conduct in the collection of evidence that would “shock the conscience” of the court — a highly subjective test.)

Finally, the Fifth has a protection that may or may not relate to CID, namely, the Self-Incrimination Clause. That is the right of a defendant not “to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” It is this provision that causes me to say the McCain Amendment requires Miranda warnings.  READ THE REST HERE

By Walter Williams - From Townhall 

A fortnight ago, my column made a stab at applying dispassionate analysis to come up with an operational definition for discrimination. Basically, discrimination is the act of choice, and choice is a necessary fact of life. Now let’s turn to prejudice, keeping in mind that for sound thinking, one should avoid confusing one phenomenon with another.

Prejudice is a useful term that’s often misused. Its Latin root is praejudicium, meaning “an opinion or judgment formed . . . without due examination.” Thus, we might define prejudicial acts as decision-making on the basis of incomplete information.

In a world of costly information, people seek to economize on information costs. Imagine heading off to work, you open your front door, only to be greeted by a full-grown tiger. The uninteresting prediction is the average person would slam the door or otherwise seek safety.

Why they do so is more interesting. It’s unlikely that person’s decision is based on any detailed information held about that particular tiger. More likely his decision is based on tiger folklore or how he’s seen other tigers behave. He prejudges, or stereotypes, that tiger.

If a person didn’t pre-judge tigers, he would seek more information prior to his decision. He might attempt to pet the tiger, talk to him and seek safety only if the tiger responded in a menacing fashion. The average person wouldn’t choose that path, surmising that the expected cost of getting more information about the tiger is greater than the expected benefit and concluding, “All I need to know is he’s a tiger, and he’s probably like the rest of them.” By observing this person’s behavior, there’s no way one can say unambiguously whether the person likes or dislikes tigers.

In the late 1990s, the Washington, D.C., taxi commissioner warned cabbies against going into low income black neighborhoods and picking up “dangerous looking” passengers whom she described as young black males dressed a certain way. A few years ago, some St. Louis, Mo., pizza deliverers were complaining about delivering pizzas to black neighborhoods. Can one say anything unambiguous about cabbies’ or pizza deliverers’ likes or dislikes for blacks?

In the case of the taxi commissioner’s warnings, the commissioner was black and so were most of the cabbies, and 75 to 85 percent of the complaining pizza deliverers were black. Are they racists? What about Rev. Jesse Jackson who once admitted that he is often relieved when the youths he hears walking along the street behind him turn out to be white, not black? Is he a racist?

As in the tiger example, the cabbies, pizza deliverers and Jackson are pre-judging. They are using a cheaply observed physical characteristic as an information proxy for a more costly to observe characteristic. The cheap-to-observe characteristic that a person is tall, female, Asian, black or white can indicate some probability of some other more costly to observe characteristic. In the minds of cabbies, pizza deliverers and Rev. Jackson, race was associated with a higher probability of being assaulted.

No one says that all young black males, not even a majority, pose a threat, but people are assigning probabilities. Such an assignment differs little from a physician, knowing that incidences of cardiovascular diseases are 30 percent higher among blacks than whites and prostate cancer is twice as high, giving his black patients more careful screening for these two diseases. Like the cabbies, pizza deliverers and Rev. Jackson, the physician is engaging in what some have called racial profiling — using race as an indicator of something else.

For analytical purposes, it’s important to correctly identify behavior. Asserting that a particular behavior reflects racial likes and dislikes, which it could, when in fact it does not, is to mislead and confound whatever problem or issue one is addressing.

 At U.N., Chavez Calls Bush ‘The Devil’

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor - Article Link
(CNSNews.com) - The way Democrats and some judges see it, requiring a photo ID at the polls infringes the rights of America’s voters.
The Democratic National Committee is applauding a Georgia judge, who has permanently blocked a state voter ID law from taking effect.
In the ruling issued Tuesday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford Jr. said Georgia’s new photo ID law violated the state constitution by placing an extra burden on qualified voters.
“Any attempt by the Legislature to require more than what is required by the express language of our Constitution cannot withstand judicial scrutiny,” Bedford wrote.
Press reports said the issue may reach the George Supreme Court before the general election on Nov. 7.

‘Harmful law’

The Democratic National Committee says voter ID laws are nothing more than “Republican attempts to restrict voting rights.”
The DNC noted that just last week, a circuit court overturned Missouri’s “harmful voter ID” law.
“This is the second blow in less than a week to the Republican strategy to narrow and limit the rights of America’s voters,” said Donna Brazile, who chairs the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute.
“This latest decision in favor of voting rights and against Georgia’s voter ID sends a message to Republicans across the country, that their partisan schemes to undermine the right to vote will not go unchallenged.”
The House of Representatives on Wednesday is expected to vote on H.R. 4844, “The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,” which would require voters to show government-issued photo IDs, such as a driver’s license, when voting in federal elections. The bill also would require people to prove their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
Supporters say the bill will reduce fraud at the polls — and prevent illegal aliens from casting ballots.
But the DNC said Republicans should “think twice” before enacting a federal voter ID law. “This Republican legislation would become the equivalent of a national poll tax,” the DNC said.
“As Democrats, we believe that no American should have to pay in order to vote, and we will continue to fight for meaningful election reform that ensures every citizen has access to the ballot and that those votes are accurately counted.”
The National League of Women Voters also is urging Congress to reject the Federal Election Integrity Act, which it describes as a “manipulation” of the voting process.
“This is an attempt to politicize the voting process by erecting barriers to keep many eligible, legal voters from participating,” National League President Mary G. Wilson said.
Wilson questions arguments that the bill will reduce voter identity fraud. She pointed to a “lack of evidence of instances in which voters misrepresent their identity at the polls.”
The National League says voter ID laws will disproportionately impact people who are least likely to have a current photo ID — such as the poor, the infirm, the elderly, rural voters and minorities.
“In modern society it is easy to assume that everyone has appropriate ID or can prove their citizenship. But it is more difficult than one might think,” Wilson said. “The costs in time and money of obtaining proof of citizenship and photo ID would clearly discourage voter participation.”

Hardship?

But Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who sponsored the Federal Election Integrity Act, says requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls “presents no greater hardship than people face performing everyday activities.”
For example, Hyde noted that government-issued photo IDs are required for driving vehicles, applying for Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, food stamps, boarding airplanes, entering government buildings, registering at school, getting student loans, renting movies, and cashing checks.
Given all the cases in which U.S. citizens are asked to produce photo IDs, it should not be difficult to produce IDs to guard against fraud in the electoral system, Hyde said.

When gas prices shot up in spring, some in the media were quick to criticize “corporate greed,” but as prices plummet, even that decline has to be a “conspiracy.”

If you think I’m kidding, then you don’t know Jack—Jack Cafferty that is. Cafferty shoots from the lip often enough as a CNN host, but on the August 30 edition of that network’s “Situation Room,” he outdid himself. After a story about how gas prices might get close to $2 by Thanksgiving, Cafferty grabbed his tinfoil hat and came up with his own conspiracy theory.

“You know, if you were a real cynic, you could also wonder if the oil companies might not be pulling the price of gas down to help the Republicans get re-elected in the midterm elections a couple of months away,” he ranted.

He ended the segment with another dig at Big Oil. “The interesting thing to watch on that story about gas prices is what happens to them right after the midterms,” he added.

An international conspiracy involving our government and evil oil companies? Sounds like the plot for Syriana. George Clooney won an Oscar for his role in that agitprop flick that depicted oil company villains in league with manipulative CIA operatives.

Only, Cafferty wasn’t in Syriana, and this wasn’t a show about a faked moon landing, aliens landing in Area 51 or Elvis and Tupac planning a concert tour together. This was a major “newscast” where one anchor just spouted off about a conspiracy with no facts at all to back it up.

On the September 3 “In The Money,” he repeated his crazy charge when he should have sounded retreat. “I mean the oil companies have a vested interest in seeing that the Republicans remain in control of the federal government,” Cafferty again claimed. “They wouldn’t pull prices down before the midterms now. Would they?”

Not just would they, but could they? If you believe that, then you and Cafferty should discuss the Illuminati’s controlling world events—just to raise gas prices. But that defies the same “logic” Cafferty claims is behind oil company support for Republicans. The increase in gas prices has hurt Bush and Republican incumbents for two years. Why then didn’t these same mysterious forces keep the price low?

Because in the real world, oil companies don’t control gas prices. They’re set on world markets. They’ve dropped significantly from their recent high on August 8—declining 42 cents between August 12 and September 12. If you’ll recall, gas prices soared from $2.26 a gallon in February as Iran increased tensions about its nuclear aims. Then, on April 11, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared, “Iran has joined the nuclear countries of the world,” according to the New York Times. Gas shot up about 25 cents in two weeks thanks to our nuclear reaction.

That was just the beginning. The inherently unstable Mideast became more so as Israel tried to root out the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah. Summer driving season came and prices went up as they do every year. The media’s favorite anti-American dictator, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, threatened to cut off oil and urged OPEC to set a minimum price of $50 per barrel.

Then in August, British Petroleum had problems with its Prudhoe Bay pipeline, making some network news reporters predict gas would hit $3.50.

Disappointed by Good News

Instead of oil skyrocketing, gas prices crashed like a North Korean missile test. Peace came temporarily to Israel. Summer driving season drew to a close. Chavez proved to have as much hot air as oil, and Iran made noises about working with the West on its nuclear aims.

Then gas began to fall.

If you’re Jack Cafferty, that was too much to bear. The huge oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico made it worse. Cafferty likes high gas prices. “I hope gas prices go as high as they have to go to get the rest of these morons off the road in these big Hummers,” he wished on the March 25 “In the Money.”

So now he’s angry because gas prices aren’t high enough. In that case, he must love OPEC. According to the September 12 New York Times, OPEC said it “would cut production if prices fell more.” That looks like they’re keeping prices high by controlling supply. By Cafferty’s logic, that would either make Ahmadinejad a big Democratic supporter or talk of such conspiracies downright silly.

If you want crazy conspiracies from your news broadcast, then tune to CNN. If you want something better, send Jack Cafferty some aluminum foil so he knows how you feel about his cooking up a kooky theory for gas prices.

From Sister Toldjah 

I blogged about this back on the 7th, and I see that the DNC’s faithful in the media are still barely containing their glee at the thought of Southern women turning their backs on the President and Republicans in the coming fall elections. Case in point, Good Morning America’s Friday segment which featured three Southern women who claimed to be Republicans, who were supposedly turning to Democrats this fall.

Brent Baker at Newsbusters, however, did the digging that GMA apparently either didn’t do or didn’t care to do, and that is, checking the conservative credentials of the women in question. He found that two of them had ties to either the Democratic party or Democratic party pet causes. This suggests to me something important to note about the apparent “switch” these women are making: they either probably already had Democratic leanings to begin with, even before their ‘dissatisfaction’ with the Republican party, or they’ve reconsidered their philosophy since voting for Bush.

READ THE REST AT SISTER TOLDJAH

Cyrus Nowrasteh, scriptwriter for ABC’s docudrama The Path to 9/11, defends the film’s controversial, invented scenes, noting that the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred one month after Bill Clinton took office, and eight years passed in which Clinton did little to thwart the growing menace. Nowrasteh makes a crucial point, but it is not necessary to resort to fiction. Our understanding of the terrorist attacks — going back to the 1993 Trade Center bombing — has become loaded with errors obscuring Clinton’s fecklessness. Correct those errors, which, unfortunately the film reproduces, and this essential point is far clearer.

The film links Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 bombing, to Osama bin Ladin. But, in fact, Yousef and bin Ladin had nothing to do with each other. Bin Laden is not indicted for the Trade Center bombing — intended to topple the towers and kill 250,000 people — despite an extensive effort to discover such links. Nor is that attack included in the military charges against Guantanamo Bay detainees, which outline al Qaeda’s conspiracy against America. Indeed, bin Laden was not indicted until June 1998, when he was charged with one count: “conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States.” The target is not identified, and no actual attack occurred.

Al Qaeda was long a small, secretive organization. There is virtually no public mention of it during its first decade — a Lexis-Nexis search produces five articles — until the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies. Only after those attacks, is al Qaeda added to the official U.S. list of terrorist groups. The 9/11 Commission notes, “While we now know that al Qaeda was formed in 1988, at the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Intelligence Community did not describe this organization in documents we have seen, until 1999 (emphasis added.)

It would have been a truly massive failure of virtually every U.S. agency responsible for fighting terrorism if bin Laden had backed a plot to kill 250,000 Americans in 1993, but the Justice Department only charged him with any crime five years later and the intelligence community only began to analyze his organization the following year.  READ FULL ARTICLE HERE FROM THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR

SEPTEMBER 19–If nominated, Oprah Winfrey will serve…a cease and desist letter. Lawyers for the talk show host are threatening legal action against a retired Kansas City teacher who has mounted a one-man campaign urging the star to run for president in 2008. The entertainer does not want Patrick Crowe, 69, to use her name and image, according to a letter from Winfrey attorney Jerry Glover, a copy of which you’ll find below. Through counsel, Winfrey contends that Crowe’s use of the Oprah name “falsely implies” that she and her firm, Harpo, Inc., sponsor or endorse the campaign. Along with a self-published book urging a Winfrey White House bid, Crowe has established a web site–Oprah08.net–to push her candidacy. Crowe, a fan who believes a future Winfrey campaign would change the face of American politics, also drives a 1959 Ford