The corrosive effects of moonbattery have made themselves known at the State Department, so that it is unfortunately clear that not all members of that left-leaning community have their hearts in the War on Terror. But would any American diplomats actually go out of their way to prevent US forces from capturing Osama bin Laden? Apparently one of them would — and did.
Since 9/11, Pakistan has been crucial to the struggle against al Qaeda. More than 600 members of al Qaeda have been killed or captured there since 2001, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11 attacks. Pakistan is where bin Laden’s trail went cold after Tora Bora.
Even before 9/11, Pakistan was a key country in the hunt for terrorists. Mir Amal Kansi, who shot several CIA employees in front of that agency’s headquarters in Langley in 1993, was arrested in Pakistan two years later when a local who had seen a matchbook advertising the $5 million price on his head turned him in.
All of this considered, the taxpayers’ money was well spent when it was used to print up thousands of matchbooks, posters, and other items in languages spoken in Pakistan, advertising the $25 million reward being offered for information leading to the capture of bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.
Or at least the money would have been well spent, if the items had been distributed. Unfortunately they fell into the hands of America’s Ambassador to Pakistan, Nancy Powell, who “impounded” the material on embassy grounds for several years.
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) got wind of this, but not until 2004. Thanks to his sustained efforts, Powell is now serving at Foggy Bottom headquarters in DC, where it is hoped she won’t be able to cause as much damage.
Powell’s explanation to Kirk for her outlandish behavior was that finding bin Laden was only one of a number of priorities. Although her specific motivations are not known, some form of moonbattery would be the most likely explanation for her actions, given the milieu in which diplomats work. Prior to joining the State Department in 1977, Powell had spent the last six years teaching social studies. Regrettably this did not raise any red flags in the bureaucracy.
Now Ryan Crocker, “a take-charge guy” who is “far more aggressive in pursuing the bin Laden account” is in charge of the Islamabad embassy, and the Rewards for Justice program that Powell suppressed is in high gear. But precious time has been lost; for all we know, bin Laden is in Iran now. Instead of thanking Allah for the fact that he’s still on the loose, he might want to thank the same Foggy Bottom climate of pervasive idiotarianism that Powell can thank for having been entrusted with such a critical position.
Colin Powell (no relation to Nancy, I’m pretty sure) had his strong points as Secretary of State, but he was not the guy to take on the deeply ingrained moonbattery that used to be so well documented by the late and much lamented blog The Diplomad. It’s as if our foreign policy were being implemented largely by left-wing college professors — pretentious fools who live in an alternate reality of pure bloviation and do not have America’s best interests at heart. Nancy Powell is living proof of just how counterproductive this state of affairs can be.
Fixing this is going to be like cleaning the Augean Stables, but if anyone’s up to the job, it’s Condi Rice. Here’s wishing her luck.
Source: New York Sun; hat tip: It’s a Matter of Opinion.
Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
Said Van Helsing @ 5:14 am Comments (8) | Permalink
The populations devastated by the tsunami are beginning to rebuild their lives. This is good news, at least for those of us who cling to the old-fashioned notion that human beings matter more than hunks of wood.
For eco-moonbats, however, things are never this simple:
Along Aceh’s battered coastline, work has begun on new housing for those left homeless by the 26 December tsunami.
Government officials estimate that 100,000 new houses will be needed over the next few years.
But environmentalists warn that this construction boom poses a major threat to Indonesia’s ravaged tropical forests.
Well, when 100,000 people need new houses, surely the worthless yappings of a few tree-huggers can be safely ignored?
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has already sounded the alarm over the issue of logging.
Earlier this month, it advised tsunami-hit countries to protect their forests during the reconstruction period.
It said governments in South and South-East Asia should “avoid over-harvesting and illegal felling of trees”.
What?!! The U.N. are sticking their noses into this? Wonderful, eh? After they sat out the actual disaster in five star hotels while U.S. and Australian troops saved the Indonesian people from starvation, the world’s most useless bureaucracy have now decided it’s more important to whine about a few useless trees than thousands of homeless people.
So, what’s the solution, then? Do any of the assorted moonbats have a constructive suggestion concerning what the people of Aceh do for house-timber? Since they’re not allowed to cut down their own forests, we mean?
“We must make sure that the wood being used for new houses is certified as coming from sustainable forests,” said Dede Suhendra, a programme manager at WWF-Indonesia.
Well, as jaw-droppingly stupid comments go, you’d have travel far and wide to beat that one, wouldn’t you? Is Dede ‘I-have-a-nice-warm-home-to-go-to’ Suhendra really suggesting that if the homeless disaster victims of Indonesia want to rebuild their houses, they have to grow the trees in order to do so? But wouldn’t that mean they’ll be homeless for, oh, ten-to-fifteen years while they wait for that to happen? Or, if they buy the timber from abroad, even more poverty stricken than they are at present?
Really, the better idea would be to just tear up whatever pointless save-the-trees treaties they’ve signed and ravage the rain forests in order to build as many houses as they need. Because here’s the truth of it: People matter more than trees.
(Cross-posted at Rottweiler Puppy)
Said RottyPup @ 11:39 pm Comments (12) | Permalink
The modern left have a problem, and while this, by itself, can only be a good thing, the solution they’ve hit on is starting to affect us all.
You see, whether we’re dealing with the kind of crank who obsesses over One, Big, Insane Idea, or the sort of all-purpose moonbat who signs on to any number of little insanities, it’s a sure thing that that most members of the extreme left exist in a society with which they are almost completely at odds.
For instance, suggest to most normal people that you think it would be really good idea to crack open a baby’s skull, release known terrorists onto the streets, or starve a disabled woman to death, and they’ll conclude you are somewhat unhinged. Certainly, very few people will actually entertain the notion that your Big Idea has enough merit to be translated into votes …
… And herein lies the central difficulty of the modern left: If they present their agendas to the public, say, in the form of a political party, no one in their right mind is actually going to support them. We know this. It’s demonstrably true that people vote from the centre ground rightwards — This is why we’ve never had a Noam Chomsky -Ward Churchill presidential candidacy.
I think the answer to this isolation from the mainstream has been for a hardcore of leftists in America and Britain to burrow into various, key, occupations — the media, the judiciary, education — and attempt to change our societies from outside the democratic process entirely. Sure, words like ‘freedom of speech’, ‘justice’ and ‘right to protest’ are bandied around by the left, but increasingly, their methods are anti-democratic, and actually threaten to subvert the very meaning of the institutions they make use of.
Don’t mistake me, I’m not suggesting there’s some kind of vast left-wing conspiracy at work — I think the whole thing is far less formal, and the Schiavo is a case in point. All it’s really taken to bring us to this horrific situation is a disabled woman and an ex-husband who happens to be a man of highly questionable motives. In the normal course of events, the blood-family who are desperate to look after Terri would simply have slipped in and taken over her care. But. When we throw an activist judge willing to rule obsessively in favour of any pro-euthanasia position into the mix, suddenly, a human being is starving to death. In America. In the 21st century.
I think a lot of people watching this horrorshow unfold find themselves thinking, ‘How did *that* happen? How did we get here?’
That’s the question, isn’t it? Because from where I’m sitting, the whole affair has the feel of a reasonable (maybe) law being squeezed and stretched and twisted to support a position very few people who understand the facts of the case are at all comfortable with.
Of course, the most vocal opponents of Terri’s murder tend to be those of us who also oppose any form of euthanasia, but, judging by the huge public interest, I think it’s fair to say that a lot of people who don’t feel passionately about the debate are still disquieted by events in Florida over the last ten days.
There’s a feeling here in Britain, too, that something is going very, very wrong with the way in which certain elements on the left are using the legal system to force their agendas onto the rest of us. British conservatives talk about a ’silent majority’ who are being let down by the bizarre decisions of a judiciary which seem to fly in face of commonsense.
Certainly, the law shouldn’t be in the grip of public opinion to the point of mob rule, but in recent times, it’s begun to feel as though the legal system is being exploited by a tiny minority, and this has to be addressed before confidence in it is eroded completely.
See, here’s the thing — The more Judge Greers there are willing champion personal agendas, the more ordinary people there are who feel as though the law isn’t serving their interests at all. Although Terri’s family are at the very sharpest end of this problem right now, I think a lot of people are also beginning to worry that the actions of activist judges threaten to loosen the bond of trust between lawmakers and citizens. This is, of course, not of such immediate importance as Terri’s own, terrible plight, but it’s very, very worrying nonetheless.
Said RottyPup @ 11:35 pm Comments (4) | Permalink
Try driving around as a Gringo in Mexico with no liability insurance….. and have an accident….
Enter MEXICO illegally. Never mind immigration quotas, visas, international law, or any of that nonsense.
Once there, demand that the local government provide free medical care for you and your entire family.
Demand bilingual nurses and doctors.
Demand free bilingual local government forms, bulletins, etc.
Procreate abundantly.
Deflect any criticism of this allegedly irresponsible reproductive behavior with, “It is a cultural United States thing. You would not understand, pal.”
Keep your American identity strong. Fly Old Glory from your rooftop, or proudly display it in your front window or on your car bumper.
Speak only English at home and in public and insist that your children do likewise.
Demand classes on American culture in the Mexican school system.
Demand to be eligible for Mexican retirement funds that you never contributed to.
Demand a local Mexican driver license. This will afford other legal rights and will go far to legitimize your unauthorized, illegal, presence in Mexico.
Insist that local Mexican law enforcement teach English to all its officers.
Good luck!
Said Richard Nixon @ 8:26 am Comments (6) | Permalink
This article shows that the American people can be educated on the issues (finally). Keep spreading the word on the need for Social Security reform.
FROM: Chairman Ken Mehlman
RE: Latest Trends in the Social Security Debate
DATE: March 22, 2005
As the President and Congress have debated Social Security reform over the past couple of months, certain trends have emerged. Americans have learned more about the problems facing the current system, and thus, are more likely to recognize the need for changes in the future, including Personal Retirement Accounts. The following points are clear:
First, more people have come to understand the structural problems facing Social Security’s solvency over the last two months, and thus, the issue has become more important to them. The latest Gallup poll shows that Americans think Social Security is now the most important domestic issue. At 12%, Social Security has increased by 8% since January and is a greater concern than the economy (10%), health care (9%), or terrorism (9%).
The increased importance of Social Security is confirmed by several other polls. This week’s Battleground 2006 poll found Social Security (17%) as the “number one problem for the President and Congress to deal with.” Also a recent Harris poll found 37% of Americans think Social Security is the most important issue for the government to address, an increase of 33% from last October when just 4% thought it was the most important issue.
Second, more Americans agree that Social Security needs strengthening. According to the recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 72% of Americans think the Social Security system is headed down the road to a crisis or will require major changes in order to head of a crisis. Even seniors believe that changes are necessary to Social Security: a recent Ayres McHenry poll found 66% of Americans over age 55 believe that Social Security needs changes. A recent Gallup poll even found a majority of Americans (51%) believe that it is necessary for Congress to pass legislation to make changes to Social Security this year.
In the past few years, according to polls conducted by the Tarrance Group, more and more Americans think the Social Security system needs major changes:
Poll Date Major Changes Modest Changes Minor Adjustment No Change
Tarrance Group 1/10-13/05 53% 31% 12% 1%
Tarrance Group 1/17-21/02 37% 33% 9% 19%
Said Richard Nixon @ 8:18 am Comments (3) | Permalink
I apologize for my absence, I was able to slide into a medical refresher course, and then the whole family came down with gastroenteritis, a disease process involving copious amounts of vomiting and dia……well, that is too much information. Anyway, I am back and will attempt to participate daily until the job calls me away again. RN
The Presumption of Life and my personal “Living Will”
by Richard Engle, President NFRA
Simply stated, I have a will to live and furthermore I believe that all persons who are alive have the will to live. I understand that reasonable people will disagree with me and I understand that I may not be considered reasonable for it. Nonetheless, I reserve my right to be unreasonable.
With the events in Florida of late, my wife thinks that we will need to get “Living Wills” to prevent judges, doctors and “loved” ones from deciding that we should be dead prior to that point at which we loose the will to live.
I challenge the premise that I have to pay a lawyer to draw up a legal document which I am not completely convinced ought to be legal.
I know many people who have “living wills” and I know that the arguments for them are numerous. Yes, it is true that they are about more than deciding under which conditions a person wishes to have medical treatment and even basic needs (like food and water) removed so as to force a death that would not otherwise come so easily.
They also deal with subjects of care during periods of incapacitation. Who do you trust to care for you and make decisions in case you are not able to do so?
I don’t condemn people who make use of these instruments, but I do condemn the argument by extension. That you would not want to live as Terri Schiavo is living does not infer that she would not. Let me suggest that there should be a “Presumption of Life” and that only the explicit action to the contrary could be used to deny that presumption.
It is inexcusable that we engage a high tech Holocaust killing of all infirm persons who were too poor or too dumb to go to a lawyer and draw up a “living will”. It was not that many years ago that these documents did not exist. At the time there was significant number of people who opposed the efforts to create them. I was among those, and my opinion has not changed. I don’t want one because I don’t believe in them.
>> Read more
Said Richard Nixon @ 8:12 am Comments (0) | Permalink
What is it to be human?
Is the human body sacred? Or is it merely a vehicle for an evolution developed post simian brain? These are the questions that need to be faced. They are the white elephant in the room. We ignore him at our peril and the peril of our children.
Are we only cells and organs and hormones? Are we mere puppets to the whims of chemicals? This is what the secularists would have us believe.
It has been said that ‘we are the stuff of stars’. That the very atoms that make up our bodies have been forged in the fires of fusion that light this mostly empty universe. To me this is not a Godless idea. The incredible odds that are us is boggling to my mind. I can not get my head around a randomness that builds a creature with self awareness simply from carbon manufactured in some lonely distant star. Nor can I fathom our uniqueness in the endless universe without a reason or a direction. We are, as far as science can tell, the only fully conscious creature in a space that for all intents and purposes is endless. I can not help but see the sacred in that.
But many can. Many see you and I as only particles…or is it waves now? They tell us this while at the same time never explaining from whence this matter and energy emerged. They state that every human action from hunger to anger to love are hormones just dancing their random dance. They do not see the love in the eyes of lovers, merely lust. Hope to them is solely a survival instinct. As are faith and wonder.
There is nothing special about you to the secularist. You are a vehicle. Like a van or train or plane. Without the engine that is your brain, the rest of you is just dispensable stuff for the junk yard. To be tossed aside when a newer better model arises or you have become inconvenient.
This is why the Right argues against the judicially inflicted death of a handicapped non-terminal young woman in Florida. Why we argue against abortion. And fetal stem cell research. And chimuras. And cloning. And many other cultural and scientific forays that remove the sacred from what is human.
I have no doubt that research into fetal stem cells and cloning may bring some benefit. But at what cost? Is this not the Left’s exact argument against drilling in ANWR? The difference here is that we as a species may lose our soul, whereas the Alaskan tundra may lose some lichens.
When you remove the soul from what is human, what is left? A chimp with dangerous means. This is how we, as humans, are viewed by this crowd.
Thus it is not really that surprising to me that the secularist left views humanity with such low regard.
I see it every day in their arguments.
They argue that certain healthy humans are incapable of self reliance and rational thought. How many times in arguments on Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. have we heard this stated?
They argue that a man is not responsible for his actions or their outcomes. It is not the killer, it is the gun. She had Post Pardom Depression. He is a juvenile, how could he be responsible?
They argue moral relativism. There is no objective right or wrong. The deaths of those killed by Muslim terrorists are meaningless because Christians have killed people in the past.
They argue against judgements. Who are you after all to judge another’s life or the way they live it? They will even lower themselves to quote scripture on this if they must.
But I digress.
What it all boils down to, I believe, is what is ‘the breath of life’? Is it a random quantum energy induced reaction to universal forces, or is it an infinitely wonderful gift endowed by a Creator? The choice, of course, is ours to make…and that is what makes us human.
Crossposted @ Sticks and Stones
Said Glen @ 5:42 am Comments (2) | Permalink
And her mother hugged her and she began to cry. Her mother, as she had done ten thousand times in their 41 years together hugged her daughter harder and whispered words of love and comfort. That’s what mothers do. Its their job. Its what they do best. Except this time, the words of comfort were empty and devoid of meaning.
How do you comfort a child who is dying?
What can you say to ease their pain? Words are not only inadequate, they’re superfluous. Words at a time like this are an insult to the soul of the soon to be departed. So she hugs her daughter tightly, silently railing against the inability of her words to have the desired effect of easing the passage of her child who, balanced now on the edge of life and death, will soon drift away into the great and glorious unknowable.
She doesn’t want to let go. Perhaps a rush of memory causes her eyes to mist over as she recalls her daughter’s first steps, her first communion (her last communion being inexplicably denied her by a lawyer who sees a human being starving to death as “peaceful” and “comfortable”), her first date. Perhaps she sees the beautiful young woman smiling as she walked down the aisle at her wedding or the more mature, pensive adult who, until her heart stopped mysteriously that horrible day, was a friend, a confidante, a blessing.
She looks into her daughter’s eyes and sees…what? Does she see recognition, a spark of human awareness, a flicker of life? She says she does. She’s got 41 years of experience looking into those eyes. She knows what she sees. Why won’t anyone listen to her?
The doctors, the medical gods with all of their instruments, and charts, and diagnoses, have looked at her daughter and walked away shaking their heads. She’s gone, they tell her, let her go.
The doctors mean well. They’ve been, for the most part, kind and considerate of her feelings. She knows that their years of training and experience have given them the expertise to treat her daughter’s body.
But they don’t know her daughter. Were they there when she fell off her bike and needed the special care that only a mother could give; care that no doctor, no medicine, no balm could possibly duplicate? Were they there when she lost her first love and needed to be in that special hollow between a mother’s breast and shoulder where all troubles, all pain seems to vanish as if a fairy waved a magic wand and made the world right again?
She sees her daughter’s sunken eyes. She hears the labored breathing and knows it won’t be long now. The day, the hour, the moment is approaching when whatever germ of humanity was left in her daughter will soon be gone and all she’ll have left is memory. She tries to push this out of her mind but still, it intrudes on her thoughts and jars her senses as she realizes a great part of her life-being a mother to a daughter-will soon be at an end.
Does she hug her daughter tighter at the thought? Is she bereft of hope that her own life will have meaning and purpose? Surely she has a loving husband and son who will do their best to comfort and console her through her grief. But do even they understand the hole in her soul her daughter’s death will leave?
She doesn’t care about courts and judges and such anymore. She doesn’t listen as politicians pontificate and others who care less about her daughter than they do their own personal and political agendas scream at each other and accuse each other and rant against each other in an inexplicable spectacle of emotion tinged with fear and hatred. She doesn’t hear it. She doesn’t care. She doesn’t want to think about that now.
All she wants to do is hold her crying daughter and tell her there, there, it will be alright. Soon you’ll be with Him. Soon the glorious light of eternal mind will wrap you in its arms and you will know the indescribable and wondrous feeling of eternal peace. And you will be comforted.
And her mother hugged her and she stopped crying.
Cross-Posted at Rightwing Nuthouse
Said Rick Moran @ 12:01 pm Comments (5) | Permalink
The year is 2009 and it has been a long four years since the opening salvos of the Blog Wars. Late in 2005 the Federal Election Commission launched a crackdown on blogs with political leanings with the purpose of eradicating political free speech from the wide open spaces of the Internet. The persecution of those who blogged about their political opinions was subtle at first, cease and desist letters, fines, ISP’s being threatened if they provided bandwidth, IRS audits, public denunciations, and finally imprisonment. Over the course of late 2005 and into the spring of 2006 as the mid-term elections started to heat up, blogger after blogger was censured and harassed by the FEC on their new mandate. As those in the Blogsphere tried to fight back their number was thinned by members of FEC enforcement squad, who job it was to surf the Blogsphere looking for any unpaid and undocumented political speech.
The Mom and Pop blogs flourished as well as the pet, knitting, and photo blogs as long as then never strayed into the realm of political speech. In fact many non-political blogs turned their backs on many political blogs and quickly removed the outlawed from the ranks of their blogroll. The American public as a group sat by and accepted the persecution of political blogs as the price to be paid for “fair and clean” elections. Politician after politician trumpeted the new fairness of the prohibition against online political speak.
Shortly before the 2008 Presidential election, a growing underground of political bloggers formed a primitive network of undocumented chat rooms and early 90’s style bulletin boards. As the election cycle got into full swing, both candidates talked their way around the free speech issue. Former members of the left and right were forced to collaborate with the much hated ACLU in order to press the issue of returning to the days of expressing a political thought without fearing consequences from “big brother”. In the end the MSM was a full partner with the government in the elimination of political blogs. Many looked upon the MSM participation as payback for the humiliation that they suffered at the hands of the BlogSphere in 2004 and early 2005.
Now of course the preceding is a work of fiction or is it the future of political blogging on the internet. Already across the world bloggers are punished for their views, Iran is a great example. Recently the FEC threatened a crackdown on the BlogSphere regarding political speech or other methods of supporting either a political party or candidate. The FEC released a preliminary draft of rulemaking on Internet Communications yesterday and at first glace it would seem like they have backed off their plan for curtailing political speech across the BlogSphere. Upon closer examination the draft really changes nothing for bloggers and online pundits. It seems that the FEC seriously thinks it can control the output of bloggers in regards to politics. I can’t think of one politician that has come out against this and frankly that is very frightening. Here is a very good examination of the draft by the folks over at redstate.org, thanks to SuperHawk for the hat tip. Tech Central Station also has some good information on the coming battle against the MSM. He even points out that the Democratic Party and its radical liberal bloggers will be willing partners in the crackdown.
Where ever the threat comes from it is real and we need to take it seriously. I urge everyone to read up on the material out there on the Internet and follow-up with your Representations and Senators to make it known to our leaders that we will not sit and be idle and let our first amendment be stripped away. Thanks for listening to me rant and keep an eye out for this when surfing. Have a safe and happy Easter everyone and keep Terri and her family in your prayers.
Said the_mad_tech @ 1:05 am Comments (5) | Permalink
I warned Tom Cross about backing people before knowing what they stand for and what kind of people they are. In this post I stated:
Note to Tom Cross: before you back a candidate and make him one of the new premier Republican candidates for the future of Illinois, I suggest you make sure his stance on issues are roughly the same as yours. I would hate to see you guys taken advantage of, but that would be funny.
I love it when people prove me correct. In Irvin’s latest fiasco, he blames his opponent, Tom Weisner, for contaminating the drinking water! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What AN IDIOT!
We all received the flyer yesterday. It was so horrendously false it made me laugh. I couldn’t believe Irvin was this stupid. Here is the news story from the Beacon News.
AURORA — Mayoral candidate Richard Irvin apologized Thursday for a mailer sent out by his campaign that claims his opponent Tom Weisner was responsible for the contamination of the city’s water supply last year that led to a 10-day boil order.
Irvin admitted the information contained in the flier is wrong and blamed the mistake on his printing company. He called Weisner to apologize Thursday morning after the piece started arriving in the mail.
OF COURSE THE PRINTER DID IT! Silly me, I always thought the candidate and his campaign made the flyer then had the printer print it. I guess in this case, the printer created all the lies.
The mailer wrongly states that Weisner, as Aurora’s community service director, made the city’s water too dangerous to drink in February 2004 when he “allowed our water supply to be contaminated with high levels of ammonia and E. coli — forcing a 10-day boil order.”
While Weisner oversaw the city’s customer service center that fielded calls about the crisis, he was in no way responsible for water quality.
My God, have liberals infiltrated the Republican Party of Illinois?
Weisner said he doesn’t accept Irvin’s explanation and compared his apology to “saying sorry for sticking that knife in your jugular.”
“How can something that’s 90 percent false be a simple oversight of a few changes?” he said.
Irvin said the flier was supposed to state that Weisner quit in the middle of the crisis when he was responsible for communicating with the public about the boil order. But the marketing company did not make the corrections to the flier before sending it out, as requested, Irvin said.
So someone in his campaign DID create this flyer as is.
“If there wasn’t a clear one-year trend of negatives, you might say this was just an aberration,” Weisner said. “This is just another negative action in a long string.”
Is this the way the Illinois Republican Party is going to gain a foothold? By supporting an immature, dishonest jerk? Tom Cross actually declared this guy a top ten Republican newcomer.
I think this little “slip up” shows his lack of judgment, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, and lack of dignity. It is quite obvious Richard Irvin is too immature to lead the great city of Aurora into the future. His platform of “1 Aurora” is quite different the platform he preaches. It looks like he is more interested in dividing Aurora than bringing it together.
Time to hang it up Richard. And it’s time to rethink the Illinois Republican ideology, maybe get some morals and values it can stand for rather than putting this crap in the spotlight.
So what does Tom Cross and the Illinois Republican Party think of Mr. Irvin’s behavior and cheap, dirty political tricks (lying)? Well, on the Tom Cross’s blog, I posted a link on a comment to my original post and this is what they had to say:
yeah and that name….
“Cracker”????? Hmmm??? OK… What are you thinking??? Tom Cross is promoting a African American Republican in an IL house district that is held by Democrats. He doesn’t have a vested interest?? Richard Irvin is a Republican. There is no luster off the Richard Irvin star!!Posted By: Lance Stevens
I don’t know how it shows that Richard is immature
that doesn’t add up to me…but…i guess flaming Tom Cross on your blog is fun for you and I can get that.
Best of luck!
Posted By: Chris Rhodes
My response to them has been eliminated from the site. Maybe I’m banned. Now that would be COOL! A Libertarian leaning Republican banned from a Republican blog! Sweet! What I did say was that it was pathetic that the Republican Party in Illinois is concerned more about the color of a candidates skin (right Lance?) than the content of their character. Didn’t MLK say not to judge one based on the color of their skin but on the content of their character?
I also mentioned I was ashamed they were condoning such conduct. George Ryan ran the Party into the ground with his lies and sleaze, and yet this party can’t seem to break away from that way of playing politics, and these people want to “win” back Illinois.
Now is the chance for the Illinois Republican Party to step up to the plate and CONDEMN this type of behavior if they expect ANY chance of winning elections.
I also had to mention that I do not “flame” anyone except liberals, but Republicans are not exempt from being called on the carpet for doing something stupid, such as the case here. It is time for Tom Cross and his staff to STOP DRINKING THE LIBERAL COOL-AID; YOU’RE STARTING TO SOUND AND ACT LIKE DEANIACS!
As if that wasn’t enough. It seems the Republican Party of Illinois likes to smear people. This is their latest post:
Weisner taking Dirty Money?
Chicago Democrat Machine Puppet Tom Weisner, who’s running scared from our guy Richard Irvin in Aurora has taken some dirty, dirty money from Dick Durbin’s Prairie PAC.
Prairie Political Action Committee
P. O. Box 2002
Springfield, IL 62705
Transfer In
$2,000.00 on 3/24/2005For shame, Tom Weisner. For shame.
Posted By: :: Chris Rhodes
Dirty money? A PAC gives money to a candidate, and its dirty money? The Illinois Republican Party has a long way to go. They remind me of the Democrats at the federal level, what a shame. Oh well, at least I’m registered to vote.
Also Posted at Blogger News Network.
Said cracker @ 4:26 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
All government-run schools shut down tomorrow?
Just think about it for a minute. What would really happen? Every single government school — from pre-K to state-run universities. Forget the inevitable assanine lawsuits, what would people do? Imagine all the big yellow school buses being sold off to hippies– the buildings sold to the highest bidder. What about all the people?
Certainly, people would be screaming and yelling. Obviously every single politician from the dog-catcher to the president would be trying to get on the news to promote their own, better solution. But they’re slow (fortunately), so what would actual, real people do? What would you do, if you had children? What would you do if you didn’t have children? I know I’d quit my job in a minute. Why?
>> Read more
Said Ogre @ 7:37 am Comments (12) | Permalink
From CNN.com - Schiavo Parents Get Emergency Hearing :
PINELLAS PARK, Florida (CNN) — A Florida state judge will rule by noon Saturday on a motion filed by Terri Schiavo’s parents, who contend that their brain-damaged daughter has expressed the wish to live.
and from (AP)-With Terri Schiavo Nearing Death, Parents Press on With Court Appeals: (emphasis mine)
Another legal maneuver included a late afternoon filing asking Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer to order the reinsertion of the tube, claiming Terri Schiavo tried to say "I want to live" when her tube was removed.
Doctors who have examined her for the court case have said her previous utterances weren’t speech, but were involuntary moans consistent with someone in a vegetative state…George Felos, the attorney for her husband Michael Schiavo, said the belief Terri Schiavo can speak was "crossing the line" into an abuse of the legal system.
Guess the rush to print stopped them from reading all the way through the motion for injunction and relief (hat tip: Empire Journal).
Fox News, the AP, and CNN forget to mention a few other things I would hope people would also want to know even though things are sliding down quickly for Terri…A few things many of us consider highly relevant . One affidavit presented, indicates why Michael might have had reason to lie about Terri’s wishes. After all, aren’t news organizations supposed to present the facts of the motion? Doesn’t the public deserve to know about all the information presented to Judge Greer?
- Lawrence Caldwell’s affidavit he and others are working on technology that might help Terri speak
- Dr. Elizabeth Schmidt’s affidavit
- And in my opinion, the most important and relevant affidavit by Dr. George McClane
Dr. George McClane is the Director of the Forensic Medical Unit (FMU) at the city of San Diego Department of Family Justice Center. The FMU documents injuries sustained by living victims as the result of domestic violence. Dr. McClane is also a board-certified Emergency Physician and a diplomate National Board of Medical Examiners. Furthermore, even more relevant to Terri and Michael Schiavo, Dr. McClane has published works reviewing attempted strangulation in hundreds of cases. Crystal Clear he knows his stuff. I urge you to go read his full curriculum vitae and statement for yourself.
In his affidavit Dr. McClane attests:
The circumstances surrounding her initial anoxic episode and subsequent neurological status are consistent with a victim who has been strangled.
A "heart attack" precipitated by severe metabolic disease secondary to an eating disorder is inconsistent.
Such a severly compromised heart would never continue to pump effectively for 15 more years.
…It is critical that Terri Schiavo’s case be considered as possible attempted homocide.
Ok, I get it… this doesn’t fit with the "right to die" angle…It is probably too much for the public to integrate now that Terri is entering her final hours and so many have publicly made their thoughts about Terri’s situation to friends and family. Admitting one has been misled or not taken the time to thoroughly consider all angles is, you know,...kind of humbling.
On behalf of Terri and all other women who have faced and might face domestic violence and those who dismiss judicial tryanny as absurd…Judge Greer is considering this very information right now…No one would take a bet he’d do the right thing…
I hope there will be a thorough autopsy and investigation. Furthermore, I would like to see everyone who reads this to please contact MSM agencies asking them why this wasn’t included with the sensationalistic claims Terri spoke she wanted to live or why allegations of domestic violence with the relevant bonescan weren’t more thoroughly explored during this media circus or why a functional sociopath such as Judge Greer was allowed to sanction the murder of an innocent woman. There is a great deal of blood to spread around on many hands.
cross posted at Crystal Clear
Said Crystal Clear @ 9:58 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
I have grown increasingly tired of the distracting comments of friends and commentators regarding what they would want in what they believe to be Terri’s state or asking me would I want to “live like that”. This is not about what I want or what they would want. We are each completely able right now to make sure our wishes are followed and respected. In fact, a perusal of the blogosphere includes people who have now made their wishes Crystal Clear. Terri didn’t make her wishes clear for all of us to see.
If I had to live like Terri right now, I would find warmth, comfort, and strength in all who see the importance of my life and family who fight so courageously for my life. If I had to die like Terri is dying right now, I would find iciness, pain, and weakness in all who see the importance of the court rulings and words over the reality no one knows what I really would have wanted in this situation and there is no actual consensus of the certainty of my condition.
I am living and I am dying. If Terri is murdered by starvation and dehydration, I will have to continue to live with the disturbing reality, court rulings based on incomplete information can be used to murder an innocent woman. I will have to continue to live with the reality many people formed their opinions based on incomplete information or a disregard for the allegations not investigated and the many unanswered questions.
As we enter this final phase of the Terri Schiavo court-sanctioned murder, I find myself wrestling less with my faith. My faith is now a comfort in the reality a travesty of justice is occurring and I have acted and behaved according to my beliefs and convictions. I will need to go on living, working, and relating with those who actually see this as justice. Terri’s fight has shown me a bit more about the ugliness and beauty that lies within all of us.
You too are living and dying. How will you use the weight given to sociopathic judgement to give meaning to your life?
Said Crystal Clear @ 1:25 pm Comments (5) | Permalink
Thanks to Savetoby.com for the inspiration for this post.
Dear Culture of Death(you know who you are),
My name is Mike Sharko. And I have an offer I’m sure you can’t and won’t refuse.
I have, with personal interest, been watching the story that has dominated the news, the blogosphere, and the water cooler talk as late.
And I have listened with fervor to the arguments made by the ‘let her die with dignity’/'let the courts decide’/'just kill the bitch already’ crowds.
These arguments are often well thought out and forwarded with subtleness and style. They obviously mirror the true feelings, moral compasses, and passions of the authors.
Arguments such as `just let the poor suffering creature die’(although I am at a loss to quite understand that if she truly is brain dead, in a coma, or not conscious; how she can even be suffering). Or `she is costing we tax payers of this country hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be better used for those with a chance to improve or even for the children’. Or `this is for the husband to decide, what has happened to the respect for rights of a spouse in this country’(although, again, where is this man’s respect for marriage…he is living with a woman and has two children by her)? Or `this is for the courts to decide, you Christian zealots and Republicans should have no power here’. Or `God I’m sick of this story, just kill the vegetable already’. Or `starvation is painless and the victim feels euphoria. Haven’t you heard the experts?’
All these arguments are extremely powerful and I am sure their authors would be willing to back them with their hearts, their votes, and their very lives if necessary. And that is where you come in.
I mentioned before that I have an offer for you. But first a little background.
I have a wife, her name is Tori. As you may have surmised, she has been in a Permanent Vegetative State for some years now. Before `the accident’ she made me promise that if she was ever in a vegetative state that I would not let her live that way. I am rather sure she is suffering dearly. In fact, I am absolutely sure she sits in horror behind those empty eyes in a prison she can not escape.
I have no money, so her care is being paid by Medicare. And it is not cheap. It has easily run into the millions of dollars over the span of her care.
This case may soon be headed for the courts thus adding even more expense to the American taxpayer.
Her entire family is in agreement that it would be better for her just to pass on. To finally let her soul be freed and at last to let her meet her God. But I am not so sure.
And that is where you come in.
I know in your heart of hearts you are screaming right now to just let this poor woman pass. But I have other plans. I promise you that I will use my power as the spouse of Tori to keep her alive indefinitely. I will fight this case from the level of the local courts to the very Supreme Court if I must. I will do everything in my power to keep her at the center of the media blitz, with pitiful pictures and videos, doctors opinions, and blog posts. I will unite with the religious zealots and conservative Republicans to extend Tori’s infernal suffering. I swear to you, I will not tire.
Unless I can raise five million dollars. From you.
I am sure that you who truly believe in her need to die will be willing to make a substantial donation in order for this not to happen. I believe that you have honestly invested your ideals with your faith and passion and integrity, so I am equally sure you will be willing to invest in this small venture with your hard earned American dollars. You mustn’t let this foul mutant live. It is most obvious that you must, if you have the of honor your convictions as I am most assured you do, surely donate.
There are multiple reasons to send me your remittance.
To let her die with the dignity that is dehydration. The cracking of skin, the failure of organs, the poisoning of the blood, the drying of the eyeballs…you know, that dignity.
To allow Tori to feel the peaceful `euphoria’ of starvation.
To save your tax dollars, your vacation to Cabo ain’t gonna be cheap.
To protect the spousal rights. Men should always have the right to end their wives life…right N.O.W.?.
To reinforce the power of the courts. Who should decide life and death issues if not some egotistical black robed ex lawyer?
To kick the ass of those damned Republicans and religious nut bags.
To get this tired story off the airwaves…My God, I don’t know about you, but I haven’t got my Paris Hilton update in weeks.
You will not be alone in your donations as my live in girlfriend has already donated a ten spot and our illegitimate children are out mowing lawns this very minute to do their part.
Just send a money order, no checks please, to:
The Mike Sharko Fund
P.O. Box 987
123 Anywhere Ln.
Nowheresville, Wa 54321
This is a very serious issue and you must act quickly. So remember get me that money now or the bitch lives.
Said Glen @ 8:44 pm Comments (26) | Permalink
The British anti-war left have a New Best Friend. Her name is Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office before her resignation in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq.
Wilmshurst first started making news in the middle of last year, when she began playing a bizarre did-she-didn’t-she game with the media over the reasons behind her resignation, and, more importantly, the exact nature of Britain’s attorney general Lord Goldsmith’s advice to the government on the legality of attacking Iraq. Here she was last June, playing coy:
“The issue is whether the security council authorised the use of force in Iraq. There is no question that there was no basis for the use of force in self-defence.
“I took the view that participation by the UK in the conflict in Iraq was contrary to international law.”
Asked whether the government had come close to being told that it would be unlawful for Britain to join the US and others in the attack on Iraq without a second resolution, Ms Wilmshurst said: “I don’t feel free to talk publicly about this sort of thing. I was a crown servant.”
Nudge-nudge. Wink-wink. Bet you can guess the real reason I resigned now, can’t you? It’s taken the usual suspects on the left (The Independent, Channel 4 (ultra-left British broadcasters) and the BBC nine months, but they’ve finally got their greasy paws on a copy of Wilmshurst’s resignation letter, and, low and behold, it’s a goldmine of anti-war propaganda.
This isn’t exactly surprising, as even though no one seems exactly at pains to point this out, Wilmshurst occupies a political position somewhat similar to that of Claire ‘U.N. Mandate’ Short, and is currently dividing her time between writing Kofi-worshipping articles in the Guardian and running the international law programme for her fellow hard-lefties at Chatham House.
Here she is, propping up Saddam’s murderous regime in the days before some decent people knocked it down:
1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it.
My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this Office (the foreign office legal team office) before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the Attorney General gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)
I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.
… So it looks as though Lord Goldsmith, who is technically an impartial interpreter of the law, has been caught changing his mind on the legality of a war at the very moment it became obvious the second U.N. resolution wasn’t going to happen. (Thanks France). Predictably, this has the left jumping for joy, shrieking and gibbering about ‘illegal wars’, and generally putting on another display of forced credulousness.
Only, in the grown-up world that most leftists never actually move into, things work a little differently. Here’s how: When Tony Blair, rightly and honourably, agreed to stand with the U.S. in taking out Saddam, the decision to go to war had been made. Lord Goldsmith’s job, which was complicated by Chirac’s grandstanding ‘non’, was to get up and say ‘This war is a legal war’. End. Of. Story.
Because (and we’re still in the grown-up world, Ms. Wilmshurst) powerful nations like Britain don’t tuck tail and run away because the U.N. haven’t the wit or courage to issue the appropriate paperwork. Did anyone on the left — the BBC, the Guardian, Claire Short, Elizabeth Wilmshurst — actually think that would have been a credible option in March 2003?
Somehow, I doubt it … But that isn’t the point. What’s really going on here, as with the whole WMD debacle last year, is a concerted effort to erode trust in Blair’s leadership, and, by extension, the ability of Britain to defend itself in the future.
Because, as should be obvious to everyone, wars are a messy affair. U.N. resolution or no, WMDs or no, there will always be someone in a government position who objects to military action, just as there will always be people who don’t think anthrax laboratories in the hands of mad dictators constitute a threat. The modus operandi of the left-wing media (in Britain that’s around 90 per cent of it) is simply to find some, small issue and hammer away at it relentlessly.
Where this leaves us is in the somewhat peculiar position of having fought a just and legal war, freed millions of people from an evil dictator, established democracy in Iraq and kick-started reform across the Middle East, only to discover the main talking point at home is the resignation letter of a jaded, hard-left civil servant. Something’s going very wrong here.
Said RottyPup @ 8:35 am Comments (0) | Permalink
