Axis of Idiots

 
Now that the Democratic primary is heating up, J. D. Pendry's post from 2006 is worth revisiting (hat tips: Sgt. Kirk and Larwyn).

Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine sir. You wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a real Marines butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanimo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of the perpetrators of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America’s axis of idiots. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war – this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No Commander in Chief, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.

They need you to do it now.

J.D., apologies for quoting the whole thing, but it's too good to cut into soundbites.

Eliot ("I'm a f****ing steamroller") Spitzer gets flattened

 
Eliot ("I'm a f***ing steamroller") Spitzer was just pounded flatter than a tater-tot stashed under Michael Moore's mattress. The Washington Post reports that Spitzer has (ahem) reconsidered his plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens ("Spitzer Drops License Plan, But Damage to Democrats is Done"):

After all the hoopla, N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer is dropping his plan to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. But the damage to the Democratic presidential candidates - and, overwhelmingly, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - is done.

Clinton waffled on the question of whether she supported the Spitzer proposal during an Oct. 30 debate that has haunted her in the weeks since. In her answer that night, Clinton both defended and objected to the idea of giving permits to undocumented residents...

Word has it that Hillary's staffers were madder than hornets at Spitzer and forced his hand. Why? Because any issue where she is forced to explain her true position is certain to upset the vast majority of American people. And this issue can't be triangulated: it's either "Yes, I support drivers licenses for illegals" or "No, I don't."

These kinds of questions are the ones that Hillary despises because they force her to take a stand. And taking a stand is certain to result in the Queen Triangulator's defeat.

Michael Yon: Come Home

 
This generation's Ernie Pyle is Michael Yon. He describes a stunning scene in Baghdad that you will never, ever, ever see reported in today's mainstream media.

St. John's Church -- located in the heart of Baghdad -- celebrated Mass.

Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq."

If you don't start to tear up reading his report, well, I'm not sure you're human.

Go to Michael's site and give him a couple of bucks. He has absolutely no support from the mainstream media, so it's up to you and I to fund his incredible reporting.

Reid goes Commando on the troops

 
Whether it's trying to cut off funding for the troops... or declaring the "war is lost" just weeks before the war was won... or simply demoralizing the U.S. military, Harry Reid's mission is clear:

Fortunately, today's Democratic leadership is so unpopular and so incompetent that their chances of achieving defeat are roughly equivalent to the odds that Reid will be hit by an asteroid while accepting an Oscar.

Hillary's Pardons-for-Cash

 
Jammie Wearing Fool points us to a troubling ABC report ("Hillary Clinton Takes Cash From Recipients of Husband's Controversial Pardons"):

Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety...

Of course, word has it that debate moderator Wolf Blitzer was warned not to 'pull a Russert' (ask Hillary tough questions). So I'm imagining the following scene at tonight's debate.

Senator Clinton, ABC is reporting that you are accepting campaign contributions from recipients of your husband's controversial pardons. Given the appearance of a conflict-of-interest, why wouldn't you return these funds?

Wolf, you were warned about this.

Don't tase me, Hill!!!

***BZZZZZZZZZAHTTTTTTTTT!!!***

Senator Clinton, is it tough being the only woman in a Presidential race?

Much better! Why, Helen, I'm glad you asked that question...

Hat tip: Larwyn

Rather: CBS execs covered up for Bush

 
If you need additional proof that Dan Rather is 100% bat-s**t crazy, I think it's arrived in a gift-wrapped box. The Democracy Project notes:

CBS says it takes an absence from reality to take Dan Rather’s lawsuit against CBS seriously... [his assertion] that he was dismissed in a widespread conspiracy to cover up for Bush among CBS’ liberal management. In CBS’s response to New York’s Supreme Court, the network says as much:

The Complaint is predicated on allegations of a bizarre 'scheme' extending from the White House to an array of CBS executives including Sumner Redstone, CBS's Executive Chairman, Leslie Moonves, CBS's Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew Heyward, formerly president of CBS News, all of whom, according to Rather, colluded to harm Rather's reputation and keep him off the air," add CBS lawyers. "Of course, there was no such nefarious scheme, and Rather's allegations bear no resemblance to reality. CBS and its executives are not now, and never have been, out to get Dan Rather."

CBS also says, "If we are required to proceed beyond this point, we will defend the case vigorously and demonstrate that the lawsuit is wholly without merit, and that the bizarre allegations by Mr. Rather are untrue."

...The Silicon Alley Insider, a NY digital business blog, comments: “The company took the predictable stance: Dan Rather was once a great man and a valued colleague. It's too bad he has since gone insane.”

LGF's classic animated memo that ended Rather's employment at CBS told us that long ago.


Rather believes that a typewriter from the seventies could produce a document precisely matching one created in Microsoft Word. Oh, and that CBS is pro-Bush. Both assertions should be enough to have the poor soul committed.

Tim Russert's Devastating "Character Attack" on Hillary

 
After Hillary's disastrous debate performance in the last debate, the Clinton machine went on the warpath:

“This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,” a senior Clinton aide told cyberjournalist Matt Drudge. “Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull ‘a Russert.’ ”

"Pull a Russert"?

Let's examine Russert's devastating character attack in more detail. Here, from the official MSNBC transcript, are all of Russert's questions to Clinton:

Tim Russert: Senator Clinton, rebuttal?

Russert: Senator Clinton?

Russert: We're going to get to Social Security in a little bit, but I want to stay on Iran, Senator Clinton... As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only member of the stage here who did that...
Senator, Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war... Why did you vote for that amendment which would -- calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?

Russert: I want to ask each of you the same question. Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

Russert: But you won't pledge?

Russert: But, they may.

Russert: Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let's talk about Iraq. One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was recently quoted saying, quote, "I don't oppose the war. I have never heard Senator Clinton say 'I oppose the war.'" Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

Russert: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave? Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.

Russert: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

Clinton: Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.

Russert: Senator Clinton, please.

Russert: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no." Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position?

Russert: But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?

Russert: You call it a Republican talking point. Georgetown University, February 9, 1998: "We are in a -- heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits," Bill Clinton, 1998.

That's recent history. Only two years to go in his term. Is that a Republican talking point?

Russert: I'd like to talk about taxes. Senator Clinton, I'd like to start with you. Because the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, is a strong supporter of your campaign. He wants to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. But he also wants to have a 4 percent surtax on a single $150,000 income or $200,000 married couple. You went to Harlem with your husband, with Charlie Rangel. And the former president said, quote, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea." Is that also your view?

Russert: So in principle, you would be in favor of looking at a 4 percent surtax?

Russert: But you will not campaign on the Rangel plan?

Russert: Thank you, Brian. Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?

Russert asked the same questions that would be asked of any other candidate.

That's what the Clinton Machine calls a "character attack."

Come to think of it, that's about as accurate as everything else related to her campaign.

Hillary says Social Security isn't in trouble after all!

 
Hillary Clinton on 10/30/2007:

I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap. We're playing on the Republican field. And I don't intend to do that.

Oh, thank goodness! Social Security isn't in trouble!

On second thought, if Hillary is to be believed, she didn't know anything about the fraudulent Whitewater land deals, Paula Jones, Henry Cisneros' crimes, Vince Foster's magical copy of the Rose Law Firm files, Travelgate, Kathleen Willey, Chinagate, Juanita Broaddrick, Peter Paul, Norman Hsu, Pardongate or a host of other outrageous activities.

So maybe we should worry about Social Security after all.

In all seriousness, can you imagine what it feels like to flat-out lie about Social Security in front of a national audience? Even her most ardent supporters have to shudder when they hear statements like that.

Scene from Hillary Clinton Townhall Meeting (Dubuque, Iowa)

 
Next question, please?

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET UNITED STATES OUT OF IRAQ?

Our message to the president is clear. The time to begin to end the war is today. I have a three-step plan to bring our troops home, bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a crack diplomatic squad that will help ensure Iraq's future. Details of this plan will be available shortly after I take office.

Thank you. That was very informative.

Yee haw, this looks like some mighty fine readin'

 
This looks like a must-read:

Even the story behind the book makes for good reading.

Al Gore: Set to Profit from Eco-Suckaz... again

 
First there was global warming hysteria, aided and abetted by Al Gore's lucrative book-and-movie deal. Next, his stewardship of an investment company called Generation Investment Management, poised to take advantage of various eco-regulations. Most recently, Gore has joined a green venture capital firm to -- well, as CNN puts it -- "save the planet." Oh, and possibly make some serious coin, too.

Why do I get the distinct impression that the only thing Gore is interested in saving are dividends from the eco-suckaz' money?


Noel Sheppard at Newbusters has details on ABC's recent debunking of "global warming."

The case of the missing Ben Franklin

 
CampaignSpot:

The tale of Hillary and the waitress:

Waitress: I was left no tip.
The campaign: We paid $157 for food and left a $100 tip.
The waitress: I never got anything. The restaurant manager told reporters she left the tip because he didn't want his restaurant to be overwhelmed with reporters' calls.

An addendum to the story above: "[Editor's Note: after the tip controversy became a national story, the Clinton campaign returned to the restaurant and left $20]."

To sum it up, the Clinton campaign felt compelled to go back and leave a $20 tip (well under 15%, by the way). So their original assertion that they left a $100 tip was... yet another Hillary fabrication, we presume.


It doesn't make my Top 12 Hillary Fabrications List, to be sure, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I mean, consider: the Clinton Machine is willing to lie about as trivial a matter as a tip. Most of us would have simply fessed up and said, "We forgot. We'll take care of it." But the Clinton posse would rather fib and spin. If they'll lie about something like this, you can be sure that deception is integrated directly into their genomic structure.

Blitzer warned not to 'pull a Russert' on Hillary

 
Drudge reports:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' [a] top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate [the Democratic] debate from Vegas...

Jonah Goldberg's reaction:

First the Clinton campaign whines that the other candidates were picking on the girl. Then, standing up to Russert is like standing up to Hitler. Then Bill Clinton compared Russert to the Swift Boat Vets. Now the Clinton campaign is warning Wolf Blitzer that he better not "pull a Russert."

Again, can someone please explain to me, how asking the junior Senator from New York state whether she agrees with the governor of the state (and a close political ally) on the question of drivers licenses for illegals is even remotely wrong, never mind some sort of vicious, Nazi-like, personal assault on truth, decency, and Hillary Clinton's integrity? I really, really, don't get it.

Of course the Clintons object to the notion that they should have to answer tough questions. Remember, the mainstream media is supposed to be on their side.

Hat tip: Flopping Aces

Not Again!

 
After Hillary Clinton's most recent debacle -- flags mysteriously fell all around her on Veterans Day -- you'd think that things couldn't get worse for her campaign.

That was until today's event where American flags seemed to spontaneously combust, almost as if they were committing some sort of ritual suicide rather than be associated with Hillary's campaign.

Fortunately, no one was hurt.

Hillary's Clinton Library Lockdown

 
On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton claims that she has the experience to be president. Yet she has not permitted details of her experience to be reviewed by the public.

In fact, the Clinton "Public" Library is anything but. The Los Angeles Times ("Clinton secrecy III: More documents hidden through election") puts it bluntly:

An intriguing trove of documents that could open a revealing window into Hillary Clinton and her claims of vast White House experience qualifying her for the presidency is stored at the University of Arkansas library system in Fayetteville...

...The subject even came up near the end of the recent Democratic debate. Tim Russert asked her point blank if she would order the documents released, and she replied it's not her decision to make. Then, who's is it?

The Chicago Tribune ("Clinton library a closed book") recently called attention to the unique situation of a First Lady shielding her records from the public.

Almost three years after the library's opening and nearly two years after the administration's archives became subject to federal open-records laws, only a small fraction of the archives has been opened to the public.

Virtually all of the 3 million pages of documents that detail the internal workings of the health-care task force that Hillary Clinton headed remain stored away in boxes, for example.

Although lengthy delays in releasing White House papers are typical, the presidential candidacy of a former first lady presents an unprecedented circumstance. Processing by government archivists is partly responsible for the slow pace. But critics note that Bill Clinton could lift restrictions that keep many controversial records out of the public eye until 2013, and he could speed up release of records by waiving a review by his personal representative...

Get your own Clinton Library Card. Just don't try to charge the groceries on it.

Hat tips: Don Surber and Larwyn. Don't Russert Me, Bro! a trademark of Larwyn Industries.

Re-branding the Left

 
Rick Moran, writing at the invaluable American Thinker, describes the frantic rebranding efforts of the American left.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked this summer if she would describe herself as a “liberal.” The Democratic front-runner shied away, saying the “word” — noticeably not using the word — has taken on a connotation that “describes big government. “I prefer the word ‘progressive,’” she said. It has a “real American meaning.”

Then she expanded the term to “modern progressive,” and, finally, clarified that she was a “modern American progressive.”

And that seems to sum up the Democrat's dilemma. A recent Gallup poll found 40% of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats but only 23% proclaiming themselves "liberal... Contrast that with only 30% of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans but fully 39% of the country saying they are conservative...

Best I can tell, the bumper stickers over the years would look something like this.

2000


2004


2006


2007


2008