Head Scarf Problems in OK USA

From CBS News:

The Justice Department filed a complaint against the Muskogee Public School District, saying officials were wrong to suspend an 11-year-old Muslim girl for refusing to remove her head scarf.

"No student should be forced to choose between following her faith and enjoying the benefits of a public education," Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander Acosta said Tuesday. "Religious discrimination has no place in American schools."

The complaint seeks to force the school to change its dress code policy to "ensure there is no discrimination on the basis of religion."

School officials twice suspended sixth-grader Nashala Hearn in October for wearing a head scarf they said violated a dress code prohibiting head coverings, including hats. The child wears the head scarf, or hijab, as part of her observance of the Muslim religion.

Matt's Chat

While you're at it, make sure to file against those school districts that restrict teachers and students from wearing crosses too.

We wouldn't want the Islamofascists to hate us like they do France now would we hamsters?

And afterall, we're talking about the freedom OF religion.

Mark's Remarks

Yep, we all know the true god hamsters want us to worship is a Democratic controlled White House and Congress....libs are all about the worshipping of man, the height of their arrogance is trying to kick God out.....if you acknowledge a higher power, you are automatically a crackpot or whackjob...sorry libs, but you are wrong again.....still...ongoing....

Living In FEAR (tm)?

From the TIB Network:

Flash Poll #3 (check the sidebar) preliminary results show a resounding "NO" to the question of whether or not we are living in FEAR(tm). It is 15 to 0 at the moment with 6 votes to go for the official tally...

Congrats to you Great Americans who are out there living your lives!

Flash Poll #1: Judicial Legislation

The poll just got its 100th vote...97 to 3 against judicial activism in case you're playing at home.

Flash Poll #2: Conservative or Liberal

The poll has 90 votes...76 to 14 conservative. Wow...14 libs have faced their FEAR(tm) and lived to vote about it.

In Focus: Insourcing

From the Organization for International Investment:

THE FACTS ABOUT INSOURCING

* U.S. subsidiaries employ a record high 6.4 million Americans.

* U.S. subsidiaries support an annual payroll of $350 billion and pay, on average, 16.5% more than all U.S. companies.

* U.S. subsidiaries heavily invest in the American manufacturing sector. Thirty-four percent of the jobs at U.S. subsidiaries are in manufacturing -- more than double the proportion of manufacturing at all U.S. companies.

* Annual federal taxes paid by U.S. subsidiaries are at a record high of $28 billion.

* U.S. subsidiaries manufacture in America to export goods around the world -- accounting for over 22.4 percent of all U.S. exports.

* Over the last 15 years, manufacturing "insourced" jobs grew by 82% - at an annual rate of 5.5%; and manufacturing "outsourced" jobs grew by 23% - at an annual rate of 1.5%.

* Over the same period, total "insourced" jobs grew by 117% - at an annual rate of 7.8%; and total "outsourced" jobs grew by 56% - at an annual rate of 3.8%.

* New foreign direct investment (FDI) in the U.S. totaled $82 billion in 2003, over twice the amount from the previous year.

* In 2003, U.S. subsidiaries reinvested $38.6 billion – up from $6.8 billion in the previous year.

Thanks to Doc Lob for the link!

Matt's Chat

I think this would make a great ad...John "Outsaucing" Kerry has no clue what he's risking with his rhetoric. For such an accomplished International Man of Mystery, you would think Sen. Ketchup could figure out that if we stop outsourcing, those jobs that Americans are getting from insourcing could be jeopardized.

Mark's Remarks

What?!? We are getting jobs? Why was I not informed? Why aren't people celebrating this great news? Oh wait, the Partisan Media(tm) doesn't report it. They are filtering what they want the people to see....they are the willing accomplices of the distortion of truth by liberal hamsters everywhere....HALLIBURTON!!! I DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION!!! WHERE IS THE KETCHUP GOING?

WMD / ISG Update

This is CNN:

Duelfer is testifying Tuesday behind closed doors before the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. His comments contrast with those of his predecessor, David Kay, who has said he does not expect that any weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.

In prepared testimony, Duelfer said fear of retribution is still a significant stumbling block as the Iraq Survey Group he heads seeks information from Iraqi managers, scientists and engineers.

"Many perceive a grave risk in speaking with us. On one hand, there is a fear of prosecution or arrest. On the other, there is a fear [that] former regime supporters will exact retribution. This is, in part, why we do not yet fully understand the central issue of regime intentions," Duelfer said.

Duelfer, who is a special adviser to CIA Director George Tenet, said he is providing only a status report -- not a preliminary assessment of findings, which will come later.

Like Kay, Duelfer said that the regime was in "clear" violation of several U.N. resolutions banning WMD programs in Iraq, including the ban on certain biological research and the ban on deploying missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles with a range of more than 93 miles (150 kilometers).

Matt's Chat

The Iraq Survey Group is STILL hearing reports about weapons caches from credible sources. A piece of information that makes sense to me as to why we haven't found weapons stockpiles is that it appears Iraq was using "Just In Time" production methods. Interesting.

Mark's Remarks

Also, remember, David Kay was NOT searching for weapons. He was conducting INTERVIEWS. He was not out there searching, rather he was interviewing people to lead him to caches of weapons. At least this guy does not simply go--"well, no one would talk, ergo there are no weapons, we all failed." That is the fallacy of Dr. Kay's summation. This gentleman is out there to find the truth, and to continue the search and mission until there is absolutely not a shadow of a doubt.

In my opinion, it is not were there any weapons, but rather, where did they go? Just think on that for a while, folks.......

More UN Scandal - Rwanda

From Canada Free Press:

In 1994, when the plane went down, the department of peacekeeping affairs–including the responsibility for the investigation into the crash--was headed by then undersecretary-general Kofi Annan.

Annan got it right when he called the black box affair a "first-class foul-up". It’s a foul-up that leads all the way to his being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10, 2001.

The UN has failed Rwanda in the tragedy of some 600,000 deaths, many of them children hacked to death by machete.

According to Candians.ca, the ABC of famous Canadians, "General Romeo Daillaire did everything he could pleading for 2,000 more peacekeepers to add to his insufficiently equipped 3,000 main force.

"Instead his forces were cut down from 3,000 to a mere 500 men, who had to watch as one of the most horrible genocides in human history took place before their very eyes."

Matt's Chat

So what other scandals lurk in the hallowed halls of the UN? One wonders...

Mark's Remarks

Yes, this scandal from the so-called experts on Human rights...who heads Human rights commissions again? Oh right, those bastions of rights China, Cuba, Libya, et. al. Brilliant. Anyone else out there consider the UN a rousing success? Ask Rwandans. Ask the relatives of those hacked to death. Unadulterated, unabashed, unappealing, MISERABLE FAILURE!!!!! Yep, the UN is a miserable failure! Nuff said.

Babs Is Unhinged

From BarbaraStreisand.com:

Finally ... finally we can talk about what's really going on. Rather than accept the myth that 9/11 turned President Bush into a "hero" ... former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke has bravely spoken out to tell us the real story - that Bush did not treat terrorism as an urgent issue. And that going to war in Iraq, in addition to tragically costing us so many lives, has diverted money and resources away from where they should have been focused - on dismantling al Qaeda and strengthening our homeland security.

Isn't it funny how a commission that was supposed to focused on what happened on 9/11 and how it could be prevented in the future has turned into a forum to discuss Iraq? I thought you hamsters didn't think 9/11 and Iraq had any links?

We now know that the Bush White House never made counterterrorism a priority leading up to September 11th. In fact, on April 30, 2001, the new administration released the government's annual report on terrorism, with a noted change: extensive mention of bin Laden, which previous terrorism reports contained, had been left out. A Bush State Department Official reportedly told CNN at that time that the U.S. government under Clinton had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.

Really. How about you reportedly giving us the link for that assertion. I wonder which "Bush State Department Official" we're talking about here. I get the distinct impression from Clarke and Rice that there was a focus on terrorism. The President wanted to eliminate al Qaeda. Clarke wanted to roll al Qaeda back. The plan to eliminate al Qaeda didn't get finished until Setember 4, 2001, too late to prevent 9/11. And according to Clarke's testimony, under oath and in public, even if the adminsitration had enacted each and every one of his suggestions the day after the inauguration, 9/11 would not have been prevented.

In fact, Bush never even held a cabinet level meeting devoted to terrorism until the week before the attack. While FBI agents were fielding concerns about non-citizens in flight school uninterested in learning how to land planes, and the CIA was aware that potential terrorists had entered the United States, because terrorism was not a priority in the high levels of the federal government these discussions were never elevated to a place where the information could be shared across departments, where the appropriate people would have an opportunity to connect the dots...

In fact, the Clinton administration made it law that the intelligence agencies (that's the FBI and CIA for you hamsters out there) couldn't share information with each other. If that catastrophic mistake hadn't been made, perhaps these guys would have been able to make a stronger case for high level discussions. While we're at it, because of the Gore shenanigans, the Bush adminsitration got a late start getting a number of significant administration posts filled.

Here is a brief timeline (much of the information is from the Center for American Progress) of some of the more egregious warnings of looming terrorism that Bush overlooked as he spent the first eight months in office planning tax cuts for the wealthy, devising a way to invade Iraq, and taking long vacations out at his ranch in Crawford, Texas:

The Center of american Progress...a leftist organization. Now there is a credible source.

Those tax cuts that you hate so much Babs, went to 100% of Americans, not just the wealthy. We had to get out from under the Clinton/Gore recession and the tax cuts worked.

Devising a way to invade Iraq? Uhh, no...hamsters like to think that the Bush administration had some sort of obsession with Iraq, but if you go back and look at the period, you will see that the new administration was more concerned about China, not Iraq.

as for "long vacations," I'll point out that the President of the United States is NEVER away from the job. No matter where the President is (and that includes Clinton, Carter, and whatever other hamster President you want to talk about) the President has the ability to do the job. There are no vacations for the President. It has been well documented. Only hamsters think that President Bush was lounging in Texas, but anybody who knows anything about the office of the President knows that just isn't possible.

1) A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council specifically theorized that al Qaeda could fly airplanes into buildings - so we know that the scope of the attack was not entirely beyond anyone's imagination.

I'll grant that statement was rather silly. I think what the administration's position was that they didn't think it was a realistic scenario, not that they didn't think it could be done. At least that's my read of the situation.

2) In early 2001, a surge of al Qaeda activity and plans for attacks against American "interests" were noted, including by Israeli intelligence agencies.

How about all the al Qaeda activity in the eight years prior to the Bush inauguration, hamster? Not hearing you complain about all that?

3) Also in early 2001, the Bush administration departed from Clinton's policy of tracking money to terrorist organizations. (Was Bush trying to protect the Saudi royal family?)

I've never heard this one before. Is there a source or citation that is credible for this assertion or is this another fabrication?

4) In July 2001, U.S. and Italian officials were warned that al Qaeda may use planes as missiles at a Genoa summit of industrialized nations.

Uh huh...I'll remind the hamster audience that until that evil, dreaded Patriot Act, our intelligence agencies weren't allowed to talk to each other. Which officials were told? Source/citiation that is credible, please...

5) On August 6, 2001, while on vacation in Crawford, the president received a one and a half page briefing advising him that al Qaeda was capable of a major strike against the U.S., and that the plot could include the hijacking of American airplanes. And then what did the president do with this important information? He went fishing - bringing new meaning to the phrase, "Gone Fishin'"!

Riiiiiiiiiight! A one and a half page report should have given the President sufficient information to stop the whole plot! Because, afterall, it was all spelled out in black and white!

Speaking of "Gone Fishin,'" how 'bout that 9/11 Commission, eh?

6) In July, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines because of a "threat assessment."

That John ashcroft, he's evil. He stopped flying on commercial airlines because he knew! Do you hamsters honestly think that the Attorney General flies on TWA?

7) Newsweek has reported that on September 10th, 2001, a number of Pentagon officials canceled travel plans for the next morning due to security concerns, and "that as many as 10 to 12 warnings" were issued before 9/11 - "more than two of the warnings specifically mentioned the possibility of hijackings."

Hey! Have you heard that we shot down a UFO and captured aliens in Roswell? Yeah, we keep them in Hanger 18 at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Ms. Streisand, you black helicopter is ready...

8) Also on September 10th (as I posted in a statement on November 21, 2002), Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected the FBI's request for a $58 million increase for their counterterrorism budget to pay for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. He did that despite the fact, discovered later by a Congressional investigation, that the FBI had only one analyst monitoring al Qaeda and a severe shortage of Arabic translators.

And let me guess, Babs, if Ashcroft had okayed that, the FBI would have prevented 9/11! Uh-huh...

Soon after September 11th, Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." And now Bush says, "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." Did he really say this? I heard it on the radio but I couldn't believe my own ears. Indeed, the scope of the horror of 9/11 is beyond the realm of what even the most savvy threat assessors may have thought possible.

I think what the President was saying, and I'll explain it to you hamster because the President is so much smarter than you, is that he didn't believe that anybody had thought that the events that transpired on 9/11 were something that anybody could believe would ever happen. You see, the President is an optomist. He would like to believe that people are good. That evil of this magnitude could be conceived of and carried out just wasn't something that anybody thought would happen. Not that it couldn't happen, but that it would happen. It is apparent that folks in the intelligence community were thinking along these lines, but as Babs says, "the scope of the horror of 9/11 is beyond the realm of what even the most savvy threat assessors may have thought possible." There you have it.

However ... as the brief timeline above shows, THE PRESIDENT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED that al Qaeda was planning some sort of attack, and that the attack may involve airplanes. So these are my questions:

Uh-huh...Babs, I'm sure Al Gore would have negotiated with the terrorists on 9/10 and offered them trees or something if they would just go away... Yeah, that would have worked.

-WHY DIDN'T OUR GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO BEEF UP SECURITY AT AIRPORTS AND ON AIRPLANES?

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE SCREAMING, BUT OKAY...I'LL PLAY.

IT MIGHT INTEREST YOU TO KNOW, BABS, THAT AIRPORT/AIRLINE SECURITY WAS A TOPIC THAT AL GORE HEADED A COMMITTEE ON. DID YOU KNOW THAT AL GORE CUT THE SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF THE AIRLINES? DID YOU KNOW THAT THE AIRLINES THEN GAVE RATHER GENEROUS DONATIONS TO YOUR FRIENDS?

-WHY WEREN'T WARNINGS ISSUED TO THOSE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT OUR FLIGHT SECURITY?

BECAUSE BILL CLINTON MADE SURE THAT OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES COULDN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER. THE REAL QUESTION OUGHT TO BE, WHY DIDN'T PRESIDENT BUSH OVERTURN THIS THAT LAW BILL CLINTON SIGNED?

-ISN'T LEADERSHIP ABOUT ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, ANTICIPATING THE UNFATHOMABLE, HEEDING WARNINGS AND FIRMLY ACTING UPON THEM?

I THOUGHT YOU LIBS THOUGHT LEADERSHIP WAS ALL ABOUT GETTING SOME PLAY? WHAT WOULD YOU PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT TAKING RESPONSBILITY...BILL CLINTON WAS OFFERED OSAMA FOUR TIMES AND DID NOTHING. AL QAEDA ATTACKED THE USS COLE AND CLINTON DID NOTHING. AL QAEDA ATTACKED NUMEROUS A COUPLE OF AMERICAN EMBASSIES AND CLINTON DID NOTHING. DON'T YOU DARE TALK ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY AND LEADERSHIP WITHOUT CRITICIZING BILL CLINTON.

-WHEN THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED A MEMO THAT HIJACKINGS OF AMERICAN PLANES MIGHT OCCUR, SHOULDN'T HE HAVE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN ACTION?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT HE RECEIVED A MEMO ABOUT HIJACKINGS? AND ISN'T THAT REALLY A LAW ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM? SHOULDN'T THE FBI BE HANDLING THAT SORT OF ACTIVITY? I MEAN, REALLY, SHOULD THE WHITE HOUSE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING EVERY CRIME THAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN AMERICA? I DON'T THINK SO...

I DO BELIEVE THAT EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT TRULY CARES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY, AND LEARNS THE FACTS, WOULD HAVE TO SERIOUSLY ASK THESE QUESTIONS ... AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN NOVEMBER!

Oh, Babs, I intend to...I'll be voting for GEORGE W. BUSH!

The Best Bush Ad Yet

CHECK THIS OUT

Matt's Chat

I'll agree with Glenn Reynolds, this is the best ad I've seen. And Mark and I have put together a few of our own as well for the show.

Mark's Remarks

Brilliant! A triumph! Outstanding work! I give it four smashed hamsters out of a possible five!

Illustrating What's Wrong With the Left in America

From Congress.org:

Here is a letter to Sen. Boxer (D-CA) that I found on Congress.org. I thought we might use it to illustrate how unhinged the Hamsters have become.

The President and his staff warned in very serious (threats) that Iraq did in fact have WMD and could and would use them against us.

That is not, in fact what the President said. As we've covered numerous times here and has been covered elsewhere many more times: the President indicated that we should take out the threat before Saddam could use those weapons.

This was based on almost no evidence and what there was was seriously questionable.

When they can't understand the material, they just make "stuff" up. There was plenty of evidence and not all of it came from our own sources (More on that in a moment.). That intelligence is questionable now because we've been there and so far haven't found what the intelligence community said was there. Liberals always have 20/20 hindsight when it comes to criticizing conservatives. How about that aspirin factory, hamster?

So they lied or were just not smart enough to get what most of the world did.

Whenever a hamster has no other case to make, they always say somebody lied. And then they never back the accusation up with proof. The reality is that a good number of the world's intelligence communities, including France and the UN, thought Iraq had weapons. The UN inspection team declared Iraq in material breach of the cease fire a few times, as I recall. Re: "smart enough," again, I refer the hamster back to the aspirin factory.

They attacked without provication.

I hate to break it to this hamster, but I assume this liberal is an American citizen; so we attacked, not they attacked. And as for the "no provication" as this hamster puts it, I refer the liberal back to the material breaches of the original cease fire agreement. There were other reasons (some of which I think are more important than the WMD argument, by the way - notice how hamsters don't have much to say about women's rights in Iraq or the mass graves we've uncovered.) for going to war with Iraq. Hamsters like to use the WMD argument because our teams have, thus far, been unsuccessful in finding them. (Imagine the crying we'll hear if/when we do actually find the weapons.)

The world hates us now we not only look like a bully but act like one also.

The world has always hated us. Grow up, little hamster. Surprised you didn't ask why the world hates us. I have an answer for that one too. Most of the world, as this hamster puts it, that hates us are Islamofascists and/or socialist dictators. The Islamofascists hate us because of our culture (you know: promoting the gay lifestyle, encouraging promiscuity, freedom of speech and religion, democracy and freedom, etc.) and the socialists hate us because we're succeeding while they are not.

Why oh why aren't you and the rest of the Senate trying to impeach this guy.

Silly hamster, the President has done nothing wrong. He hasn't lied to anybody under oath or otherwise. He has protected our great nation while putting forth the first real chance for long-lasting peace and prosperity in the Middle East. Will it take time? Yes. Will some people not like it? Definitely. The fascists who consort with terrorists won't like this a bit. Do we care? No. Is that impeachable? Hardly. I didn't hear any complaining when we went in to Kosovo (the real quagmire) without a UN mandate and France's blessing.

He is behaving very much like a war criminal if another country pulled this they would be on trial.

No that is just slander. Most wouldn't even dignify this hamster crap with a response. If you think the President is a war criminal, I suggest you compare exploits with real war criminals and then get back to me. This crap should not be tolerated. Free speech is a right that must be used with respect and shouldn't be abused.

They said the war was about WMD why don't they have to answer for this?

Who's they? Back this stuff up for crying out loud. Hamsters like to speak in general terms so it is harder to pin them on their ignorance. Want proof? See what happens when you ask the common liberal to back some of this crap up.

They just make up another reason for the mess they got us into and don't even bother to include what it costs in the budget.

Hamsters don't care about how much stuff costs the government! Wait a minute. This is about some hamster not getting their handout isn't it. Well, my hamster friends, someday you are all going to have to learn how to fish for yourselves. Trust me, you'll feel much better if you are trusting yourself for your livelihood rather than the government.

Make him and his administration answer for all the death caused because of a mistake.

I assume this is another reference to Iraq. And what is to be done about those mass graves? What would have happened if Saddam continued his development of these weapons and he actually used them on us. Would you hamsters then have said, "Why didn't the administration go in and take him out?" Be careful here, hamsters, because I've been watching the coverage of the 9/11 hearings and I'm seeing you guys make the preemption argument over and over and over and over again.

In case you couldn't guess, the letter writer was from California. Enjoy your granola and hug a tree.

Fisking "Air America"

From the Washington Times:

Conservatives, plug your ears: Liberal talk radio is finally here.

Conservatives WELCOME an honest debate of the issues. Unfortunately, that's not what the Liberal Talk Network will be about...

Al Franken and a host of garrulous progressives ease onto the airwaves tomorrow morning on America Left, broadcasting live from 6 a.m. to midnight on weekdays via XM Satellite Radio and three AM radio stations — in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

I looked up the word garrulous just for fun, here's what I found: "Given to excessive and often trivial or rambling talk; tiresomely talkative." That sounds like Franken to me...trivial and rambling.

Mr. Franken will debut at noon with "The O'Franken Factor," a three-hour daily show airing opposite conservative host Rush Limbaugh, who has 20 million listeners. Mr. Franken once wrote a book titled "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and has named his show as a parody of "The O'Reilly Factor," hosted by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.

Mr. Franken will get CRUSHED by Limbaugh. In fact, "Air America" wouldn't last long at all if it weren't for the DNC funding. Conservative radio thrives in an open market.

Mr. Franken, who has scuffled with conservatives for years, is primed for a fight.

Franken is ready for a fight he will lose. The man is not funny and has no relevent point to make.

"My first priority is to get sued by a right-wing jerk in order to generate interest in my new show," Mr. Franken said in a statement earlier this year.

And this is why he will fail: if you are going in to show business, your first priority ought to be to succeed. Mr. Franken should know that...but he wasn't very successful in show business, so I can understand why he hasn't come to that conclusion.

The daylong lineup also includes comedian Janeane Garofalo, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war; environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; and Alan Colmes, co-host of Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

Garofalo is about as entertaining as Franken... Who wants to listen to an enviro-wackoo? And Colmes isn't "liberal enough" for that to succeed.

XM Radio offers the new shows a built-in potential audience of 3 million.

All 3 million have better things to listen to...

For a $10 monthly charge, the company offers 120 digital music, talk and entertainment channels for home, car or computer. "America Left" — produced by New York-based Air America Radio — joins an XM stable that already includes talk-radio fare from Fox News, CNN and ABC, among others.

Yes, even XM Radio has competition for "Air America."

"We're excited to provide a national audience to progressive superstar Al Franken and his spirited cohorts at Air America. Challenging our listeners and giving them the best and broadest choices possible is our daily mission," Hugo Panero, XM's District-based president, said yesterday.

This guy just sounds THRILLED!

But XM is not necessarily a liberal bastion. They already feature 79 talk-radio hosts of every political stripe — including Fox News' Mr. O'Reilly, ABC's Sean Hannity and independents Matt Drudge, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham.

All of which will do better than "Air America" because these folks are honest with their listeners and respect their audience.

Air America has its own political agenda in store, however.

Ain't that the truth...

"There is a great underserved market of Americans who want to hear compelling and funny talk voices expressing viewpoints long absent from the radio airwaves," said Mark Walsh, president of Progress Media, the parent company of Air America.

That ain't the truth...liberals have the Partisan Media (tm) to get their "story" out there...

He added, "Air America on XM will go a long way to correcting this imbalance at a particularly opportune time."

When can I expect the Partisan Media (tm) to give conservatives equal time? As if that were an issue...

That opportune time, of course, is an election year that has become a showcase for political sniping in the news media.

President Bush is the target of political sniping...

As Hollywood actors-turned-pundits, Mr. Franken and Miss Garofalo have criticized the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and conservative ideology in no uncertain terms.

Aren't they such the heroes! They have suffered so much... Puh-leeeeeeeze.

"I'm interested in doing what I can to affect this election. I'm thinking about what's the best use of my energies. I hope this is it," Mr. Franken told the Associated Press in January when he announced his intention to become a radio personality.

Well, Mr. Franken, good luck...you'll need it.

In Focus: Outsaucing

From Fortune.com:

The reason we have a so-called "jobless recovery" has little to do with offshoring. The number of jobs offshored to India so far remains minuscule—in the low hundreds of thousands at most. What’s causing much more pain is that employers are reluctant to hire. As several have pointed out, we don’t have a firing crisis, but a hiring one. And the reason companies can get away with not hiring is that they’re getting extraordinary productivity gains from their existing employees. Why? All the technology that has been installed over the last decade or so is finally starting to pay off.

Matt's Chat

This is what has bothered me most about this argument. In some respects, we are still recovering from 9/11. I haven't experienced a whole lot of firings going on, but I have seen a lot of reluctance to hire new folks. The reason for that is that the American worker has been very productive (and that doesn't mean I advocate Americans getting lazy all of a sudden) so the workload has increased for everybody so that it all gets done. Here is a sample of the kind of criticism that the author of that article has received that illustrates some of the passions that outsourcing is causing:

"You talk about how jobs going to India frees up Americans to do other things, Yeah, waiting in the unemployment line. You say that sending x-rays overseas for analysis is good because that will free up money for medical innovation… I'm wondering if you actually believe the hospitals will drop prices on hospital visits...Dell has sent jobs to India, but if they want to be fair they should sell their computers for what they would go for in India. But I still haven't seen a Dell computer for about 150 dollars…When will I get to see the savings? This goes to show that you are a sell-out for writing this story."

And there is a good point to be taken from this: American companies are going to have to start passing the savings on to the consumer.

Pro-business folks will say that they are; imagine what that computer would cost if it were made here! Which is why I'm not a union guy at all. But I will admit that I have a hard time believing that we are getting goods at prices that reflect a modest markup over production cost. Seems to me that companies are focused on the bottom line...and that's not a bad thing either (business have to make money to pay their employees). Throw in the fact that market forces drive prices too...and so long as you are willing to pay a thousand dollars for that Dell; dude, you're gonna pay it.

Another Win for the Good Guys

This is CNN:

British anti-terror police say they have seized half a ton of amonium nitrate, which can be used to make bombs, and arrested eight men in a series of raids "linked to possible Islamist terror." All of the suspects were British citizens aged between 17 and 32, said Peter Clarke, head of London's Metropolitan police anti-terror branch.

Matt's Chat

Sounds like a good day in the War on Terror. Apparently, the Philippines had a good day as well. No matter what the hamsters say, this is a noble and just fight and we must continue to win it.

Mark's Remarks

It is all a front for evil Halliburton, and now I see that Big Fertilizer is getting into it, as Ammonium nitrate is also a fertilizer. See, it is all a conspiracy by Big Fertilizer...but wait, if it were, it would be a liberal conspiracy, as fertilizer is all we get these days passing for debate from the libs.

Seriously, this is a great bit of news. More nations getting more pro-active, especially the Philippines, in the War on Terror. And I hear Uzbekistan went on a terror raid and took out some animals as well. Great work, allies, but no matter what you all do, you are still a fraudulent coalition to liberals....You have to make wine, cheese, vodka or chocolate cake to be part of a true coalition to these morons.

BREAKING NEWS: Rice to Testify

From CBS News:

In a 60 Minutes interview aired Sunday, Rice cast herself as ready to testify but restrained by the principle of executive privilege.

"Nothing would be better from my point of view, than to be able to testify. I would really like to do that. But there's an important principle involved here," Rice said "It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress."

But after the parade of current and former officials that have gone before the commission, Rice's absence, say former White House officials, is playing as a negative — creating the perception that she has something to hide.

Add to that Rice's recent blitz of the public airwaves to state her case — while stonewalling the commission — and it appeared to some that the White House had little choice.

Matt's Chat

I have two things to say about this... It is an outrage because we have no set a precedent for having non-elected, non-confirmed advisors/staffers to the president of the United States subjected to testifying before a Congressional committee. This is dangerous because in the future, Presidential advisors will have second thoughts about what they say to the President (Democrat or Republican) which means that the President may not get the kind of advice that he needs.

Ultimately, this is a huge win for the President. Anytime the subject is terrorism, the President wins. Just watch the polls in the coming weeks, my friends... Chuck the Schmuck and Teddy Boy will be sorry they pushed for this.

Mark's Remarks

Be careful, libs, for what you wish for......Condi is very convincing and articulate, and she uses logic, not hate, smear, and black helicopter theories.

This does set a precedent, no matter what the legal mumbo jumbo agreement says. It seriously damages the executive's ability to get unfettered and unadulterated advice. It damages the principle that has been held up since the Eisenhower admin, on through the Clinton years. While executive privilege is a many faceted issue, the purpose of it being invoked here was clear and in line with previous administrations. To set this type of precedent (even if the agreement says it is not setting one) is dangerous, and may be damaging to the office of the Presidency.

The Loonatic Left Exposed

From the Loonatic Left:

It seems the only thing the Democrats can agree on is that President Bush was wrong. What ever it was that he did that is. Here is a brief summary of the recent contradictions emanating from the left:

Pre-emption in foreign policy is wrong, but Bush should have done something pre-emptive about bin Laden and Afghanistan pre-9/11.

The Patriot Act is wrong, but he should have enacted something identical to it before 9/11...he had 8 months!

The U.S. should not be a unilateralist with our foreign policy, except for pre-9/11 when regardless of what any other nation wanted we should have protected our citizens by going after bin Laden.

Bush caused 9/11 by his inaction over 8 months, but Clinton's inaction did not...over 8 years.

We should attack the route causes of terrorism, but that doesn't include the fascist dictators that breed it.

Matt's Chat

Mahatma is proving, yet again, to be quite the enlightened one. This was a great piece that I thought deserved some additional play...go read it all, folks.

Mark's Remarks

Mahatma has seen the light, and he is broadcasting it out via his blog to the masses. I welcome Mahatma as a friend an ally, even if he does have some left leanings. Unlike the other party of blind hate and vitriol (tm) masking as 'unity and love'(tm), Republicans and even conservatives can agree to disagree and engage in debate. We don't immediately say someone was AWOL or produce nuances to our lies or misdeeds (read John Kerry).

This article was great...it shows the blatant and unadulterated and unashamed hypocrisy of the Left today. We are against pre-emption except when we say Bush should have pre-empted on Afghanistan. We are against the Patriot Act except that Bush should have done something.....I agree with Mahatma--Where in the Blue Hell was this outcry during the eight years of debacle that was the Clinton Administration? You won't find any, because the Left didn't care. They still don't care, they act like they do trying to create a smear and an issue that they know they goofed up on.

Heinz Wants Distance from Kerry

From Yahoo News:

H.J. Heinz Co. has launched an election-year campaign of its own, this one to distance the ketchup maker from what is shaping up to be an acrimonious presidential race.

The company has sent nearly 50 letters to radio and television talk shows nationwide to tamp down chatter on the airwaves and Internet suggesting revenue from ketchup sales will benefit the campaign of pending Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

His wife is Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the $500 million family ketchup fortune.

Matt's Chat

You can run, but you can not hide... Heinz is going to have to deal with the ramifications of this...they are in it whether they like it or not. Unless they have better luck keeping Madame Ketchup quiet than her husbands staff did. Good luck with that...

Mark's Remarks

Isn't it amazing, even the company they own wants nothing to do with the Kerrys!!!!! They are going out of their way to run away from Kerry and his statements.

Heinz does need to realize, however, that if Kerry wins he will tax their 57 plants overseas, because the company is not investing in America, and if you honestly believe that will happen, I have oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

1999: Clarke Cited 'Executive Privilege'; Skipped Testifying

From the Free Republic:
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT):

"Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.

"We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

"Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

"He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.

"As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.

"He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.

"So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing.

"We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours.

"So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order..."

Go read the whole thing...

Kerry: I Blame Bush

From Yahoo News

"Today we are told that, after 3 million lost jobs and so many lost hopes, America is now turning a corner," the pending Democratic presidential nominee said. "But those who say that, they're not standing on the corner of Highland Street, where two 15-year-old teenagers were hit in a drive-by shooting last week."

Mark's Remarks

So, the President has the power to prevent all murders, then tell me, Mr. Kerry, where was President Clinton, what did he know and when did he know it when during his tenure over 130,810 murders were committed....where was this godlike power to prevent tragedy, Mr. Kerry? Where were his godlike powers in preventing the first WTC bombing? Where were these powers when terrorists blew up embassies, eh, Mr. Kerry? And where were you, oh omnipotent one?

Your assertion that the terrible events that happened on the corner of Highland are the President's fault would be laughable if you were not talking about politicizing people's pain.....is there nothing you dim libs will not politicize and exploit to smear and go contrary to the interests of the American people? And in a church no less? Have you no shame, Mr. Kerry?

(Mark's note: I must admit, Matt was the impetus for this, as he shared this quote with me and raised the issue of Presidential godlike power......I just researched and added my own patented "hate and vitriol" which some would call logic and reason.)

Dems Aren't Interested in Appointing Judges

From Fox News:

All White House nominees will be blocked. That's right: every single one.

That's the word from Sen. Charles Schumer's office, which released a statement on Friday saying that Senate Democrats plan "to hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process."

Schumer's release followed a statement by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on the Senate floor Friday, in which he vowed to make life difficult for the president's nominees as long as Bush keeps using his recess appointment power to install the ones Democrats oppose.

Matt's Chat

Chuck the Schmuck is at it again! How unhinged is this reasoning? The President has every right to use recess appointments (a LEGAL procedure, by the way) when opposition won't allow a straight up or down vote in which the nomination would be confirmed.

Gosh, the Party of Love (tm) is downright mean and vicious. Furthering my theory that all Democratic rhetoric is merely projection of their own failings...

Mark's Remarks

Wow...holding up the processes of democracy, hundreds if not thousands of court cases, just for politics.....Chuck the Schmuck, you just showed the American people you do not care about them, you only care about your own politics. Of course, the Partisan Media(tm) will not publicize this, because they are just like you and your lib friends, engaging in the Goebbels strategy of the Big Lie...telling it loud and long enough, no matter what the facts say....

You and your ilk, Mr. Schumer, are disgraces to the trust of the American people. I hope they find out about this and hold you and your fellow obstructionists accountable for the wheels of justice grinding to a halt....

9/11 Families Against Clarke

From the New York Post:

A group of New York families of 9/11 victims came out swinging against Richard Clarke yesterday, accusing the former White House anti-terror chief of cashing in on the tragedy with his explosive book.
In a scathing open letter, the furious families also ripped Clarke for releasing the controversial tome to coincide with his appearance before the 9/11 commission on Wednesday.

"It was very disturbing to learn that Mr. Clarke would be releasing his book immediately before his scheduled public testimony before the 9/11 commission," they said in their emotional "Open Letter to America."

"The notion of [Clarke] profiteering from anything associated with 9/11 is particularly offensive to all of us."

Matt's Chat

This 9/11 strategy that the Party of Love (tm) has deployed is not working for them. The alienation of the American people by the Democratic elite continues...

I believe that the quotes in this article more accurately reflect the views of the majority of 9/11 families. I think they are tired of the politicization going on...I know I would be. They want answers and they deserve more than what they are getting. I suspect that there will be a backlash against the Party of Love (tm) for what they have done...and equally important, for what they failed to do.

These people aren't engaging in "character assassination" at the behest of Karl Rove, Halliburton, the Illuminati, or whatever insane liberal black helicopter theory. These are people who are fed up with being jerked around by Democrats. And I think there are more of them than Party of Love (tm) will be able to spin.

Mark's Remarks

No Matt, the 9/11 families are upset, they are angry, well at least the ones supported by Big Ketchup are, and isn't that slightly coincidental, that the same families supported by money from Heinz are the same ones yelling the loudest against Bush? I applaud the families who used their own money to take out this open letter condemning the sanctimony and self-important posturing of Richard Clarke. This clown is like Mike Moore, Shrillary, and Jimmy Carter, A MISERABLE FAILURE.

The families in this open letter are more concerned about answers and solutions than the politicizing and posturing going on by the likes of Bob "hey, I ran for the Presidential nomination once, too" Kerrey. It is a sad state of affairs when people will get so bogged down in politics they lose the true purpose of their chartering. But, of course, you involve the Party of Love and all you get is misdirection and smokescreen. What we are seeing is revisionist liberals trying to change history, to lay terror at the feet of GW Bush.....The facts say otherwise:

1993--first WTC bombing. Clinton doesn't even visit the scene. He declares terror a law enforcement issue. UBL is suspected in the planning and such, and it is shown to be true later. The FBI issues warrants and nothing happens.

1993--terrorists consorting with bin Laden in Somalia drag the body of slain soldiers in the streets. Clinton does nothing, except turn tail and run. UBL himself says that this showed him America was a paper tiger, and that he can do what he wants.

1998--terrorists under the guidance of UBL target embassies in Africa, killing hundreds.

During this same period, Clinton is besieged by allegations of lying and is impeached....while he does that, he orders missile strikes in Sudan that takes out a baby food factory. He orders missile strikes into Iraq, even as his personal affairs go south. Saddam continues to flout UN authority until the Bush administration.

Also, during this same period, Clinton was presented with four offers from Sudan for bin Laden's head. He refused each one, and has gone on the record as saying he knew about these offers, despite what Sandy Berger and Maddy Albright said UNDER OATH at the 9/11 commission hearings.

Also, to help make the world safe, despite objections from the Defense dept., Clinton sold missile tech to North Korea and China. He also slashed the military budget to the point that many weapons were sitting in disrepair in hangars.

Also, remember the Clinton quagmire? Getting NATO to go into Kosovo, an action that continues today, as the ethnic cleansing continues years later. That was a quagmire, not Mr. Bush's action now.

If you want to play the blame game, there is the evidence. Not to mention that it was Mr. Clinton's disastrous Attorney General Janet "the Butcher of Waco" Reno who endorsed the laws and orders that prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing info, which built the wall that allowed each side to be gathering info and not to be able to share it.....

Also, remember Clinton had 8 years to get a plan for terror, Bush had 7 months.

So, if you really want to play the Blame Game, look at the facts...

Again, to the families....your loss still sticks with us...thank you for your courage in standing up to the more liberal among your fellow victims and taking a stand for truth and principle....God bless you.

Further Evidence that Party of Love is Unhinged

From the Washington Post:

Several hundred people stormed the small yard of President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, yesterday afternoon, pounding on his windows, shoving signs at others and challenging Rove to talk to them about a bill that deals with educational opportunities for immigrants.

Protesters poured out of one school bus after another, piercing an otherwise quiet, peaceful Sunday in Rove's Palisades neighborhood in Northwest, chanting, "Karl, Karl, come on out! See what the DREAM Act is all about!"

Rove obliged their first request and opened his door long enough to say, "Get off my property."
...
The protest was organized by National People's Action, a coalition of neighborhood advocacy groups based in Chicago.

Leaders said they want Bush to advocate for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, a bill that would permit immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years to apply for legal resident status once they graduate from high school. The measure would eliminate provisions of current federal law that discourage states from providing in-state tuition to undocumented student immigrants.

Matt's Chat

Thuggery will get you folks no where. If this group really wanted a conversation with Rove, as the article suggests, they wouldn't have ambushed him at home. And they wouldn't have been behaving like immature, arrogant, small-minded hamsters.

And after about 30 minutes of goading by protesters in English and Spanish, Rove agreed to meet with two members of the coalition on the condition that the rest of the protesters board their buses and leave his street. The group obliged.

Rove opened his garage door and allowed Palacios and Inez Killingsworth to enter. The meeting lasted two minutes and ended with Rove closing the garage door on Palacios while she was still talking.

Palacios said that Rove was "very upset" and was "yelling in our faces" and that Rove told them "he hoped we were proud to make his 14-year-old and 10-year-old cry."

A White House spokesman said one of the children was a neighbor.

Palacios, trembling and in tears herself, said, "He is very offended because we dared to come here. We dared to come here because he dared to ignore us. I'm sorry we disturbed his children, but our children are disturbed every day.

"He also said, 'Don't ever dare to come back,' " Palacios said. "We will, if he continues to ignore us."

I hate to break it to these folks, but just becuase we have the freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody has to listen. We have rules in this country (some of us like to call them laws) and if you want to change those rules, you play by the book. Karl Rove isn't going to get the DREAM Act passed (actually, I'm pretty sure that if it were up to Rove it wouldn't get another hearing at all - especially now). Congress is where that fight needs to be played out.

I am left wondering if perhaps the Party of Love (tm) isn't encouraging this kind of insanity. They get plausible deniability and get to make some noise at the same time. I can't wait to hear what John Effing Kerry has to say... Afterall, I'm sure, he voted voted for it before he voted against it.

Mark's Remarks

See what you are encouraging, John Kerry, Howeird Dean, Terry McAwful, by your hatespeech? You are encouraging this terrible treatment of people in their private lives....where is the condemnation? Where is the respect for people's privacy? Oh wait, you aren't allowed to have that if you are or work for a Republican, in the eyes of you sanctimonious, arrogant, elitist nuancers (read LIARS).

Rice and Separation of Powers - Not Anything New

From Perry on Politics:

The 9/11 Commission should be satisfied to have Rice testify behind closed doors, as national security is an issue. The only reason they don't like this is that the political attack is removed from the issue and the players in this game don't get their soundbite.

The larger issue at stake is the weakening of the executive branch at the hands of the legislature. While the media for the most part is against the Bush power struggle with Congress, they have not always been that way.

The media supported a strong chief executive under both FDR and Truman. In 1953 the New Republic criticized Eisenhower for not standing up to Congress. On May 18, 1953, Wilfred Brinkley wrote:


"The current gravitation of power into the hands of Congress at the expense of the Executive is a phenomenon so fatuous as to be incredible if the facts were not so patent."

He was not alone. When Eisenhower invoked executive privilege denying the UnAmerican Activities Committee information, the New York Times wrote on May 18, 1954 that the committee " had no right to know the details of what went on in these inner Administration councils."

And lastly, on May 20, 1954 the Washington Post wrote that the administration was "abundantly right to protect the confidential nature of executive conversations."

And Tim leads us to this article from the Washington Post:

The White House's refusal to permit national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly and under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is not unprecedented in the practices of both the Bush administration and previous administrations, according to legal analysts and a report by the research arm of the Library of Congress.

Presidential advisers and other White House staff members have on occasion testified about policy matters before congressional committees since the end of World War II -- but far less frequently than Cabinet secretaries, who are subject to Senate confirmation.

Whatever their political or other motivations may have been, presidents have generally cited the separation of powers, and the need for confidential and candid executive deliberations, in explaining their resistance to testimony by those White House staff members who, like Rice, serve the president and are not confirmed by the Senate.

But these distinctions and justifications remain relatively undefined and have never been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Such a court battle would probably occur only if the commission sent Rice a subpoena, as some members have suggested, and she resisted it.

Historically, clashes over White House staff testimony have been settled through compromise between the executive and legislative branches, with each side vying for advantage in the same forum where the dispute over Rice is being played out: the court of public opinion.

Matt's Chat

This is all about politicizing intelligence and 9/11. I'm amused by these folks who were screaming about Bush's 9/11 ads are the same people driving this ridiculous witch hunt...

Mark's Remarks

The politicizing continues...these liberal smear artists are really sad....they are attempting to smear an administration that did more in the first five months than Clinton did in his first 6 years in Office to fight terror.....and it is sad that people like Richard Clarke are smearing intelligent and capable people like Condi Rice, simply to massage their own sad and guilty consciences. Let's get off of the blame game, because it is a game the Clintonistas will lose, if they allow the truth to come out....Let's instead review what we can do better to prevent this mess...That is what this commission should be for, not trying political grandstanding, as idiots on the commission like Bob Kerrey have done. It is sad that this commission is more about smear and nuance than finding out solutions for issues.

Another Domino Teeters

Syria Requests Australia's Aid to Help Repair Relations with the United States

From the Australian:

SYRIA has appealed to Australia to use its close ties with Washington to help the Arab nation shake off its reputation as a terrorist haven and repair its relations with the US.

Secret talks between the two nations have been under way for months but have become more urgent as rogue nations reconsider their role in allowing terrorists to thrive, in light of the US determination to take pre-emptive military action.

A Syrian embassy will be opened in Canberra in weeks and Australia is considering reopening its mission in Damascus.

Australia's close relationship with Washington, and its much higher profile in the Middle East, have prompted Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara'a and parliamentary speaker Mahmoud Al-Ibrache to appeal to Canberra to help bring their country back in from a US-imposed diplomatic freeze.

Matt's Chat

Yep...that whole war in Iraq thing was totally useless. I have no idea why we went over there... Libya is turning over a new leaf... Now Syria wants in... And it looks like there is still hope for Iran (although they are still playing the Saddam Game with their relationship with the IAEA...they people aren't too happy about that either).

It is almost as if a "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East" might be a good idea. Who's idea was that again? Oh, yeah, President George W. Bush. But I thought was just some dullard cowboy from Texas? Seems like he's gotten a few things right in the Middle East where the previous administration failed for eight years...

Mark's Remarks

We should have preempted Afghanistan in early 2001, wait, preemption is a bad policy, well, you don't understand the nuance behind this position, you silly American citizen, don't you know we libs are smarter than you and can see the clearness of our views? (I am glad they can, because all I see is spin, lies, and attacks while we are at war)

This Middle East strategy, unlike the last administration's, has gotten results. Saddam is gone, Uday and Kusay are dead-ay. The Libyans have revealed and capitulated on their weapons systems, the North Koreans have been revealed (they got the nuke tech thanks to the last admin, by the way), and the world knows that we are sticking to our guns, and will not turn away. I look with skepticism upon Syria, because they have shown much duplicity in the past, but it shows hope for the world, thanks to a dullard cowboy from Texas, or depending on which nuancing day(read lying and smearing) it is, it could be an evil genius, a dullard cowboy, or Satan. I would call him a leader, a statesman, and someone defending and exporting our way of life.

Another Bad UN Idea That Won't Go Away

From Yahoo News:

Typically, only heads of state and titans of industry get an audience on the 38th floor of the marble-and-glass tower housing the United Nations.

So when the president of a California nonprofit corporation with an unwieldy name — the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — met Friday with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it signaled the group's importance in a computer-driven world.

ICANN oversees the Domain Name System — such as ".com," ".net" and ".org" — that allows computers to find each other in cyberspace. It is sanctioned by the United States government, which funded the Internet's early development.

Some countries and activists argue that ICANN is too close to the United States and want the United Nations to take a greater role in regulating the Internet.

"The United Nations would be a good platform for that, because it has legitimacy. The countries are all represented," said Izzeldin Mohamed Osman, a computer science professor from the Sudan University of Science and Technology.

Matt's Chat

"Legitimacy"? At what? Creating and sustaining disasters? UN control of the internet would be the surest, fastest way to destroy it. Plus, I don't think the UN is capable of keeping the internet secure. They don't understand conventional warfare (Kosovo, Somalia, etc., et.c, etc.) what makes ANYBODY have any confidence they would understand informatioal or cyber warfare?

Mark's Remarks

Oh,this is a great idea...the same idiots who didn't regulate the Oil for Food debacle in charge of the internet? I really do not think so....The UN has shown they are a miserable failure at keeping things secure whether it be via peace actions (Kosovo, Somalia, etc.), global weapons proliferation (Iran, North Korea, Iraq)....this organization is a miserable failure, yes, A MISERABLE FAILURE, at every attempt to secure and defend it takes up...why would we want to give it control of the internet?

French Lawyer for Saddam

From the BBC:

A French lawyer who made his reputation defending some of the world's most notorious figures says he will take on Saddam Hussein as his latest client.
In his long career, Jacques Verges defended Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal and former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Mr Verges says the request came in a letter from Saddam Hussein's nephew, Ali Barzan al-Takriti.

He says he will also defend former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

He will be supported by a dozen other French lawyers to mount a defence case.

Matt's Chat

This is just too easy...

I wonder if this guy was paid off in oil like the French government was...

Mark's Remarks

I heard that John Kerry was too busy to defend this monster, and John Edwards was too concerned about two Iraqs....Leave it to the French to want to jump to the aid of this monster. Leave it to the French, because they will give him defense in exchange for Saddam's silence on their deceit and duplicity of the world community.

Holy John Effing Kerry

From TIME:

The last time a major political party put forward a Roman Catholic candidate for President, he had to confront bigotry and suspicion that he would be taking orders from Rome. Forty-four years later, the Democrats are poised to nominate another Catholic—another Senator from Massachusetts whose initials happen to be J.F.K.—and this time, the controversy over his religion may develop within the Catholic Church itself. Kerry's positions on some hot-button issues aren't sitting well with members of the church elite. Just listen to a Vatican official, who is an American: "People in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there's a problem with John Kerry, and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion."

But it's far from clear whether the greater political problem is Kerry's or the church's. "I don't think it complicates things at all," Kerry told TIME in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Saturday, the first in which he has discussed his faith extensively. "We have a separation of church and state in this country. As John Kennedy said very clearly, I will be a President who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic President." Still, when Kennedy ran for President in 1960, a candidate could go through an entire campaign without ever having to declare his position on abortion—much less stem cells, cloning or gay marriage. It was before Roe v. Wade, bioethics, school vouchers, gay rights and a host of other social issues became the ideological fault lines that divide the two political parties and also divide some Catholics from their church.

Matt's Chat

Kerry is so strong in his faith that he tells his church to Eff off everytime he votes against saving life... Thems values there...

Regular readers will know I have my own issues with the Catholic faith, but John Kerry has some MAJOR issues that are the very core of the religion. Catholics should take note...

Mark's Remarks

Mr. Kerry is probably like Dean was with sex...remember metrosexual? Kerry is probably metroreligious, i.e., he has no core. The man cares only for pleasing whatever audience he has around and coming around with soundbites. It is a blessing to know that the Catholic Church seems to see that Mr. Kerry has many issues....of course, he will probably go to the Pope or a bishop and explain his nuances (read LIES), and since the American Catholic Church has engaged in nuancing with the whole abuse thing, I am sure they will come around and endorse the guy....I am terribly sorry, but truth be told, there are some serious nuancing going on with the abuse cases as well as most of Kerry's supposed values...

Iran Hiding Nuke Program

From Yahoo News:

Senior Iranian officials are overseeing efforts to conceal key elements of the country's nuclear program from international inspectors, according to Western diplomats and an intelligence report.

If the cover-up is confirmed, it would bolster the U.S. assertion that Iran is trying to hide a secret nuclear weapons program.

Iran set up a committee late last year to coordinate the concealment efforts after international inspectors uncovered evidence that the Islamic Republic had tried to hide aspects of its nuclear program, including secret research on advanced centrifuges that can produce weapons-grade uranium, according to the diplomats.

A diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the committee's most pressing tasks include trying to hide nuclear evidence at nearly 300 locations around the country. The committee is said to be composed mainly of senior officials of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran who report to high-ranking government officials.

Iran has said that it will deny access to some suspect sites by international inspectors, who are scheduled to continue their work today. Iran cited a continuing New Year holiday as justification for barring the inspectors.

Matt's Chat

Twelve years later, 17 UN Security Council resolutions, and 15 more minutes for Hans Blix and the IAEA and we'll have to hope we have a Republican in the White House to clean this one up too.

That's right, I said it. I stand by those words.

The John Kerry's and Bill Clinton's will want to negotiate with these monsters. That is not the way to go, in my opinion.

Mark's Remarks

Amen, Matt....if Kerry wins, he will allow Iran to proceed, or maybe they will fill out a little treaty, which will mean nothing. Look at the history of Dim treaties. Carter and the Soviets treaty meant nothing. As we cut our nuke supplies, the Soviets continued to build theirs up. Look at the North Korean treaty, this time with Bill Clinton....AGAIN, MEANINGLESS AND UNEFFECTIVE. If John Kerry becomes president, expect Iran to become a nuclear power soon and use it against us or our interests, and what will John Kerry do about it? Like his French buddies, he will probably surrender or simply run.

Don't make us relive the late 70s again or give more nukes to madmen, reelect the man who brought meaning back to the words of the US: George W. Bush....

Mr. Bush will not let Iran get away with this....the libs and Dims have a history of showing they don't care as long as they can be free to spend our tax dollars on social experiments.

Bush: Universal Broadband by 2007

From My Way News (AP):

President Bush on Friday proposed 2007 as the goal for universal availability of high-speed Internet access to keep America competitive and innovative.

Speaking at length on the subject for the first time since August 2002, Bush discussed broadband while highlighting home ownership in the critical state of New Mexico -- a state he narrowly lost in the 2000 presidential election.

"We ought to have universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007," Bush said. "And then we ought to make sure as soon as possible thereafter consumers have plenty of choices."

"It's important that we stay on the cutting edge of technological change, and one way to do so is to have a bold plan for broadband," he said. Bush did not elaborate on how he would accomplish the 2007 goal.

Matt's Chat

Broadband for everybody! Here's something I can get behind:

Bush also urged that broadband access be tax free. "The Congress must not tax access to broadband technology if we want to spread it around," he said.

Do you hear me Senators Voinovich and DeWine? How 'bout you Gov. Tax...I mean Taft. You RINOs that want tax everything are killing us all...

Mark's Remarks

Good lord, another reason to love Bush!!!! I want my broadband, libs!!!! Woohoo!!!! Vote Bush and get broadband!!! Suh-weet!!!!!

Bob Tax and Co., you RINOS need to get out of the way of this, you sad libs packed in Republican skin......

Kerry to Bush: Prosecute Clarke if You Can

From Yahoo News:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry challenged President George W. Bush to prosecute former national security aide Richard Clarke if they can show that he lied about terrorism policy.

"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath, Kerry told CBS's MarketWatch.

"They have a perfect right to do that," said Kerry.

Matt's Chat

Be careful what you wish for, Senator Ketchup...

Mark's Remarks

Senator Ketchup, you make me ill....really you do....why don't we prosecute you for shady dealings with the Big Dig, while we are at it?

I think Clarke should be prosecuted, but you sad sacks of liberal liars and misdirectioners will say it is merely Bush trying to be mean spirited, I mean, laws don't matter if you are liberal or support liberals, look at Bill Clinton and lying under oath.

A Comparison

Do these people really want to be associated with these people in ANY way?

Just asking...

Ahh...more goodies from the Party of Love (tm)...

Literal Crushing of Dissent

From the Boston Herald:

A brawl erupted between opponents and supporters of President Bush [related, bio] last night behind police barricades a block from his fund-raiser at the Park Plaza Hotel.

Two Bush supporters, twin brothers Matt and Aaron Margolis, traded blows at the corner of Arlington and Boylston streets with several men who they said were union members.

The fight started after a man wearing an Ironworkers Local 7 sweatshirt, perched atop a subway entrance, repeatedly taunted the brothers.

``They told us to get out of here or we'd get beaten up,'' said Matt Margolis, 24, of Beverly.

``I said, `I support your freedom of speech - please support mine. Come on down and we can have a conversation.'

``He jumped down and swung on my brother. Then they all jumped in and tore our signs apart.''

Matt's Chat

Will John Effing Kerry denounce this blatant criminal act on the part of the Democrat Attack Squad(tm)? (I never thought that moniker would ever be typed in a manner that would be taken LITERALLY, but such is the state of the Party of Love(tm).

More...

Blogs for Bush coverage (Matt Margolis is the founder of B4B)
Matt Margolis' Blog (Matt's got pictures!)

Mark's Remarks

You know, Dims love to assault people, especially by character and verbally....look at Mr. Kerry....he uses obtuse language and calls for "regime change" and makes baseless attacks. Look at how he treats the people charged to protect him, as he did with the Secret Service he collided his sad sack of skiing arse with. Mr. Kerry and the Dims love to assault people, and they get obtuse people like this ignorant savages who give honest and intellectually capable union members a bad name as surrogates....this is what happens when you engage in solid hatespeech rhetoric, as Kerry and his Dim surrogates have with this class warfare and villifying labels have. Look at what Kerry did to the person who asked him about his foreign leader endorsements--he didn't stave it off or be polite--he asked him if he was a Republican (shameful of those guys to turn out at a public supposedly nonpartisan town hall meeting), then ragged on him and said it was none of his business....these are the tactics of the Dimcrapic party, the Party of Love, the Party of Vince Fostering and Ron Brown Headwear. They love to incite violence, and love to assassinate character. There will be no condemnation or apology, because even though they will gripe and moan about not being allowed to get close to Republican events, they will try to keep out any who do not blindly support their hate filled rhetoric agenda. This is further proof of that, and proves that the Dims and Libs are not about honest dialogue, but crushing disagreements.

The Gloved One to Address Congressional Black Caucus

From the Washington Times:

Pop star Michael Jackson plans to visit Washington next week to share his views on world affairs with with members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Jackson, who was recently indicted on child molestation charges, requested the meeting with the 38-member group to discuss his humanitarian efforts including his work to help Africa fight its AIDS epidemic, the Roll Call newspaper reported Thursday.

Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., whom the paper identifies as "a proponent of the visit," says Jackson should be welcomed by the members of the CBC.

"It is good we show our support to Michael Jackson," Clay said. "He gives so much of himself monetarily and through his talent."

Matt's Chat

Michael Jackson is just so "charming." (That is something of a "gotta be in person kind of joke - there is a vocal component to it...) Anyway. This just goes to show you how morally bankrupt the Congressional Black Caucus really is. If anybody should be treating Jackson like an outcast, it is black lawmakers. I'm sure there will be press at this event...I can't wait to see the pictures. Maybe John effing Kerry will drop by for another endorsement...

Mark's Remarks

Maybe they will get into bed under the covers, light candles, maybe some incense and warm milk....It's so charming, everyone should do it...sheesh....First the Black Caucus continues to perpetuate the myth that Papa Doc Aristide was kidnapped (truth: he ran behind our protection with his tail between his legs) and now they are consorting with this deviant. Yes, I said it, Michael Jackson is a deviant. Makes you wonder what they are really after, could it just be some luvin and some cookies, to be with one so "charming"?

Update

Michael King has more commentary.

Quote of the Day

From CNBC Business Center via the Free Republic:

Mr. IJAZ: And they [Sudan] wanted water rights, more water from the Nile River that flows all the way through the Sudan. Eritrea wanted to have Port Sudan as a port on the Red Sea that would be able to transmit the oil coming from the southern part of the Sudan. Uganda and Ethiopia were involved in funneling arms into the SPLA, which is this guerrilla group fighting in the south.

So there was no question that there was a lot of politicizing of the intelligence, and this is why I asked the Clinton administration over and over again, 'Why are we not sending our own people in there on the ground so that we get our own data, not relying on our neighbors to find out what's going on?'

HERERA: And what did they say? What did those [Clinton] administration officials tell you?

Mr. IJAZ: They [Clinton administration] always said actions speak louder than words, and I have not yet been able to figure out which actions they were talking about, because when I brought them an opportunity to act, they didn't do anything.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, "Indeed."

DeLay's Woes

From the Washington Times:

Aides to House GOP leader Tom DeLay denied a report that DeLay is discussing temporarily leaving his post if he is indicted for campaign finance abuses.

Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reported Thursday that DeLay, R-Texas, has begun quiet talks with a handful of colleagues about the possibility of stepping down, which would be required under Republican conference rules.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, has been investigating whether Texans for a Republican Majority, a non-profit group and related political action committee with ties to DeLay, broke Texas law during the 2002 state legislative elections by using corporate donations.
...
"The majority leader has first-hand experience with high-profile Democratic attempts to criminalize politics," said DeLay's communications director, Stuart Roy. "This (investigation) is no different."

Matt's Chat

If convicted, he should resign. In fact, if he is guilty (which it appears he is not), he should step down immediately.

That's intellectually honesty. You see, when someone on your team does something illegal or immoral, you shouldn't support that person just because they have your team's initial tagged to the end of his name.

I believe in the proper execution of the law. And I believe in a fair hearing. If the Partisan Press (tm) and the Democrat attack Squad (tm) makes a mountain out of a molehill, I think there should be hell to pay. But if he is guilty, I think he should go down.

See how that works hamsters?

Mark's Remarks

I agree totally with Matt on this issue, if DeLay is guilty, he should resign....if this is more political garbage, then there should be repercussions for empty and baseless allegations (if that is what these are shown to be, which it appears more and more that is what they are). Isn't it a shame that liberals cannot do the same? They lie under oath, they engage in illegal fundraising themselves, and all they can do is project onto others...shameful, and borderline psychotic.

American Grandstand

From the Boston Herald:

We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11.
...
By all accounts, Clarke made hundreds of decisions in the days after Sept. 11, many clear-headed and right.

Approving those special flights seems like a wrong one, but it was a judgment call made in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history.

Perhaps it was the best decision he could make under the circumstances. It's too bad Clarke cuts no one in the Bush administration the same slack he so easily cuts himself.

Matt's Chat

Hmm...yet another Tin-Foil Hat Brigade black helicopter theory shot down. The same people who were complaining about the Saudi flights are the same people championing Clarke today. I wonder if they know... Oh yeah, I forgot the hamster mantra: "Never let the facts get in the way of the truth."

Mark's Remarks

More ridiculous every day, the comment by Bob "I'm no longer relevant" Kerrey, that Clarke is a credible witness. Clarke is nothing more than a disgruntled ex-employee. His contention in his book that Condi Rice did not know about al Queda until he told her about them later in 2001 flies in the face of what Sean Hannity uncovered from a Pittsburgh radio station....what is this, earlier in 2001, before the alleged "lesson about al Queda" from Clarke took place, there is Condi talking about the dangers of al Queda? What, Clarke is caught in another lie? It must be FoxNews's fault, or the fault of the radio station....Clarke has no integrity, and he is proving it more and more every day, as more comes to light about his rather two faced statements then and now.

Fisking CNN & Kerry's Jobs Promise

This is CNN:

Pledging to create 10 million new jobs in four years, presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry on Friday will begin to roll out his economic plan for the country in a series of three speeches, his campaign said.

Finally! An actual PLAN from Kerry...somehow I suspect it will be high on rhetoric and low on actual plan.

With public opinion polls showing President Bush strong on terrorism and international issues and Kerry strong on domestic issues, including the economy, the Massachusetts senator sees an opportunity to score some political points.

Yep, Kerry is all about scoring...political points.

The Bush administration has presided over the loss of more than 2 million jobs in an economy adversely affected by the dot-com bust, a recession and post-9/11 terrorism fears. However, Bush has highlighted an increase in American productivity, home ownership and an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent that is below the average unemployment rate for the last three decades.

That's objective reporting there from the Clinton News Network. Don't bother to mention that there are TWO surveys and that the other one shows a net GAIN of jobs in this country.

According to the Kerry campaign, his economic proposal will include tax reform and credits to encourage job creation in the United States, an education and job training program, as well as a plan to "restore fiscal discipline and confidence in the American economy."

John Kerry wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it came up and shook his hand. Afterall, he's voted for it before he voted against it. Kerry has voted for tax raises on Social Security at least eight times, voted against tax credits for small business health insurance, supported raising taxes on gasoline, and has proposed a healthcare program that he can't afford if he intends to fulfill his promise to cut the deficit in half. [Source]

Friday's speech at Wayne State University in Detroit will focus on the tax reform portion of the plan.

"You know, economic plans aren't just about dollars and decimals. They're about choices," Kerry said in excerpts provided by the campaign. "Time after time, this administration has put ideology first and jobs last.

Oh, Mr. Ketchup... The tax cuts weren't about ideology, they were about getting us out of the Clinton/Gore recession. And here's the best part: they WORKED. You are right about one thing though: economic plans are indeed about choices. We can choose to keep more of our money or we can choose you and give more of our money to the government so you all can waste it on the Big Dig and other useless projects.

"Today, I'm announcing a new economic plan for America that will put jobs first. We will renew American competitiveness, make tough budget choices, and invest in our future. My pledge -- and my plan -- is for 10 million new jobs in the next four years."

Kerry's Jobs First plan will call for the "most sweeping international tax law reform in forty years" that would give tax incentives to companies that create jobs in the United States.

Ahh, typical liberal response. Let's turn it in to welfare! Corporate welfare does not help the economy. In fact, in the long run, it hurts. When you crush the market forces by subsidizing, you take away from the American entrepreneurial spirit.

Outsourcing -- the relocation of jobs offshore -- has become a key issue in the leadup to the U.S. presidential election later this year, with Kerry promising to "crack down on the export of American jobs."

Outsourcing represents LESS than 1% of jobs. Hardly a major issue.

The tide of jobs leaving U.S. shores is not predicted to slow down any time soon, with independent technology research company Forrester Research saying more than 3 million jobs will move out of the United States by 2015. "Today, we have a tax code that does more to reward companies for moving overseas than it does to reward them for creating jobs here in America," his prepared text said.

Did CNN bother to ask Forrester Research how many jobs would be created in that same time? Just asking...

"If a company is torn between creating jobs here or overseas, we now have a tax code that has American taxpayers paying to ship jobs overseas. That makes no sense. And if I am president, it will end."

Has John Kerry cleared this with HIS WIFE? 57 (what an amazing coincidence!) of Heinz's 97 facilities are located outside the United States. Can you guess why? I can... "Outsaucing" for tax breaks.

First Step in Overturning Roe v. Wade?

From ABC News:

In a major win for social conservatives, Congress is sending to the president legislation that would expand the legal rights of the unborn by making it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act cleared the Senate on a 61-38 vote Thursday, a month after the House passed the bill and five years after conservatives first tried to move the legislation through Congress.



The measure is limited in scope, applying only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime is being committed against the pregnant mother, such as terrorist attacks, drug-related shootings or attacks on federal lands or military bases. But proponents on both sides of the fetal rights and abortion issue saw far-reaching consequences.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said that with the president's signature, "our nation will be one giant step closer to rebuilding a culture of life, where every child, born and unborn, is given the protections they so clearly deserve." President Bush has urged Congress to send a bill to his desk.

But the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Kate Michelman, said it would be the first time ever in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a distinct person, separate from the woman. "Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision affirming a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

Matt's Chat

This law has a pretty narrow scope, but I would have to say that we'll have to wait and see what the activist judiciary does with it after the President signs it in to law...

Mark's Remarks

The whole pro death crowd's argument about hindering a woman's right to choose is nonsense. There is a specific exemption for abortions. Yet, they want to paint this as an attempt to hinder the right to kill a baby. Wow, more caring about the Children (well, they are only children if they are born) from the Party of Love. John "the F stands for Flip flop" Kerry stopped by to cast another "nuanced"(read duplicit) vote. He voted for the law in an amended form but then voted it down when it came time to put it to final approval.

In fact, read the callous sounding words from an email from John Kerry to a constituent:

Dear Mrs. ______:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 146, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important subject.

S. 146, introduced by Senator DeWine (R-OH), would make it a federal offense to injure or cause the death of a "child in utero." This legislation elevates the legal status of a zygote, an embryo and a fetus by treating the "child in utero" as a human being separate from the mother regardless of its stage of development. No knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to cause harm is necessary for prosecution. Under this legislation, women carrying pregnancies are exempt from prosecution, as are the medical professionals who perform abortions or provide emergency medical treatment.

Although this legislation exempts performing abortions from prosecution, this bill would clearly impact a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, as that right is set forth in Roe vs. Wade. I believe that an attack on a pregnant woman should carry increased penalties. However, legislation granting a fetus the same legal status in all stages of development as a human being is not the appropriate response. I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Therefore, I do not support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me again on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
United States Senator

Unborn babies do not count when they are savagely murdered, despite even the mother's living, as in some of those victims who testifyed, according to Mr. Kerry...what a big kind hearted guy, eh?

email courtesy of www.nrlc.org Read more about the response to Mr. Kerry's callous comments there, and about the many victims of this crime.....