Saturday, June 28, 2008

YouTube: Disgusting Liberal Blogger Spits on Veterans' Graves


Via Infidel Bloggers Alliance: this is one sick puppy.

I'm literally walking on the graves of these so-called heroes... I don't know them but they're scumbags...

I only have one thing to say to Private Toland, (spits) I spit on your grave...

People like him feasted on our tax dollars!


It's hard to tell whether Crook is just another insane liberal or a canny, self-promoting "progressive" out to pitch more books aimed at the MoveOn.org sycophants.

Either way, we mustn't forget they support the troops!

Drilling? We don't need no stinkin' drilling!



By 2025, Barack Obama:

...would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it.

Rewind to June 20, 1979:

President Carter announces program to increase Nation's use of solar energy, including solar development bank and increased funds for solar energy research and development.

In the little land we like to call reality, our economy runs on oil. No matter how many green initiatives we sponsor, there will be significant time required to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

Ignoring the shortfall puts our entire economy -- and, by extension, our national security -- at risk.

Vote accordingly in 2008.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Obama's Speeches need a "Born-on Date"


Barack Obama responds to the Supreme Court's rejection of the DC gun ban:

I have said consistently that I believe the second amendment is an individual right. And that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on.

Problem is that Obama is as anti-firearm a politican who has hit the national stage since Al Gore spontaneously combusted in 2000: "Barack Obama Voted Four Times To Allow Criminal Charges Against Homeowners Who Defend Their Person and Home With a Gun"

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz ("Pretzel Logic") plunges Obama's clogged rhetoric clean as a whistle.

Here's how the Illinois senator handled the issue with the Chicago Tribune just last November:

"The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he... believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.' "

Kind of a flat statement.

And here's what ABC reported yesterday: " 'That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position,' Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News."

For and against public financing of campaigns? Check.
For and against FISA? Check.
For and against a "divided Jerusalem"? Check.

Red State asks: "May I suggest that Senator Obama start putting a 'Freshest if used by' date on all his speeches?"

And Hot Air's Ed Morrissey observes:

"Barack Obama has been spinning like a top, and watching his positions on, well, just about everything is like watching table-tennis matches on TiVo triple fast forward. FISA, public financing, and NAFTA have all been reversed in the last couple of weeks, and Obama's not through yet . . .

"Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign's statement was inartful. This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert... the Constitution is what he supposedly studied at Columbia and Harvard."

We might as well have had a Clinton win the Democratic primary. Obama will say anything (and I mean eh-nee-thing) to win. And that's precisely why he will lose the general election.

This Chicago politician can't be trusted as far as you can throw a bogus presidential seal.

8,400 murdered in DC since gun ban went into effect


The AP's Stephen Manning spends 26 paragraphs describing the various reactions to yesterday's Supreme Court decision striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban.

The story's lede:

Washington's blanket ban on handguns will fall and tight gun laws in places like Chicago and San Francisco are sure to come under attack. But most of the nation's firearms regulations will probably stay on the books, and some politicians said Thursday's Supreme Court decision won't hinder their efforts to prevent bloodshed.

He waits until paragraph 23 to tell us that more than 8,400 people have been killed since the ban went into effect in 1976; the vast majority of them with handguns.

Seems the criminals have been ignoring the ban all along.

I'll alert the blogosphere.

Graphs: Washington Post (Nov. 12, 2007): "Homicide Rates in D.C. and Other Major Cities -- Despite a ban on handgun ownership passed in 1976, the District's homicide rate has remained generally higher than those of other cities."

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Barack Obama's answer to high gas prices


He's just full of good ideas, ain't he?



By 2025, Barack Obama:

...would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it.

Rewind to June 20, 1979:

President Carter announces program to increase Nation's use of solar energy, including solar development bank and increased funds for solar energy research and development.

In the little land we like to call reality, our economy runs on oil. No matter how many green initiatives we sponsor, there will be significant time required to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

Ignoring the shortfall puts our entire economy -- and, by extension, our national security -- at risk.

Vote accordingly in 2008.

A day late, a dollar short and plenty stupid


When will Harry Reid apologize for his claim last year that "the war is lost"?

Or, better yet, resign?

As for HuffPo genius Taylor "the truth will set you free" Marsh, who said:

Yes the war is lost... We will not apologize nor amend the remark. The war is lost and if you want to know why look no further than the president of the United States George W. Bush. If you don't like the truth don't yell at us. Take your anger out on him...

But the truth is no longer allowed in America, so amend we will.

Well, to be fair, no one's ever heard of him or her, so we'll give it a pass.

But Harry Reid? He's an unquestionable disgrace who should be jeered out of office and rolled out of town on a handcar.

Cannonfire asks the obvious question



Click the image to visit.

We just passed the 900 day mark!


Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Barack Obama and the future of automobiles



By 2025, Barack Obama:

...would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it.

Rewind to June 20, 1979:

President Carter announces program to increase Nation's use of solar energy, including solar development bank and increased funds for solar energy research and development.

In the little land we like to call reality, our economy runs on oil. No matter how many green initiatives we sponsor, there will be significant time required to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

Ignoring the shortfall puts our entire economy -- and, by extension, our national security -- at risk.

Vote accordingly in 2008.

Who are the 47 million uninsureds?


The answers -- from InsuranceNewsNet -- might surprise you.

70% of the uninsured are in families with at least one full-time worker. 10% have at least one part-time worker. The rest are retired or unemployed.

8.4 million are eligible for government programs but don't know they are, don't know how to sign up or don't have access to the documents that are required.

10.2 million are noncitizens. About 80% of them are legal residents, but many have low-income jobs and can't afford or don't have access to insurance.

9.2 million have household incomes of $75,000 or higher. Some are healthy and don't want coverage. Others can't get it because of preexisting conditions.

7.5 million are aged 19-24 and either have no access to health care, lack money to pay for it or don't think they need it because they are in good health.

Let's not even mention that anyone -- anyone -- can walk into an emergency room and get treated without any insurance whatsoever.

Let's add these up.

 8,400,000 eligible for government programs
10,200,000 aliens
 9,200,000 have incomes of $75,000 or higher
 7,500,000 are aged 19-24, many of whom have elected not to be covered.

...Carry the one... the bottom line is that 35.3 million of the 47 million uninsureds fall into one of the four buckets.

Am I missing something, or does this sound like a lot less dire of a problem than is portrayed by Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself, again)?

The economy must be a lot worse than I thought


They're selling discount motivational posters, for heaven's sake!

The case of the missing birth certificate


Israeli Insider magazine (via American Thinker and Larwyn) reports that Barack Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" is phony.

Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."

Be that as may, there's something I'm still wondering about.

It's the "June 6, 2007" date that bled through the back of the document.

Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!

p.s., If you've missed the back-story, read "Polarik asks whether Obama's birth certificate was forged."

Now even you can be a member of the mainstream media!


SaysMe provides a platform for individuals to not only create ads suitable for television... but to get them placed on major channels as well.

Best of all, as least for readers of this blog: they're having trouble coming up with conservative content, so you'll get extra-special attention.

We are really looking for conservative content that is Pro-McCain... We are also seeking content about conservative issues. It seems there is a shortage of material out in the viral video sphere, and we would love to find some solid Pro-McCain content that is independently produced. It is really important to us to have good representation of all sides. If you have other bloggers that you can share this with, it will certainly help us to balance out the onslaught of the Youbama video campaign.

Click on the banner ad to check it out and -- if you like what you see -- get started.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Fill 'er up... with Magic Solar Energy Beans™!



By 2025, Barack Obama:

...would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it.

Rewind to June 20, 1979:

President Carter announces program to increase Nation's use of solar energy, including solar development bank and increased funds for solar energy research and development.

In the little land we like to call reality, our economy runs on oil. No matter how many green initiatives we sponsor, there will be significant time required to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

Ignoring the shortfall puts our entire economy -- and, by extension, our national security -- at risk.

Vote accordingly in 2008.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Obama: what victims of 9/11?


A week ago, Barack Obama claimed that the Clinton-era criminal prosecution of terror suspects was the right approach. He cited the imprisonment of the first World Trade Center bombers, eight years before 9/11.

Advocating a return to a law-enforcement strategy to fighting terrorism, Obama stated, "In previous terrorist attacks - for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated."

Obama's assertion may come as a surprise to the families of the victims of 9/11.

Because it was treated as a criminal matter, the 1993 WTC bombing investigation was hamstrung from the outset. It was painfully slow and hampered by the need to acquire appropriate and admissible evidence for the U.S. court system.

As a result, [US officials] didn't know that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for the attack until 1997 - too late... to grab [Bin Laden] when Sudan offered to send him to [the U.S.] in 1996. Clinton and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger turned down the offer, [stating they] had no grounds on which to hold him or to order his kidnapping or death.

Obama's approach is prosecution.

The post-9/11 strategy -- that has worked for seven years -- is proactive disruption of terrorist networks.

How will Obama's Justice Department gather appropriate evidence if a nuclear device detonates in, say, New York?


It's a pity the mainstream media can't ask him simple questions like that one.

If one of my family members had been killed in the terrorist attacks, I can't tell you how upset I'd be over Obama's pathetic, hyper-partisan posturing. I'm upset enough as it is.

Update: Don Surber:

[Obama] told ABC News: "The first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in US prisons, incapacitated."

Nice sound bite, except for the part where that is totally untrue. The New York Post quoted U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the case:

"While the government managed to prosecute many people responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, many also escaped prosecution because of the limits on civilian criminal prosecution.

"Some who contributed to the attack, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system's capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him - he fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been apprehended)."

And the follow-up is that they were even able to operate from behind bars.

Lefty icon lawyer Lynne Stewart passed on to other terrorists messages from the few attackers who were imprisoned. Cindy Sheehan praised her even after Stewart was convicted.

So much for the criminal justice system working.

Update II: Scott Johnson

Speaking without a text in front of him, Barack Obama betrays a troubling lack of knowledge on important issues - such as the law and terrorism...

The jihadist activities of Abdel-Rahman from behind bars, plus the collaboration of his attorney, illustrate the challenges President Bush sought to confront fairly with the arrangements for the detention and isolation of captured enemy combatants in Guantanamo.


Hat tip: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Charlie Foxtrot in the War Zone: Good News is No News in Iraq


Charlie Foxtrot:

It has always been readily apparent that the major news outlets were more than willing to broadcast/print any bad news that emerged from Iraq. And it has been equally apparent recently that there is a reticence to give equal treatment to the good news that turned from a trickle to a regular flow. The MSM have scoffed that there could be any bias influencing their reporting from this war zone, and equal scoffing from the conservative blogosphere at that claim.
Well apparently there was a copy editor asleep at the switch over at the Old Grey Lady, because they have published a very interesting article titled "Reporters Say Networks Put Wars on Back Burner". I guess no one sent them the memo on obscuring any evidence of bias....

Other mainstream blogs like Powerline and Danger Room are right to point out the amazing numbers:

"According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been "massively scaled back this year." Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007."

However no one I have seen yet (though my reading time is limited here in Afghanistan) has noted the real smoking gun, found in the quote from a CBS news bigwig:

"Paul Friedman, a senior vice president at CBS News, said the news division does not get reports from Iraq on television "with enough frequency to justify keeping a very, very large bureau in Baghdad." He said CBS correspondents can "get in there very quickly when a story merits it."

Oh I see. So we finally have an admission of guilt on the bias front.

CBS news has now admitted that good news from a war zone does not merit coverage. Death, carnage, mis-doings of individual soldiers, and lack of good planning all drown out positive stories when they happen at the same time. But when those negatives all dry up and disappear, and the positive stories are left standing alone, the "journalists" lose interest and can't "justify" sticking around to do their jobs. If you can't justify a bureau because not enough reports from Iraq get on television....then put more reports from Iraq on television! This magically wasn't a problem a year ago. There were plenty of stories then. Gee, if we could only figure out what has changed during that time.....

Sad. Shameful. Disappointing.

How the once mighty have fallen.

In deference to Glenn Reynolds, we don't need and "Army of Davids". We desperately need an "Army of Yons", and "Army of Roggios", and an "Army of Tottens"...

Go ye therefore hence and suckle at the teat of boots-on-the-ground wisdom.

Communist Jokes o' the Day


Times Online has its own top ten list. My two favorites:

* Three workers find themselves locked up, and they ask each other what they're in for. The first man says: "I was always ten minutes late to work, so I was accused of sabotage." The second man says: "I was always ten minutes early to work, so I was accused of espionage." The third man says: "I always got to work on time, so I was accused of having a Western watch."


* A man saves up his ruples and is finally able to buy a car in Soviet Russia. After he pays his money the he is told he will have his car in three years.
"Three years!" he asks "What month?"
"August"
"August? What day in August?" He asks
"The Second of August" is the reply
"Morning or Afternoon?"
"Afternoon. Why do you need to know?"
"The plumber is coming in the morning."

Hat tip: Larwyn

The speech John McCain must give


Using Charles Krauthammer's counsel:

The choice could not be more clearly drawn. The Democrats' one objective in Iraq is withdrawal. McCain's one objective is victory.

McCain's case is not hard to make. Iraq is a three-front war -- against Sunni al-Qaida, against Shiite militias and against Iranian hegemony -- and we are winning on every front:

-- We did not go into Iraq to fight al-Qaida. The war had other purposes. But al-Qaida chose to turn it into the central front in its war against America. That choice turned into an al-Qaida fiasco: al-Qaida in Iraq is on the run and in the midst of humiliating defeat.

-- As for the Shiite extremists, the Mahdi Army is isolated and at its weakest point in years.

-- Its sponsor, Iran, has suffered major setbacks, not just in Basra, but in Iraqi public opinion, which has rallied to the Maliki government and against Iranian interference through its Sadrist proxy.

Even the most expansive objective -- establishing a representative government that is an ally against jihadists, both Sunni and Shiite -- is within sight.

Obama and the Democrats would forfeit every one of these successes to a declared policy of fixed and unconditional withdrawal. If McCain cannot take to the American people the case for the folly of that policy, he will not be President. Nor should he be.

Give the speech, senator. Give it now.

It might go something like this.

Wedded to a policy of defeat, my opponent has refused to visit Iraq for over two years.

He talks about "change". But, for him, it's just an empty phrase. Just another campaign slogan.

Because nothing embodies change better than Iraq since the Surge.

Its government: strengthened; its army: victorious; and unification: imminent.

Best of all, thanks to the outstanding work of our U.S. military, led by Gen. Petraeus, Al Qaeda has been smashed.

A central goal has been achieved as Al Qaeda made Iraq the battlefield on which it decided to fight... and die.

But Obama is stuck in the policies of the past.

He won't listen to Gen. Petraeus. And he won't admit the hard-fought victory of our troops.

Worst of all, he won't... change.

Ironic, eh?

I'll forego any royalties, Senator McCain. Feel free to rip the speech off.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

News Digest: The Israeli "Dry Run" on Iran's Nuclear Facilities


Looks like there would be a side benefit from an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities: the blind, toothless UN atomic "watchdog" -- Mohamed El Baradei -- promised to resign if Iran is targeted.


US officials reported on Friday that more than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s staged a complex operation over the Mediterranean during the first week of June. The aircraft traversed more than 900 miles, about the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment facility; the exercise also tested the refueling of planes and helicopters tasked with rescuing downed pilots.

El Baradei wasn't pleased.

He warned that any attack on Iran would turn the entire Middle East "into a fireball."

"I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work," he said.

El Baradei, of course, insists that there's no evidence Iran is actually building atomic weapons (as recently as May); criticized Israel for flattening Syria's nuclear reactor (but did not criticize North Korea or Syria itself); and even pilloried the US for not sharing the intelligence with the IAEA.

Iran's response: Earlier today AFP reported that Iran promised any attack on its facilities would warrant a "limitless response." Bemoaning Israel's efforts as "psychological operations," Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najar stated that Iran would "punish any aggressor with force. With determination and using all the options -- without limit in time and space -- we will give a destructive response to any hostile action."

Russia's response: as Iran's preeminent nuclear technology supplier, Russia is concerned with its cash flow. It also warned Israel not to attack. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov instructed Israel not to use force, claiming there is no proof Iran is trying to acquire atomic weapons.

Israeli media: Many believe that the US leak of the information was a warning shot over Tehran's bow. Alex Fishman, the military affairs correspondent of Israel's biggest newspaper, said "[w]hen the diplomacy of economic and political pressure fails to produce results, a shift is made to gunboat diplomacy... As the Iranian regime discusses the European Union representative's most recent offer to halt its nuclear program in exchange for extensive benefits, the Americans opted to add a bit more pressure in the shape of Israel's air force."

Stratfor: The well-known research firm's summary is succinct: "Israel is deliberately leaking reports that it plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities in order to shape Iranian behavior. An actual attack would not be announced and would face significant obstacles."

John Bolton: On Sunday, former US ambassador John Bolton was asked how Iran might respond to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities. He stated that Iran's options are limited and, in his opinion, most Arab countries would prefer to see its nuclear ambitions thwarted. As for timing, Bolton felt it would come between the presidential election in early November and the inauguration in January.

AP reports that sky is falling and only Obama can save us


Two interesting facts regarding the Associated Press: (a) the AP is now charging fees to excerpt even small snippets of articles*; and (b) it has pegged the needle on the bias-o-meter with two of today's national articles.

Where's our can-do psyche? ("Everything Seemingly Is Spinning out of Control") by Alan Fram and Eileen Putman; the pair report -- in Carter-esque style -- that American confidence has eroded... the economy, the weather and gas prices have all spun "out of control". The only thing that can help: the party in the White House must change.

McCain recovering from bad streak of campaign missteps by David Espo (AP). Say, I follow politics pretty closely, but I haven't heard of any of these so-called "missteps".

Obama has grand plans for spending by Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times. Granted, it's not the AP, but virtually a seamless fit with the theme... and the grandiose report doesn't exactly jibe with reality. May was one of Obama's worst fundraising months.

At Newsbusters, Tom Blumer noticed the 'sky is falling' meme as well. Graphic: New York Post.

Update: Harley Davidson answers the doom-and-gloomers.

Update II: The AP: a veritable free public relations arm for Hugo Chavez.

* TechCrunch: Our new policy on AP stories: they're banned.


Linked by: Gateway Pundit. Thanks!