Thanks to GOOGLE!:

Semi-Original post below:

UPDATE: Apparently the site that hosted this video, Youtube.com, shows that it is no longer available. Standard. To sum it up, it was a video stating the real stance of the “Religion of Peace”, basically usinga a catchy tune to say what we all know.

So instead I will leave you entertained by the following, the Numa Numa guy! Feel free to sing along:

Said Duncan Avatar @ 11:45 am Comments (8) | Permalink   

Pity poor Nancy Pelosi. She, like the rest of her Democratic colleagues, has huge problems when it comes to criticizing the NSA intercept program in order to make political hay. On the one hand, they can’t be seen as soft on national security so you never hear them calling for the program to be terminated. On the other hand, they have to pander to their cockeyed base of support so you never hear them saying that the program was necessary.

It’s almost enough to make a Republican giggle.

Legal and unnecessary? Sounds like a great argument to make if you’re not running for anything. Unfortunately for Pelosi, she and her Democratic camp followers have to face the voters and are desperately flailing about looking for an issue that will prove a magic talisman that if rubbed hard enough, will bring them victory at the polls next November.

Judging by this interview with the Associated Press, Pelosi is coming to the realization that the NSA intercept program ain’t it:

Pelosi did not say the NSA’s surveillance program was illegal. But she said the administration should follow the procedures in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows government lawyers to ask a secretive court for warrants for surveillance in the United States during national security investigations.

“If you say … this is for a narrow universe of calls, there is absolutely no issue with getting a FISA warrant for that,” said Pelosi, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and has been involved for the past 13 years in overseeing U.S. intelligence agencies.

“It is when you go beyond that, that it becomes a challenge,” she said in the interview Friday. “The president says he is not going beyond that, so why can’t he obey the law?”

Pelosi declined to offer specifics about warrants granted, but she said the administration already has “the mother of all FISAs which enables them to do a lot.”

If Pelosi is going to hang her hat on the technical requirements of getting a warrant through FISA, she will probably be disabused of this line of attack by Attorney General Gonzalez who will appear at hearings called by Senator Specter’s Judiciary Committee starting on February 6. Without being able to get into the details of how the program worked, Gonzalez will still be able to cite plenty of case law that shows the President not only had the authority under the Constitution to act but that bypassing the FISA court was both legal and justifiable under the circumstances.

Responding to a New York Times hit piece on the President’s legal justifications for the NSA intercept program, John Hindraker summarizes Pelosi’s dilemma:

The Times quotes liberal critics of the administration repeatedly through the article, so why is it suddenly so coy on this critical point? Because there is no law professor in America–actually, no law student in America–who would allow his name to be associated with the Times’ indefensible characterization of the 2002 opinion of the FISA appellate court. The Times tries to suggest that that court’s statement that the President has the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes lends only debatable support to the administration’s case because “some legal analysts say” that the court was only talking about precedents that pre-dated the passage of FISA in 1978; therefore, the court’s conclusion may not be operative post-FISA. That suggestion is completely untenable. The FISA appellate court specifically rejected the theory argued for by the Times:

We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

No doubt the Democrats on the Committee will ignore this kind of evidence and, like Pelosi, raise the specter of dragons hiding in the mist to intimate dark and foreboding evil doings being perpetrated by the White House.

Unfortunately for the Dems, Saint George only has to slay real dragons - and the people agree with him judging by this NY Times-CBS Poll:

In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at “Americans that the government is suspicious of;” they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at “ordinary Americans.”

I would say it’s a pretty safe bet that if you’re in contact with someone overseas who has sympathy for or works with terrorists, that would make the government suspicious of you.

Pelosi and her pals can read these polls as well as you or I which makes her statements on the issue begin to sound more and more like the protestations of a survivor of the Titanic who complains that there is no first class service available in the lifeboats.

At the same time that they realize they can’t call for the suspension or elimination of a program that the majority of Americans see as an effective tool in keeping the homeland safe, neither can they come out in support of it due to the rabid opposition by the feral dogs inhabiting the fever swamps of the party to anything that proves effective in the War on Terror done by the President.

So we’re left with the spectacle of Pelosi gingerly walking the plank hoping that her crazed brethren don’t push her over the edge by demanding that she and her colleagues call for the elimination of the intercept program.

This is why this issue will fade with the coming of the blooming cherry blossoms in DC. It is unlikely that the court challenges against the program will make any headway for the foreseeable future and as a political issue, “that dog won’t hunt” as Zell Miller might say.

Don’t feel too bad for Nancy and her trapped friends. There’s always hope that the Republicans in Congress will find a way to hand them the key to their handcuffs and send them on their merry way to victory in November.

Can the Republicans be that stupid? Stay tuned.

Said Rick Moran @ 9:54 am Comments (1) | Permalink   

I’m having a bad day, but this brightened it, so I thought I’d share.

DU has a plan, Stan. We’ll pack the court, Jack:

Should we ever get back the Presidency and both houses of Congress, we will be stuck with a right-wing Supreme Court for a generation or more. I can’t see how we can impeach any of the justices simply for ruling on something that helps the right. However, there is one thing that we can do: expand the size of the Supreme Court. Lets say that in five years from now we control both the White House and Congress. This will be the first time since the early 90’s that we would have everything. Now, after eight years of Bush, the SCOTUS has gone from 6-3 in favor of Roe v. Wade, to 5-4 or 6-3 against. The SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, provoking a backlash that elects Democrats. In the aftermath, we say what the Republicans have said about the court: activist judges have taken away the right to choose, therefore, we seek to correct the balance of the court and return it to a principled court. Lets say we expand the SCOTUS from nine judges to eleven or twelve. We could undo the damage that Bush has done within four to eight years.

I don’t think we should bring up any historical references to the country’s reaction the last time that was proposed, do you? But maybe even that would not dim their enthusiasm, because the poster seems aware of the precedent:

5. Thanks!
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Honestly, if I were around when FDR proposed expanding the SCOTUS, I might have opposed it, but in today’s state, there is nothing else that we can do that will prevent the country from being forced againt its will ot (sic) lurch right.

Against its will? Against its will? I guess the commenter believes that we have fallen into a wormhole preventing the electorate from voting its will, which would of course be the only possible way that we possibly end up with a Republican majority in the House and Senate and a Republican President.

Do you think they’ll ever figure out that even if the Supreme Court discovers that the “Right to Privacy” in the Constitution seems to have gone missing from the text, any state in which there is a majority in favor of “Privacy” will still have “Privacy” rights? They seem to believe that the Supreme Court can outlaw abortion.

Of course, I suppose that the type of justices who could find a Right to Privacy in the Constitution could also suddenly discover that the Constitution makes abortion illegal in all 50 states. What the heck, if you’re going to make it up, the only limits are your conscience and your imagination! But appointing originalist and textualist judges such as soon-to-be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Alito (it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it), is exactly the best way to ensure that does not happen.

I doubt they’llever figure out what this debate is really about.

In any case, if a liberal has ever irritated you, tomorrow you will be able to get your revenge by introducing the words “Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Alito” into your conversation. But play fair: do so next to a defibrillator or emergency room. That way you can slip in a few words about compassionate conservatism as you haul the traumatized individual to the emergency room.

Said MaxedOutMama @ 8:52 pm Comments (4) | Permalink   

How would you like to be suspended from participating in activities and have your bank account frozen because of your religious beliefs? If you were Muslim, nearly anywhere in the world today, that would never happen. But if you’re a Christian, you’d be lucky if that’s all that happened to you if you lived in a Muslim country. In America, you’d like to believe that these things wouldn’t happen — but they could, if you’re a Christian. And they have happened, to Christians, in England.

So, what grievous act did this 76-year old Christian group perform that would cause an organization to take their money from them and ban them? They dared to use the words “men” and “women” in their charter. Yes, if you dare to utter the word “man” in print in England now, you are vile, discriminatory, and deserving of scorn. Ah, if only I could be making this up, but alas, I’m not.

The Christian group even went so far as to allow anyone to attend their meetings — but to vote, you had to be a member of the group. And the group’s charter, by mentioning the vile and hated word “men,” was seen to be excluding so-called “transsexual” and “transgendered” people. Keep in mind — the GROUP didn’t exclude them in any way, shape, or form. No member of the group uttered a single word against, nor discriminated against any member of the exalted protected class of sexless or genderless people. Instead, just simply having the word “men” in their charter subjected them to banning.

And people claim that Christians are intolerant.

Said Ogre @ 6:00 pm Comments (3) | Permalink   

The media blitz never ends for Cindy Sheehan, she of the “absolute moral authority,” who in addition to threatening to run for the Senate is planning to pull her silly Ditch Witch stunt again by camping out outside the President’s ranch. But there’s more: she reports that noisily anti-American strongman Hugo Chavez endorses his new cuddlebunny for President of the USA:

“He said, ‘Why don’t I run for president?’” she said. “I just laughed.”

Sheehan’s trip to South America was admittedly financed by Chavez, an avowed enemy of the United States, who obviously wanted her there for the propaganda damage she could inflict on our country. Mother Moonbat used the opportunity to announce to the world that she agrees with fellow lunatic Harry Belafonte, who recently called our President “the greatest terrorist in the world.” She also let us know that her affection for terrorists is not limited to the “freedom fighters” who killed her son, as she cozied up to Elma Beatriz Rosado, widow of FALN terrorist Filiberto Ojeda Ríos. That’s Elma on the right:

Wizbang asks an obvious question that doesn’t seem to occur to many on the Left:

[W]hat do you think would happen if Sheehan were a citizen of Venezuela who traveled to Washington D.C. to speak out against Hugo Chavez while standing next to President Bush?

To get an idea of the answer, read this.

The hell Chavez is making out of Venezuela probably doesn’t differ much from what Mother Moonbat’s fan base would do to our own country. Some on the Left will admit straight out that they want to destroy America and replace it with a totalitarian regime. Others take a more gradualistic approach. But as Wizbang points out:

Whether a socialist state be brought about by revolution, as the leftist/socialist radicals want, or brought about by a slow usurpation of our personal liberties by modern liberals and Democrats matters not. For any move toward socialism is a move toward totalitarianism and oppression.

Hat tips: General Jack D. Ripper, Six Meat Buffet

Cross-posted at Moonbattery

Said Van Helsing @ 5:38 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

It must be difficult for a columnist like Mark Steyn. Every single one of his columns is brilliant, how does he consistently raise that bar? And yet, in Sunday’s Chicago Sun Times he hits another one out of the park.

In a piece headlined: “At least Hamas is open about it’s evil intentions” he weaves together the sense of reality setting in in the wake of the Palestinian election with a thread from the recent Joel Stein “I don’t support the troops” LA Times bombshell.

If you’re opposed to the mission, if you don’t want to see it through, if you’re supporting a position whose success would only demoralize those serving in Iraq and negate their sacrifice, in what sense do you “support the troops”? Stein ought to be congratulated for acknowledging that he doesn’t….

The Palestinian elections were similarly clarifying. The old guard — Yasser Arafat’s Fatah cronies — had their own take on the “But some of my best friends are Jewish” routine. For years they insisted, at least in the presence of Americans and Europeans, that they were in favor of a “two-state solution” — Israel and Palestine living side by side — at the same time as they supported and glorified and financially subsidized suicide bombers and other terrorists. Insofar as their enthusiasm for a two-state solution was genuine, it was as an intermediate stage en route to a one-state solution.

Hamas, by contrast, takes a Joel Stein view: Why the hell should we have to go tippy-toeing around some sissy phrase we don’t really mean? Hamas doesn’t support a two-state solution, it supports the liquidation of one state and its replacement by other, and they don’t see why they should have to pretend otherwise. And in last week’s elections for the Palestinian Authority they romped home. It was a landslide.

Ever since President Carter, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Accords, there has been a conscious effort to legitimize Palestinian terrorism. Or at least to look the other way.

It’s much more difficult to look the other way when the mandate of a new government is handed to those who overwhelmingly support terrorism. Steyn adds this:

Mariam Farahat, a mother of three, was elected in Gaza. She used to be a mother of six but three of her sons self-detonated on suicide missions against Israel. She’s a household name to Palestinians, known as Um Nidal — Mother of the Struggle — and, at the rate she’s getting through her kids, the Struggle’s all she’ll be Mother of. She’s famous for a Hamas recruitment video in which she shows her 17-year-old son how to kill Israelis and then tells him not to come back.

David Horowitz ties the truth thread from Hamas to the Left this way in “The First Terrorist People:

The Palestinians are the first people in the history of humanity to embrace terror and genocide as a way of life. Palestinian schools train kindergarteners and first graders to aspire to murder innocent Jews by blowing themselves up alongside them, and then tell them that if they’re lucky enough to be males, they will go to heaven and have 72 virgins attend their every whim. Palestinian parents murder their own children by telling them to murder Jewish children so that Allah can reward them. This is the sickest culture on the face of the earth, and the fact that is supported by the American secular left reveals the terminal sickness of those who crusade in the name of social justice.

The Truth Shall Set You Free

While there may be blocs of reality challenged leftists out there still in denial about the nature of Palestinian terrorism, which is at the very heart of the history of modern terrorism, the mask of obfuscation and denial has been torn away for the rest of us.

Hamas begs that aid not be cut off on the one hand, but in the same breath rejects calls to renounce violence. And today, a new twist: demanding that Israel change it’s flag and remove the two blue bars (a symbol found on Jewish prayer shawls) as it symbolizes occupation to Palestinians.

U.S. led efforts to cut off all funding to a Hamas controlled Palestinian Authority are bearing early fruit. Angela Merkel, newly elected conservative Chancellor of Germany in a visit to Israel offered the strongest explicit support for such international action.

No doubt other Western leaders who recently witnessed the political shifts in their own countries (Canada eh?) will also follow suit and present a united front.

Honestly confronting the Palestinian problem is the first step to real and workable solutions. It’s clear the old ways have not worked. So on with the new.

Posted also at: Mike’s America.

Said Mike's America @ 11:07 am Comments (1) | Permalink   

There is a program currently running on The Discovery Channel titled Dirty Jobs. The host of this program spends a day working in a job that is seen as a “dirty job”, and it is shown on TV soon after. Thus far, he has been a sugar refinery plant worker, aligator rangler, fireman, sewage plant worker, whale autopsy technician, and more. Much like other things today, this prompted a thought in my mind. How many jobs (and those who perform them) do we take for granted each day?

Many people would say Police Officer and Firefighter, but since 9/11, those who are officers of the law, and those who fight fire have been thanked and recognized more and more, although their passion and sacrifice is far beyond most people. But, what about the garbage man, the chimney sweep, the rancher, and so one? How long do you think we would be a “civilized society” without men to collect and properly dispose of our garbage? How long do you think our homes would be livable without someone to clean our chimney flu? How long would we survive without someone to slog through the mud to tend to and raise beef cattle?

Now I am not trying to lay a guilt trip on anyone here. I am as “guilty” as the next person for not being thankful for those who do these jobs, but what I do hope to achieve here is that you will simply think of what was necessary for you to be able to drive to your office, cool/heat your home, have healthy meat to cook for dinner, and so on in the future.

Smokey OUT!

Cross posted at Smoke Signals Blog

Said The Smoke Eater @ 11:17 pm Comments (3) | Permalink   

I was listening to the show via podcast tonight, and here’s a little fireball from the show in light of President Bush’s upcoming State of the Union address.

Tim puts up a chart on his show, Meet the Press and states:

Here’s the first five years of the Bush/Cheney administration, and I’ll put it on the screen, Unemployment was 4.2% in 2001, it’s now 4.9%, up 17%…

Who monitors these guys except for me? 17%?! What a ridiculous comment, and an inflammatory way to present a statistic. If he had a live audience and I was there I would “boo” him.

Unbelievable

Unemployment may be up 0.7%, Tim, you Moonbat, but it sure as hell isn’t 17%. Nice one. (4.9 - 4.2 = 0.7) Okay, so maybe it’s not Tim’s fault but the fault of the Moonbats who produce his charts. I know what they’re up to, and here it is: (0.7/4.2 = .17) Faulty, fallacious, a lie. Liars and the lying liars who tell them; Moonbats!

Said Uncle Jack @ 9:56 pm Comments (13) | Permalink   

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

U.S. forces in at least two cases have detained wives of suspected insurgents in Iraq in an attempt to pressure the men into surrendering, documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union confirm.

“This is not an acceptable tactic,” ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said Friday.

In one instance, members of a military task force seized a mother of three young children “in order to leverage” her husband’s surrender, according to an account by a civilian Defense Intelligence Agency officer.

In the other, an e-mail exchange includes a U.S. military officer asking, “Have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?”

Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said: “It’s very hard, obviously, from some of these documents to determine what, if anything, actually happened….

“When you see an individual e-mail note, it’s oftentimes very confusing to figure out how that particular case fits into an overall, larger puzzle.”

In Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said that only Iraqis who pose an “imperative threat” are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under court order to meet an ACLU request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now I will never claim that I am an expert on the legalities on this subject. But I do know that we are engaged in a new kind of war. Traditional thinking needs to be tossed out of the window and we should be concentrating on prosecuting this war to a successful conclusion.

If I am not mistaken, the ACLU is the organization which wants the US to have policies which are reactive and not proactive. We should treat attacks on our nation as criminal acts not warfare. Well using this type of thinking, if we were looking for murderers, wouldn’t we question at length the family and friends of the suspected murderers? Wouldn’t we monitor phone calls originating from the home as well as those coming in? Wouldn’t we follow family members and friends to see who they are having contact with? Wouldn’t we then follow up by following those people as well? If need be wouldn’t we also detain a family member of someone we suspected in a crime who may not be a willing participant? Wouldn’t we put these family members in protective custody?

The ACLU is opposed to the United States protecting itself. Why? Because they are at the heart of the movement of globalization. A world dominated and ruled by lawyers. Having international courts deciding everything from how to heat a home in Krakow Poland to controlling smog in Los Angeles California.

The American Civil Liberties Union wishes to remove any programs designed to protect the national identity of the United States. The ACLU wishes to destroy the United States as we know it. They want a single world government where all peoples are guaranteed a home, work, food, and all the other basic necessities of life. They envision a world where no religion exist. Because religion is an obstacle to world wide Communism.

Here is the complete truth people. Now pay attention, you may be quizzed on it later. We are at war. In war people die. In war bad things happen to good people. In war property gets destroyed. In war actions must be implemented which would never be permitted unless we were at war. So it is time for these snot nosed fantasy land liberals to get their heads out of their proverbial rumps and start thinking about the people who need to be protected. That would be the people of the United States. The people who were brutally attacked without warning.

We are engaged with an enemy who has no problem with killing their own people. They kill women and children because it is easy for them. They kill women and children who have no dog in the fight because they know lining up opposite us on an open battlefield would result in their deaths.

They started this fight. They flew 3 airplanes into 3 buildings killing over 3,000 innocent, non-combatants. So if we ruffle a few feathers by holding a couple of wives of insurgents for questioning in an attempt to locate their terrorist husbands, I don’t rightly care.

On an off remark, it makes me wonder if ABC’s Bob Woodruff used this technique to capture the ones that blew him up today. The one incident of an email hold no evidential water, and the other incident, the woman was released after two days. I’m not understanding what the ACLU’s problem is. Even if we would have imprisoned the wives of the insurgents permanently, what would be the problem? If you are aiding and abetting a terrorist, it doesn’t matter what sex you are, or how many children you have.

I see how the left spin it now. We have one incident of a woman being questioned for two days and released, absolutely no evidence of abuse, and one email, again providing no evidence, and the left and even a few who claim conservatism jump onto the Geneva Conventions violations.

Said Jay777 @ 8:26 pm Comments (2) | Permalink   

There are a lot of things in politics that deserve a rip-roaring belly laugh; JFK excuse me, John Friggin Kerry being chief among these. Kerry is most noted for being elected as Mr. Flip-Flop of 2004. Of course, he was running for president at the time, but so what?

Kerry (and his partner in crime - T. Kennedy) have decided that they would like to filibuster the vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. Senator(s) can you say STUPID? You two have got to be the dumbest of the dumb.

From the CNN folk comes this:

Sources close to Kerry, who lost to Bush in the 2004 race, told CNN that the senator was calling colleagues from Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum. He announced his decision to support a filibuster Wednesday at a meeting of his Democratic colleagues.

The White House believes Alito’s supporters have the 60 votes they need to block any filibuster, spokesman Steve Schmidt said, and suggested that Kerry’s move was designed to buttress a possible 2008 presidential run.

The Washington Post’s Charles Babington reports:

Several prominent Democratic senators called for a filibuster of Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s Supreme Court nomination yesterday, exposing a deep divide in the party even as they delighted the party’s liberal base.

The filibuster’s supporters — including Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts — acknowledged that the bid is likely to fail and that Alito is virtually certain to be confirmed Tuesday. But they said extended debate may draw more Americans’ attention to Alito’s conservative stands on abortion, civil rights, presidential powers and other matters.

“Judge Alito will take America backward, especially when it comes to civil rights and discrimination laws,” Kerry said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “It’s our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court.”

The Democrats are divided? News to me! On the other hand, that famous entertainer Will Rogers once noted: “I don’t belong to any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”

Senator Kerry, you greatly remind me of a saying by Dietrich Bonhöffer:

Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and, if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction… Against folly we have no such defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is no use…

So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel.

H/T to Stop the ACLU

XPosted at GM’s Corner

Said GM @ 6:24 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

More pix and fun prizes at our joint!

Said freedomfolks @ 4:44 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

I received this today from my father, and just HAD to pass it on to all of ya’all!

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”

She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”

“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”

The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Democrat.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”

“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and now you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it’s my fault.”

Said The Smoke Eater @ 4:20 pm Comments (2) | Permalink   

I know that I don’t often get to talk about something like this, but it seems that even “the left” believes something that I do. For some time now there has been a bit of controversy over Judge Cashman’s sentencing of a RAPIST to only 60 DAYS in prison, citing that the RAPIST needs to be “treated” or if you will, “rehabilitated”. I don’t buy this for a second, and apparently neither do about 92% of Americans (left and right), so it seems that only nambla and the far left media are with Cashman. For those who don’t know the story, it seems that this piece of slime er demonic humanoid person, kept a young girl CAPTIVE for FOUR YEARS, repeatedly raping and abusing her. Once brought to trial for his CRIMES, he was convicted, but Cashman only sentenced him to 60 days in jail, after which he would be remanded to treatment.

You see, that’s what we have been seeing as “the left”, and I for one have never really bought into the line of thought that EVERYONE “on the left” believes like this troglodyte “judge”. It has been shown time and again that pedophyles have the LOWEST successful rehab rate, and the HIGHEST recidivism rate. Therefore, why even try right away. Why not punish him for the crime he committed according to the law? There is also the question of equal justice under the law. What this means that that by the U.S. Constitution, one state can not give a 2 month sentence for a crime that would earn 25 years in another state (for the SAME crime). Were this crime committed in Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, or pretty much anywhere else in the U.S., the rapist would be in jail for a long time, therefore, this sentence is NOT legal.

Now, just to make sure I don’t leave you with out of date info, Cashman HAS changed the sentence to 3 to 10 years, and I can only PRAY that this sick freak convict will serve the entire 10 years. My main reason for this is to ask two questions……

1. Since this child’s basic human rights (security, health, liberty) were obviously violated by her attacker and captor, where is the aclu on this? Aren’t they supposed to stand for this, and to protect basic civil liberties?

2. Since the aclu OBVIOUSLY either doesn’t care about the health and well being of the child who was held captive and repeatedly raped and abused, how long do you think it will be before they step in on the side of her attacker/captor? Also, if they do, what do you think of that (basically, are you in the 93% that thinks he should rot in prison for this crime, or the 3% who feels 2 months was OK?)

Links below the line…..

Said The Smoke Eater @ 4:18 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

Things are much different today as opposed to the days during Vietnam. Liberals are trying to “fake” their patriotism by saying they “support the troops”, but it’s so obvious they don’t, and you don’t have to look too far to see Durbin’s inflammatory comments which just showed us exactly who these people are under the fake rhetoric. He didn’t apologize, and he doesn’t need to. When no liberals came out to denounce his comments, and show their outrage, they just showed us who they are: people who don’t love America and who don’t support our military. Just the fact that Al Jazeera (the voice of Al Qaeda) picked up on Durbin’s comments should let you know exactly where these people are sitting as far as the war in Iraq.

Do you think Bin Laden is not taking notice? After Mogadishu he said America was “a paper tiger” and it was then that he started to plan 9/11. Does Durbin realize that he’s inviting another attack?

The whole bunch of them including moveon.org are undermining the war the way they have during every conflict we’ve ever been involved in.

I’ve contacted Evan Coyne Maloney, and the boys at ProtestWarrior.com and a few others, let’s see what we can come up with, shall we?

An Iraqi asks some questions of the protesters:

Will you decry the hypocritical oil and arms commerce of France, Germany, Russia, and China with the butcher of Baghdad? Or are you only against US interests in Iraqi oil?

Will you expose ethnic cleansing of native Iraqi non-Arabs (Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkomens), non-Sunni-Muslims (Shiite), and non-Muslims (Christians, Mandaens, Yezidis)? Or are these not equivalent to the cleansing of Bosnians and Kosovars?

Will you show concern about the brutal silencing of the “Iraqi street”? Or are you only worried about the orchestrated noises of “Arab and Islamist streets” outside Iraq?

Will you hear the cries of Iraqis executed in acid tanks in Baghdad? the Iraqi women raped in front of their husbands and fathers to extract confessions? Or of children tortured in front of their parents? Or of families billed for the bullets used to execute military “deserters” in front of their own homes?

No. I suspect that most of you will simply retire to your cappucino cafes to brainstorm the next hot topic to protest, and that you will simply forget about us Iraqis, once you succeed in discrediting President Bush.

Said Cao @ 8:23 am Comments (13) | Permalink   

Pretty much ever since we tore into Afghanistan, and the first squeaks of the anti-war left were heard, there has been a lying greaseball sitting smugly in the local coffee shop or independent bookstore, stinking of patchouli, “herb” and bad hygiene stating the patently obvious bucket of bullshit of “I support the troops but not the war.”

This one little voice, the voice of the coward, the voice of the appeasing slave, the voice of many groups down through the centuries that said, plainly, “subjugate me, rape my women, steal my riches, but just don’t kill me”, gained volume with the invasion of Iraq. (as a side note I have noticed this voice has a distinctly french accent)

This one little voice that now echoes with the refrain “I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT NOT THE WAR!!!!, is raised up by millions of people in the U.S., led by their chosen spokesbeast, St. Sheehan the Clueless, and controlled, cajoled and courted by the treacherous cretins of Code Pink and MoveOn dot org and cheered on by the unrealists at the DU.

This one little voice, that grew so loud, and so smug, screaming from the street corners that;

WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT NOT THE WAR!!!!!!

will now have to

SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!!!

Why?

Because one of your own, one of your inspid, whiny, cowardly little appeas-niks, one of the members of your LYING SPINELESS BULLSHIT MOVEMENT has outed every one of you lying crapbags for the lying liars that you are.

Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times finally came out and admitted what those one the right have been saying for a couple of years now……namely, that you cannot “support the troops but not the war”.

Those of us on, in and of The Right have said all along that it is the height of illogical thought to hold that one can support the troops but not the war, and that those that say it are either insane, lying, or even worse, insane liars.

So for those of you on the left, that have said for so long those infamous lying words that will echo through history on the same scale as other infamous and bald-faced lies such as “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, let me ask you this one question:

are you insane, or are you lying?

Said Kender @ 3:05 pm Comments (8) | Permalink