THE RIGHTS EXPLOSION: So now we are getting "patients'
rights." The very phrase makes one cringe. Without even
knowing the details, we know that the more state-
proclaimed "rights" we are given, the fewer freedoms we
have left.
Joe Sobran (September 2001)
Selasa, 31 Juli 2007
Senin, 30 Juli 2007
The latest leftist meme - Al Qaeda is not Al Qaeda; Abd Al Hadi; Al Zarqawi
The MSM/DNC has found a new meme.
President Bush has finally begun making clear arguments as to why we must continue the fight in Iraq against Al Qaeda. It is not merely so that we can "support the troops" or build democracy in Iraq or prevent a bloodbath or build stability in the middle east. The reason we must fight in Iraq is that we are fighting Al Qaeda:
Until President Bush began making that argument, the MSM/DNC was able to distract the American public with such irrelevancies as:
[While some of these items have their own relevance, none of them justify retreat from Al Qaeda. For example, Katrina justifies a retreat from the swamp that is New Orleans, not a retreat from Al Qaeda or from Iraq.]
All of these stories attained "meme" status and helped the MSM/DNC make us forget that Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, destroyed lower manhattan and is being dismembered by U.S. forces around the world, including in Iraq. A steady diet of Plame/Sheehan/torture/Katrina/Halliburton/"selected not elected" stories for the past six years has allowed this country to forget that it is at war and who the enemy is.
President Bush has done the right thing by refocusing the issue on Al Qaeda. American forces have killed Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and delayed Al Qaeda plans for worldwide jihad. We have known since 9-11 that we would have to destroy the Al Qaeda worldwide network. Such destruction will be expensive, bloody and time consuming. We have always known this. The only real question is what is the best way to accomplish this goal. Questions about who outed the non-spy Plame or the menu at Guantanamo or how many more Florida recounts we need to make Al Gore President, etc. distract from the war and accomplish nothing else.
By refocusing on Al Qaeda, President Bush has forced MSM/DNC to do the same. The MSM/DNC has responded with a new meme. They have desparately tried to differentiate Al Qaeda from "Al Qaeda in Iraq."
A recent Today show episode featured interviews with U.S. politicians that denigrated the Iraqi government, while the label beneath the visual image asked "Will Al Qaeda move into Iraq?" The implication being that Al Qaeda is not already there. The New York Times article that quotes President Bush is entitled "President Links Qaeda of Iraq to Qaeda of 9/11." The Times seek to prove, by mere implication, that these are somehow different groups that the President is trying to "link". The MSM/DNC will eventually employ the old leftist cold war tactic of refusing to acknowledge one's membership in an organization unless a membership card can be produced. Al Qaeda members are not likely to carry cards or other official proof of membership.
[The MSM/DNC spent a tremendous effort downplaying the D.C. snipers in 2002 once it became obvious that they were Islamists with sympathies for Al Qaeda instead of white rednecks. The MSM/DNC further made tremendous efforts to ignore the Islamic implications of the phrase "Ismail Ax" on the Virginia Tech shooter's body, despite providing painful details of every other aspect of the shooting. But denying that Al Qaeda is Al Qaeda is a new low for the MSM/DNC.]
While the MSM/DNC has argued that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we removed Saddam, such argument is false. In reviewing my tapes of the invasion from 2003, I noted that American forces destroyed an Al Qaeda base in Iraq on or about March 29th, 2003 (during the invasion). I have no further details because the NBC scrolling marquee was very vague. On April 1, 2003, the ABC scrolling marquee noted that a terrorist base was captured with "Al Qaeda manuals" and chemical weapons manuals. I do not know if those stories referred to the same bases. The MSM/DNC felt it was more important to cover other aspects of the war, such as Jessica Lynch or anti-war protests in the U.S. [To the MSM/DNC's credit, it did provide a great deal of coverage of major battlefield movements.]
Even if Al Qaeda did not occupy Iraq until after we removed Saddam, so what? Where would you rather fight Al Qaeda, in the mountains of Pakistan or in the flat lands of Iraq? The terrain of Afghanistan contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 1980's. By contrast, we have drawn Al Qaeda into the open by fighting them in Iraq. As long as we kill their members and leaders in Iraq, those members can not be used by Islam in the global war. If the U.S. has drawn Al Qaeda into Iraq, then President Bush is to be commended for that reason alone.
Zarqawi - Al Qaeda leader killed in Iraq.
My biggest concern in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 was the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. The Afghan mountains dwarf those mountains even in the Western U.S. A Soviet style Afghanistan war, with no other fronts, was not an option. But an air war to liberate Afghanistan followed by a lengthy occupation of Iraq, in which Al Qaeda loses leader after leader while Al Qaeda soldiers die and the Iraqi army gains strength and experience is a far different matter. Four years after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet losses amounted to five times the current level of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Fighting Al Qaeda in Baghdad is clearly a better option than fighting Al Qaeda in the caves of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The only other option is to refrain from fighting Al Qaeda at all. That option would allow 9-11 to go unpunished. That option would invite more 9-11's. That clearly is the option we face if we withdraw from Iraq, either in September or at any time in the next few years. Should an Iraqi withdrawal take place, we would soon forget that 9-11 ever happened while we concentrated on socializing medicine and turning the U.S. into another version of the European countries that face rapid decline.
While this fate would not appeal to most Americans, it is a virtual utopia for the MSM/DNC. MSM/DNC cannot achieve its utopia unless it forces American capitulation in the war. Capitulation means, among other things, pullout from Iraq now before we kill more Al Qaeda. MSM/DNC cannot force a pullout unless it creates the impression that Al Qaeda is somehow different from "Al Qaeda in Iraq."
Abd Al Hadi - Al Qaeda leader behind the 7-7-05 London bombings killed in Iraq
To counter this meme, we must remember the following:
1) Al Qaeda attacked America and destroyed lower Manhattan on 9-11;
2) We fight Al Qaeda now in Iraq.
Now that America is on the verge of hearing the story expressed that simply, MSM/DNC is forced to separate #1 and #2. MSM/DNC has tried to separate those two items with irrelevant nonsense for the past four years, but now that President Bush is explicitly linking them together, MSM/DNC is forced to meet Bush' arguments with explicit denials instead of white noise. MSM/DNC always has a problem when it is forced to be explicit.
We should repeat points ## 1 and 2 at every opportunity.
Visit page added July 31, 2007
President Bush has finally begun making clear arguments as to why we must continue the fight in Iraq against Al Qaeda. It is not merely so that we can "support the troops" or build democracy in Iraq or prevent a bloodbath or build stability in the middle east. The reason we must fight in Iraq is that we are fighting Al Qaeda:
"The facts are that Al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they’re fighting us in Iraq and across the world and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat."NY Times quoting George Bush
Until President Bush began making that argument, the MSM/DNC was able to distract the American public with such irrelevancies as:
- The Plame affair;
- our inability to find many of Saddam's weapons;
- Cindy Sheehan;
- Halliburton;
- John Murtha's war record;
- the fact that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were two different people;
- Abu Graib;
- misrepresentations regarding Guantanamo;
- the election of 2000;
- Hurricane Katrina;
- The 9-11 Commission
[While some of these items have their own relevance, none of them justify retreat from Al Qaeda. For example, Katrina justifies a retreat from the swamp that is New Orleans, not a retreat from Al Qaeda or from Iraq.]
All of these stories attained "meme" status and helped the MSM/DNC make us forget that Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, destroyed lower manhattan and is being dismembered by U.S. forces around the world, including in Iraq. A steady diet of Plame/Sheehan/torture/Katrina/Halliburton/"selected not elected" stories for the past six years has allowed this country to forget that it is at war and who the enemy is.
President Bush has done the right thing by refocusing the issue on Al Qaeda. American forces have killed Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and delayed Al Qaeda plans for worldwide jihad. We have known since 9-11 that we would have to destroy the Al Qaeda worldwide network. Such destruction will be expensive, bloody and time consuming. We have always known this. The only real question is what is the best way to accomplish this goal. Questions about who outed the non-spy Plame or the menu at Guantanamo or how many more Florida recounts we need to make Al Gore President, etc. distract from the war and accomplish nothing else.
By refocusing on Al Qaeda, President Bush has forced MSM/DNC to do the same. The MSM/DNC has responded with a new meme. They have desparately tried to differentiate Al Qaeda from "Al Qaeda in Iraq."
A recent Today show episode featured interviews with U.S. politicians that denigrated the Iraqi government, while the label beneath the visual image asked "Will Al Qaeda move into Iraq?" The implication being that Al Qaeda is not already there. The New York Times article that quotes President Bush is entitled "President Links Qaeda of Iraq to Qaeda of 9/11." The Times seek to prove, by mere implication, that these are somehow different groups that the President is trying to "link". The MSM/DNC will eventually employ the old leftist cold war tactic of refusing to acknowledge one's membership in an organization unless a membership card can be produced. Al Qaeda members are not likely to carry cards or other official proof of membership.
[The MSM/DNC spent a tremendous effort downplaying the D.C. snipers in 2002 once it became obvious that they were Islamists with sympathies for Al Qaeda instead of white rednecks. The MSM/DNC further made tremendous efforts to ignore the Islamic implications of the phrase "Ismail Ax" on the Virginia Tech shooter's body, despite providing painful details of every other aspect of the shooting. But denying that Al Qaeda is Al Qaeda is a new low for the MSM/DNC.]
While the MSM/DNC has argued that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we removed Saddam, such argument is false. In reviewing my tapes of the invasion from 2003, I noted that American forces destroyed an Al Qaeda base in Iraq on or about March 29th, 2003 (during the invasion). I have no further details because the NBC scrolling marquee was very vague. On April 1, 2003, the ABC scrolling marquee noted that a terrorist base was captured with "Al Qaeda manuals" and chemical weapons manuals. I do not know if those stories referred to the same bases. The MSM/DNC felt it was more important to cover other aspects of the war, such as Jessica Lynch or anti-war protests in the U.S. [To the MSM/DNC's credit, it did provide a great deal of coverage of major battlefield movements.]
Even if Al Qaeda did not occupy Iraq until after we removed Saddam, so what? Where would you rather fight Al Qaeda, in the mountains of Pakistan or in the flat lands of Iraq? The terrain of Afghanistan contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 1980's. By contrast, we have drawn Al Qaeda into the open by fighting them in Iraq. As long as we kill their members and leaders in Iraq, those members can not be used by Islam in the global war. If the U.S. has drawn Al Qaeda into Iraq, then President Bush is to be commended for that reason alone.
Zarqawi - Al Qaeda leader killed in Iraq.My biggest concern in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 was the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. The Afghan mountains dwarf those mountains even in the Western U.S. A Soviet style Afghanistan war, with no other fronts, was not an option. But an air war to liberate Afghanistan followed by a lengthy occupation of Iraq, in which Al Qaeda loses leader after leader while Al Qaeda soldiers die and the Iraqi army gains strength and experience is a far different matter. Four years after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet losses amounted to five times the current level of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Fighting Al Qaeda in Baghdad is clearly a better option than fighting Al Qaeda in the caves of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The only other option is to refrain from fighting Al Qaeda at all. That option would allow 9-11 to go unpunished. That option would invite more 9-11's. That clearly is the option we face if we withdraw from Iraq, either in September or at any time in the next few years. Should an Iraqi withdrawal take place, we would soon forget that 9-11 ever happened while we concentrated on socializing medicine and turning the U.S. into another version of the European countries that face rapid decline.
While this fate would not appeal to most Americans, it is a virtual utopia for the MSM/DNC. MSM/DNC cannot achieve its utopia unless it forces American capitulation in the war. Capitulation means, among other things, pullout from Iraq now before we kill more Al Qaeda. MSM/DNC cannot force a pullout unless it creates the impression that Al Qaeda is somehow different from "Al Qaeda in Iraq."
Abd Al Hadi - Al Qaeda leader behind the 7-7-05 London bombings killed in IraqTo counter this meme, we must remember the following:
1) Al Qaeda attacked America and destroyed lower Manhattan on 9-11;
2) We fight Al Qaeda now in Iraq.
Now that America is on the verge of hearing the story expressed that simply, MSM/DNC is forced to separate #1 and #2. MSM/DNC has tried to separate those two items with irrelevant nonsense for the past four years, but now that President Bush is explicitly linking them together, MSM/DNC is forced to meet Bush' arguments with explicit denials instead of white noise. MSM/DNC always has a problem when it is forced to be explicit.
We should repeat points ## 1 and 2 at every opportunity.
Visit page added July 31, 2007
Quote of the day - Milton Friedman
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman
Minggu, 29 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Mark Steyn
The aim of a large swathe of the left is not to win the debate but to get it cancelled before it starts. You can do that in any number of ways - busting up campus appearances by conservatives, "hate crimes" laws, Canada's ghastly human-rights commissions, the more "enlightened" court judgments, the EU's recent decision to criminalize "xenophobia," or merely, as the Times does, by declaring your side of every issue to be the "moderate" and "nonideological" position.
Mark Steyn - 8-6-02
Mark Steyn - 8-6-02
Sabtu, 28 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Joe Sobran
THE COMEBACK KID: Bill Clinton has finally opened his new
office in Harlem. In what amounted to the inaugural
address of his ex-presidency, he announced that his new
mission will include fighting AIDS. Most of us would be
satisfied if he just refrained from transmitting it.
Joe Sobran (September 2001)
HIV - tcells - H/T Wellesley. edu
office in Harlem. In what amounted to the inaugural
address of his ex-presidency, he announced that his new
mission will include fighting AIDS. Most of us would be
satisfied if he just refrained from transmitting it.
Joe Sobran (September 2001)
HIV - tcells - H/T Wellesley. edu
Jumat, 27 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Thomas Sowell
A reader sent the following message, quoting his nephew: "Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented worker' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.'"
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
Kamis, 26 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - New York Times [2000 Florida recount]
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
New York Times - November 12, 2001
New York Times - November 12, 2001
Rabu, 25 Juli 2007
B. Hussein Obama wants to meet with North Korea, Iran, Hugo Chavez, etc.; Salvador de Madariaga
B. Hussein Obama's "debate" comment that he would be willing to conduct direct one-on-one talks with various rogue states has created a firestorm of criticism and created an opportunity for Hillary! to highlight her own "experience." She proved that even a stopped clock is right twice a day when she said “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”
What that answer hinted at was the massive propaganda benefits for dictators that result from meetings with American leaders. Opposition exists within Iran, Syria, Venezuela and even North Korea. The dictators of those countries seek to demonstrate to the opposition that their cause is hopeless. Should an American president make a personal appearance with Ahmedinejad or Kim Jong-Il (even a silly, ineffective president such as B. Hussein Obama or Hillary!), such appearance would signal to the internal opposition that the United States will not help them and that resistance is hopeless. Kim Jong-Il, Chavez and Ahmedinejad need the American leadership to give them legitimacy internally. We should not play into their hands.
This is especially true where we know that those dictators are committed to world revolution in any case.
Salvador de Madariaga
As I do in many cases, I find it useful to cite an old book. In 1960, Salvador de Madariaga wrote "The Blowing Up of the Parthenon." In this book, which focused on the cold war, the author warned of the dangers of American-Soviet summit meetings, as they tended to demoralize the internal opposition within Russia.
1960
[It is ironic that a book dedicated to helping the West fight the cold war would bear a title related to the destruction of the Parthenon due to Islamic storage of munitions.] If I thought that a little history would make a difference to the Democrats, I would recommend that they read Madariaga's book. At least it might help the rest of us keep the issues straight as the Democrats give the appearance of fighting with each other.
Barry Goldwater echoed these thoughts when he wrote that "the only summit meeting that can succeed is one that does not take place." Why Not Victory? (1962), p. 65. Goldwater wrote that the communists do not attend a summit unless they believe they hold the upper hand or can use the meeting for propaganda purposes:
[Leftists stopped reading this post the moment they saw the word "Victory."]
It took decades to win the cold war. This victory was won despite Democrat and leftist obstruction. Today, it is apparent that most of the left has forgotten the lessons of the cold war, while some on the left will do no more than hint at those lessons solely to gain temporary political advantage.
What that answer hinted at was the massive propaganda benefits for dictators that result from meetings with American leaders. Opposition exists within Iran, Syria, Venezuela and even North Korea. The dictators of those countries seek to demonstrate to the opposition that their cause is hopeless. Should an American president make a personal appearance with Ahmedinejad or Kim Jong-Il (even a silly, ineffective president such as B. Hussein Obama or Hillary!), such appearance would signal to the internal opposition that the United States will not help them and that resistance is hopeless. Kim Jong-Il, Chavez and Ahmedinejad need the American leadership to give them legitimacy internally. We should not play into their hands.
This is especially true where we know that those dictators are committed to world revolution in any case.
Salvador de MadariagaAs I do in many cases, I find it useful to cite an old book. In 1960, Salvador de Madariaga wrote "The Blowing Up of the Parthenon." In this book, which focused on the cold war, the author warned of the dangers of American-Soviet summit meetings, as they tended to demoralize the internal opposition within Russia.
1960[It is ironic that a book dedicated to helping the West fight the cold war would bear a title related to the destruction of the Parthenon due to Islamic storage of munitions.] If I thought that a little history would make a difference to the Democrats, I would recommend that they read Madariaga's book. At least it might help the rest of us keep the issues straight as the Democrats give the appearance of fighting with each other.
Barry Goldwater echoed these thoughts when he wrote that "the only summit meeting that can succeed is one that does not take place." Why Not Victory? (1962), p. 65. Goldwater wrote that the communists do not attend a summit unless they believe they hold the upper hand or can use the meeting for propaganda purposes:
They come to the conference table with two things in mind - possible real or propaganda advantage to them. And when we come to that table seriously seeking agreements in areas of contention, we automatically conceed them the advantage because they don't care about agreeemnts.
[Leftists stopped reading this post the moment they saw the word "Victory."]
It took decades to win the cold war. This victory was won despite Democrat and leftist obstruction. Today, it is apparent that most of the left has forgotten the lessons of the cold war, while some on the left will do no more than hint at those lessons solely to gain temporary political advantage.
Quote of the day - Ayn Rand
What is a demanding pleasure that demands the use of ones mind! Not in the sense of problem solving, but in the sense of exercising discrimination, judgment, awareness.
Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand
Selasa, 24 Juli 2007
Real estate bubble continues to burst; Countrywide Financial Corp.
The real estate bubble continues its slow pop as conditions worsen around the country:
With increasing defaults and foreclosures, banks will tend to dump properties on the market, as they attempt to sell their foreclosed properties. Even a small number of such dumpings will create tremendous downward pressure on prices. Lower prices will make it impossible for owners to sell or refinance "upside down" properties, as the debt on those properties will exceed the market value.
-------------------------------------------------
Previous - May foreclosures
Too much equity?
Worldwide bubble
Countrywide Financial Corp. said Tuesday its second-quarter profit shrank by nearly a third as softening home prices led to rising delinquencies and mortgage defaults among the most creditworthy borrowers.Yahoo News
Lenders sent California homeowners the highest number of mortgage default notices in more than a decade during the second quarter, the result of flat or falling prices, anemic sales and a market struggling with the excesses of the 2004-2005 home-buying frenzy, a real estate information service reported.Inman News
The foreclosure rate on Wisconsin homes remained high throughout the first half of 2007, driven by rising interest rates and the soft housing market, an industry monitor reported Tuesday.Business Journal of Milwaukee
Wisconsin as a whole had 9,229 foreclosure filings in the first half of 2007, up nearly 23 percent compared with 2006, a year in which foreclosures jumped 34 percent, according to newly released data compiled by ForeclosuresWI.com, a provider of Wisconsin foreclosure resources and statistics.
Filings for the month of June 2007 were up more than 8 percent from May.
Milwaukee County foreclosure filings are nearly 48 percent higher compared with the first half of 2006.
With increasing defaults and foreclosures, banks will tend to dump properties on the market, as they attempt to sell their foreclosed properties. Even a small number of such dumpings will create tremendous downward pressure on prices. Lower prices will make it impossible for owners to sell or refinance "upside down" properties, as the debt on those properties will exceed the market value.
-------------------------------------------------
Previous - May foreclosures
Too much equity?
Worldwide bubble
Senin, 23 Juli 2007
UK flooding; Today Show; global warming; ventriloquist journalism; Johnstown flood of 1977
I made the mistake of watching the Today Show's coverage of the UK floods yesterday morning. After describing the devastation, looting, shortages, etc., the "reporter" blamed the whole thing on "global warming." But he didn't come right out and say that in so many words. Instead, he used "ventriloquist journalism:"
In this case, the "reporter" concluded his piece by stating that people all over the UK were asking if this catastrophe was caused by "global warming." The reporter evaded responsibility for the ridiculous allegation by imputing the allegation to flood victims across the UK.
-----------
update
Newsbusters has the exact quote.
end update
------------------
Contrary to the current global warming hysteria, floods and heat waves have been happening since the earth began. In fact we have much to learn from past floods.
I have included a portion of a film from 1977 that should serve several purposes:
1) The film shows that floods happened even before George Bush became President;
2) It once again raises the question of when global warming is supposed to have begun;
3) For those who are still "stuck on stupid" by leaning on Hurricane Katrina as a political issue, the film shows the proper response to a flood, including immediate action by an adult mayor and an adult governor. [The PA governor was a Democrat, btw. I am not sure about the mayor.]
4) The film is historically significant, as July 20 was the thirty year anniversary of this flood.
5) The film also shows the proper response to looting. Note the mayor's answer at about 0:15 after the beginning.
6) The film also contains an interrupted reference to a "heat wave," indicating that heat waves did not begin with President Bush either.
7) Can you guess the identity of the tall "cut and run" advocate in the white shirt walking next to Governor Shapp?
As I have said before, memory is a useful tool. History is not merely some subject that is taught in school. History can actually be useful in countering the MSM/DNC.
3. Ventriloquist journalism. A common tactic of the MSM/DNC is to get others to do its dirty work. Let it appear as if someone else is doing the talking so that "media bias" won't be so obvious. [Update] MSM/DNC often uses phrases like "critics say" "some say" "experts say" "sources have told CBS news" . . . .
In this case, the "reporter" concluded his piece by stating that people all over the UK were asking if this catastrophe was caused by "global warming." The reporter evaded responsibility for the ridiculous allegation by imputing the allegation to flood victims across the UK.
-----------
update
Newsbusters has the exact quote.
end update
------------------
Contrary to the current global warming hysteria, floods and heat waves have been happening since the earth began. In fact we have much to learn from past floods.
I have included a portion of a film from 1977 that should serve several purposes:
1) The film shows that floods happened even before George Bush became President;
2) It once again raises the question of when global warming is supposed to have begun;
3) For those who are still "stuck on stupid" by leaning on Hurricane Katrina as a political issue, the film shows the proper response to a flood, including immediate action by an adult mayor and an adult governor. [The PA governor was a Democrat, btw. I am not sure about the mayor.]
4) The film is historically significant, as July 20 was the thirty year anniversary of this flood.
5) The film also shows the proper response to looting. Note the mayor's answer at about 0:15 after the beginning.
6) The film also contains an interrupted reference to a "heat wave," indicating that heat waves did not begin with President Bush either.
7) Can you guess the identity of the tall "cut and run" advocate in the white shirt walking next to Governor Shapp?
As I have said before, memory is a useful tool. History is not merely some subject that is taught in school. History can actually be useful in countering the MSM/DNC.
Quote of the day - Hugh Hewitt
I think most Republican senators up for re-election in 2008 who are seen by GOP voters to side with Harry Reid on the war will be swept away by Democratic challengers powered by fierce grassroots organizations even as they are deserted by Republican activists for whom resolve in the war is a non-negotiable priority. These races won’t even be close. The divide between the parties on the war is deep, and the base of the GOP simply will not turn out for, much less work for, round-heeled Republicans.
Hugh Hewitt - July 12, 2007.
Hugh Hewitt - July 12, 2007.
U.S. forces killing Al Qaeda in Baghdad; Abu Kaldoun; Doura
The Times Online (UK) reports additional success for American forces in isolating Al Qaeda forces in Baghdad:
The left hopes that they can cut off funding for the war before we route Al Qaeda from Baghdad or kill any more operatives that will be needed in the next terror attack against New York or other American cities.
Regardless of the pros and cons of Saddam Hussein, the opportunity to kill Al Qaeda justifies continued American presence in Iraq.
Doura power plant H/T Global Security.org
-------------------------------------
previous Al Qaeda leaders captured in Iraq.
The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.
“They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace,” said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area.
The sewage-filled streets of Doura, a Sunni Arab enclave in south Baghdad, provide an ugly setting for what US commanders say is al-Qaeda’s last stronghold in the city. The secretive group, however, appears to be losing its grip as a “surge” of US troops in the neighbourhood – part of the latest effort by President Bush to end the chaos in Iraq – has resulted in scores of fighters being killed, captured or forced to flee.
The left hopes that they can cut off funding for the war before we route Al Qaeda from Baghdad or kill any more operatives that will be needed in the next terror attack against New York or other American cities.
Regardless of the pros and cons of Saddam Hussein, the opportunity to kill Al Qaeda justifies continued American presence in Iraq.
Doura power plant H/T Global Security.org-------------------------------------
previous Al Qaeda leaders captured in Iraq.
Minggu, 22 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Mark Steyn
In America, public opinion is in no mood for war with Iran. In Washington, Congress is focused on finding the most politically advantageous way to lose in Iraq. In Europe, they've already psychologically accepted the Iranian nuclear umbrella. In the Western world, where talks are not the means to the end but an end in themselves, we find it hard despite the evidence of 30 years to accept that Iran talks the talk and walks the walk. Once it goes nuclear, do you think there will be fewer fatwas on writers, stonings of homosexuals, kidnappings in international waters, forced confessions of American hostages and bankrolling of terror groups worldwide?
Mark Steyn - July 22, 2007
Mark Steyn - July 22, 2007
Sabtu, 21 Juli 2007
Bob Casey votes to deny protection to anti-terror whistleblowers; I am John Doe
The Senate has voted to kill a measure designed to protect those that report suspicious activity aboard public transportation and elsewhere. The measure was proposed after 6 muslims filed suit following their own suspicious activity in Minnesota (described by Doug Ross):
Wizbang publishes the roll call and following comments:
If you check the roll call, you will see that those Senators with 2008 aspirations either voted for the measure or abstained. That includes Senator Clinton. Even Senators Schumer and Specter voted for this measure. Many red state Democrats voted for this measure. But Bob Casey opposed it.
What am I voting on, again?
When this bill was first proposed, I noted that if we let CAIR silence those who would speak out, we are endangering innocent people in buildings. The people who leaped to their death from the WTC had no idea that Mohammed Atta and his gang of Muslims had boarded a plane unopposed an hour or so earlier.
Silence has consequences.
Bob Casey may be feeling special because Moveon.org bought him a Senate seat, but the rest of us have to make sure that he is aware of the consequences of his actions.
According to police reports, the imams were asked to deplane a US Airways flight in November after reportedly requesting seat-belt extenders; invoking the words "Bin Laden", "Saddam Hussein", and "terrorism"; shouting "prayers"; and generally acting in a disturbing and suspicious manner. Three of the six had one-way tickets and between all six, only one checked a bag. Once seated, they spread out in the plane in a pattern similar to the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in the front, two in the middle, and two in the back.
The imams, backed by CAIR, subsequently sued US Airways, passengers, and crew who had reported their activity. The lawsuit against the "John Does" was apparently intended to "discourage passengers from reporting suspicious activity in the future."
Wizbang publishes the roll call and following comments:
What is going on inside the Democratic party that its members are so united against protecting the American people from another terrorist attack? And as I noted in an earlier post, they are completely committed to this even after an intelligence report said that al Qaeda is working harder than ever to get their operatives into this country to commit terrorist acts.
If you check the roll call, you will see that those Senators with 2008 aspirations either voted for the measure or abstained. That includes Senator Clinton. Even Senators Schumer and Specter voted for this measure. Many red state Democrats voted for this measure. But Bob Casey opposed it.
What am I voting on, again?When this bill was first proposed, I noted that if we let CAIR silence those who would speak out, we are endangering innocent people in buildings. The people who leaped to their death from the WTC had no idea that Mohammed Atta and his gang of Muslims had boarded a plane unopposed an hour or so earlier.
Silence has consequences.
Bob Casey may be feeling special because Moveon.org bought him a Senate seat, but the rest of us have to make sure that he is aware of the consequences of his actions.
Quote of the day - Joe Sobran
"OOPS! Asked about her plans for 2004, Hillary Clinton
assured the National Press Club that "I'm having a great
time being presi -- being a first-time senator." What an
arrogant bi -- I mean, what an arrogant woman."
Joe Sobran - Spetember 2001
assured the National Press Club that "I'm having a great
time being presi -- being a first-time senator." What an
arrogant bi -- I mean, what an arrogant woman."
Joe Sobran - Spetember 2001
Jumat, 20 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Thomas Sowell
Too many people in positions of responsibility act as if these are just positions of opportunity -- for themselves. The ones who simply steal money probably do less harm than teachers who propagandize their students, media who slant the news or politicians who sell out their country's interests in order to get re-elected.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
Kamis, 19 Juli 2007
Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a/k/a Abu Shahid; another Al Qaeda leader captured in Iraq
American forces have captured another Al Qaeda leader in Iraq. [Leftists stopped reading this post as soon as they saw the name "Al Qaeda."] That makes one more Al Qaeda leader that would still be fighting and plotting terror against the U.S. if we had pulled out of Iraq a few months ago (or never invaded in the first place).
The article from AP contained few details:
previous - Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi,
Al Zarqawi
The article from AP contained few details:
Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid, was captured in Mosul on July 4, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.
"Al-Mashhadani is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the al-Qaida in Iraq network," Bergner said. He said al-Mashhadani was a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Bergner said al-Mashhadani served as an intermediary between al-Masri and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri.
"In fact, communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani," Bergner said.
"Along with al-Masri, al-Mashhadani co-founded a virtual organization in cyberspace called the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006," Bergner said. "The Islamic State of Iraq is the latest efforts by al-Qaida to market itself and its goal of imposing a Taliban-like state on the Iraqi people."
previous - Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi,
Al Zarqawi
Quote of the day - Ann Coulter
In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent — notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. — until George Bush invaded Iraq.
Ann Coulter - 7-18-07
Ann Coulter - 7-18-07
Rabu, 18 Juli 2007
Dr. Adam Gorin, Washington Post dhimmitude
Debbie Schlussel posts the story of the Washington Post rejecting an ad for the new book, "Jihad and American Medicine: Thinking Like a Terrorist to Anticipate Attacks via our Health System".
The author, Adam Gorin, MD, uses his medical experience to warn us of weaknesses in our health care system that could enable terrorist attacks by Islamic physicians. This story should be even more important in light of the recent terrorist attacks by Islamic doctors in the UK.
[I would bet my life savings that these weaknesses are not on the leftist agenda of things to change in our health care system.]
But the Washington Post has rejected a classified ad that Dr. Gorin tried to place for this book. The Post has failed to provide any explanation other than a vague reference to "content." As Debbie recommends, buy the book and boycott the Post.
Here is the e-mail address to contact at the Post:
Alina Massey
MasseyA@washpost.com
--------------------------------------------
Previous - NFL bans ads that oppose terrorism.
The author, Adam Gorin, MD, uses his medical experience to warn us of weaknesses in our health care system that could enable terrorist attacks by Islamic physicians. This story should be even more important in light of the recent terrorist attacks by Islamic doctors in the UK.
[I would bet my life savings that these weaknesses are not on the leftist agenda of things to change in our health care system.]
But the Washington Post has rejected a classified ad that Dr. Gorin tried to place for this book. The Post has failed to provide any explanation other than a vague reference to "content." As Debbie recommends, buy the book and boycott the Post.
Here is the e-mail address to contact at the Post:
Alina Massey
MasseyA@washpost.com
--------------------------------------------
Previous - NFL bans ads that oppose terrorism.
Selasa, 17 Juli 2007
John Edwards - Can we believe anything he says?
I have devoted most of the "quotes of the day" over the past couple of weeks to John Edwards and the various panderings and misrepresentations that he has committed:
(1) Edwards has managed to creep out even John Kerry, with the conspicuously private story of his own antics at his son's funeral. He has found other ways to exploit his son's death.
(2) He has channeled dead babies and misled juries in an effort to increase the number of Caesarian births, with no corresponding decline in birth complications.
(3) Edwards claimed that voting for John Kerry would allow Christopher Reeves to get out of that wheelchair and walk again.
(4) He has invented a creepy story about his own father being unable to afford the prices at a milltown restuarant.
(5) Edwards and his wife attempted to "out" Dick Cheney's daughter and vilify Mrs. Cheney's parenting during and after the election debates in 2004.
(6) He has used his wife to attack political opponents, while decrying the tone of American election campaigns.
(7) He has used his "poverty center" in North Carolina for political purposes and to benefit his campaign.
(8) Edwards hired a blogmaster who was notorious for anti-Christian and anti-Catholic rants to run his campaign website, shortly before his wife began decrying "hateful" comments by his political opponents.
(9) Six months prior to the first actual primary voting, he has attempted to block various Democrat Senators and Congressmen from the debates (and then lied about it).
In addition to Edwards' appeals to class warfare and the usual leftist demagoguery, Edwards has exploited the death of his own son, the financial status of his own father, the story of his wife's illness, Christopher Reeves, the death of infants, the sexual orientation of his opponent's family, etc. Most, if not all, of these stories involved outright falsehoods or falsehoods at some level [in addition to the shamelessness of Edwards' exploitation].
In short, can we believe anything that he says? Is there no depth to which he will not lower himself? Is there any lie he will not invent, any suffering he will not exploit, any raw nerve upon which he will not saw? Is there anything that is more sacred to John Edwards than a few more votes?
Can we believe even the simple, seemingly uncontroversial things that he tells us about himself, his children or his wife?
Does it really matter? Should we simply resolve to remind ourselves that nothing he says can be trusted, no matter how small or unimportant? If John Edwards tells us that the sun is shining, should we immediately reach for the umbrella? Should we treat him as the perfect reverse barometer?
There will undoubtedly be more fodder from the Edwards campaign over the next few months. They will seek to play on our sympathies and our emotions. In each case, we should remember his record. The MSM/DNC won't remind us, yet the record set forth here is crucial to our ability to steel ourselves from each fresh onslaught of manipulation.
Quote of the day - Joe Sobran
New York's Senator Clinton is grumbling about federal
funding for Viagra. The reason? It favors men, with no
comparable federal enhancement for women's sex lives.
For a minute I thought maybe she'd discovered the Tenth
Amendment. No such luck.
Joe Sobran (2001)
funding for Viagra. The reason? It favors men, with no
comparable federal enhancement for women's sex lives.
For a minute I thought maybe she'd discovered the Tenth
Amendment. No such luck.
Joe Sobran (2001)
Senin, 16 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Dennis Kucinich [John Edwards]
"Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D. OH) - 7-13-07 - speaking of Edwards' (and Hillary's) attempts to exclude candidates from the televised debates.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D. OH) - 7-13-07 - speaking of Edwards' (and Hillary's) attempts to exclude candidates from the televised debates.
Minggu, 15 Juli 2007
Response to Ted Rall cartoon; Axis Sally; leftist suicide bombers
Ted Rall has written another cartoon, in which he seeks to demoralize the troops and those that wish to defend this country from Al Qaeda and other terrorists.
Axis Sally
I have previously compared Rall and other opponents of America to Axis Sally. Axis Sally spent years in prison for less than what Ted Rall has done. At least Sally had the decency to leave the country before committing treason.
But the latest cartoon has given me some ideas. The cartoon is offensive not only because it is designed to demoralize America as we face great danger from abroad, but also because it is false. In fact, the characteristics listed by Rall apply strongly to the left. The left is composed of the true "suicide bombers." If you don't believe me, review this list of the "suicide bomber" characteristics identified by Rall.
1. Male. Or sometimes not.
2. Willingness to die for a cause.
3. Religious fervor.
4. Poor Education.
5. Blind obedience.
6. Poverty. Well, actually, the left gets a free pass on this one, as they have become minions of George Soros, with orders passed along by Hollywood millionaires, John Edwards, etc.
7. Belief in life after death. [While we believe in life after death also, I think that our gods beat their gods.]
8. Immaturity.
The trouble is, leftist suicide won't kill just the leftists, it will destroy all of us if we let it.
Axis SallyI have previously compared Rall and other opponents of America to Axis Sally. Axis Sally spent years in prison for less than what Ted Rall has done. At least Sally had the decency to leave the country before committing treason.
But the latest cartoon has given me some ideas. The cartoon is offensive not only because it is designed to demoralize America as we face great danger from abroad, but also because it is false. In fact, the characteristics listed by Rall apply strongly to the left. The left is composed of the true "suicide bombers." If you don't believe me, review this list of the "suicide bomber" characteristics identified by Rall.
1. Male. Or sometimes not.
2. Willingness to die for a cause.
3. Religious fervor.
4. Poor Education.
5. Blind obedience.
6. Poverty. Well, actually, the left gets a free pass on this one, as they have become minions of George Soros, with orders passed along by Hollywood millionaires, John Edwards, etc.
7. Belief in life after death. [While we believe in life after death also, I think that our gods beat their gods.]
8. Immaturity.
The trouble is, leftist suicide won't kill just the leftists, it will destroy all of us if we let it.
Quote of the day - Mark Steyn [Arafat, Aids]
". . . that Arafat-died-of-Aids story is "no shocker" . . . , and pretty much an open secret in diplomatic circles. I'm in Madrid at the moment, and it prompted many knowing chortles among political types I mentioned it to today, along with fond reminiscences about Yasser's corps of hunky blond Scandinavian bodyguards - an odd bunch of chaps to find in Ramallah, but presumably they were doing the jobs Palestinians won't do."
Mark Steyn - 7-14-07
Mark Steyn - 7-14-07
Sabtu, 14 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Milton Friedman
The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system.
Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman
DOW: Dow Jones Ind., let's go parabolic!
Quiet surprising up trend with an economic slow down ! Fly to quality and/or inflation?
Jumat, 13 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Thomas Sowell
Judging by the polls, Republican voters' memories do not seem to be as short as Senator John McCain may have thought. Judging by press coverage, the media's memory does not seem to have been as long as he may have thought when he played to that gallery.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
Kamis, 12 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Ann Coulter
"To watch the complete destruction of this foolish and evil man, Michael Nifong — despite the mainstream media's best efforts to portray him as a modern-day Atticus Finch — is as great a moment as the annihilation of Dan Rather. Katie Couric's self-immolation is just a bonus — when it rains, it pours!
It is as great as Clinton's impeachment (which The New York Times is already claiming never happened in a front-page Week in Review article by Sam Tanenhaus on May 20).
The fact that we keep catching liberals in such blatant falsehoods shows you what they used to be able to get away with."
Ann Coulter - July 11, 2007
It is as great as Clinton's impeachment (which The New York Times is already claiming never happened in a front-page Week in Review article by Sam Tanenhaus on May 20).
The fact that we keep catching liberals in such blatant falsehoods shows you what they used to be able to get away with."
Ann Coulter - July 11, 2007
Rabu, 11 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - George W. Bush
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end there ... This war will not be like other wars. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen ... Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime ... But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows ... I ask for your ... patience in what will be a long struggle."
George Bush, September 20, 2001
George Bush, September 20, 2001
Selasa, 10 Juli 2007
Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov explains the role of "useful idiots."
A commenter left a link to the following video from 1983:
In the video, a former Soviet official describes the purpose of "useful idiots" in the west and the role they play in destabilizing western countries in preparation for tyrannical regimes coming to power.
In the video, a former Soviet official describes the purpose of "useful idiots" in the west and the role they play in destabilizing western countries in preparation for tyrannical regimes coming to power.
Quote of the day - Arkansas News Bureau [John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, Ann Coulter]
"If Mr. Edwards was half the woman Hillary Clinton is, he might be leading in the polls."
David Sanders -
Arkansas News Bureau July 1, 2007 - [commenting on Edwards' use of his wife to attack Ann Coulter.]
H/T Classical Values
David Sanders -
Arkansas News Bureau July 1, 2007 - [commenting on Edwards' use of his wife to attack Ann Coulter.]
H/T Classical Values
Senin, 09 Juli 2007
"Scooter" Libby clemency vs. payoffs for Clinton co-conspirators; Riady; Jim Guy Tucker; John Huang; Webb Hubbell; Dick Morris
The following column by Dick Morris appeared in the New York Post on or about February 1, 2001. Morris wrote this column as the stench from the Clinton pardons began to foul the air. The column provides a few hints at how Clinton and his co-defendants managed to escape punishment.
I post this column as a reminder to those who would give any credence to the Clintons' criticism of George Bush over Scooter Libby's clemency. This item should also serve as a reminder to all of us that there is no comparison between Libby's clemency and the series of events that enabled Tucker, Riady, Huang, Hubbell and Clinton to escape justice.
I saved this item before I had a blog, so I don't have the link (I don't think it would work anyway). [I have added the photos.]
Click here for previous item re: Clinton pardons.
After reading this column, try once again to remember what Libby was charged with.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JIM GUY'S HUSH MONEY?
By DICK MORRIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COINCIDENCE? The Wall Street Journal reported last week that shortly after former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was convicted in the Whitewater scandal, he was hired by James Riady, head of the Indonesian Lippo Group.
Riady is a longtime Clinton friend and supporter whose illegal campaign contributions, access to the White House and possible receipt of classified materials have made him the subject of congressional and Justice Department investigations. His name came up in a tape of one of the White House "coffees" when one of the guests was heard telling President Clinton that "James Riady sent me." According to published reports, Riady's lawyers are currently negotiating with the Justice Department for a plea bargain.
James Riady
For years, Riady has eluded American investigators and stayed out of the United States. But that was no problem for Clinton. Clinton greeted him warmly in New Zealand, where he was invited to a private reception last September -- even though he knew that the Justice Department was after Riady. A friend is a friend.
Jim Guy Tucker - CNN photo
In addition to hiring Tucker in 1999 (without waiting to see if he would begin serving a long jail sentence in a few months), Riady and former Hillary Clinton law partner Joe Giroir stepped in right after Tucker was indicted by Kenneth Starr in 1996 and arranged an unusual and lucrative deal for Tucker's wife, Betty. The deal meant a minimum of $325,000 per year for the Tuckers, no doubt helping tide them over during his difficult time. According to Giroir, Tucker's hiring was "a strictly merit situation."
What's the coincidence? Well, Riady and Giroir have also helped out other Clinton confidants in trouble with the law. When former Assistant Attorney General Webb Hubbell was under investigation by the independent counsel, Riady hired him and paid him $100,000. When this was revealed, Riady and Hubbell claimed that it was just a favor for a friend, although it was later disclosed that Riady barely knew Hubbell. The payment was arranged by John Huang, a longtime Riady employee and the Democratic Party fund-raiser who pleaded guilty to collecting more than $1.6 million in illegal foreign campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.
Huang - AP
And guess what? When Huang was under investigation, Riady provided him with $38,000 -- again, just out of friendship. He's some good friend, isn't he?
By further coincidence, Giroir and Riady were in the Oval Office at the fateful meeting that led to the transfer of John Huang from the Commerce Department to the Democratic National Committee as a fund-raiser. It was only a day or two later that Riady decided he wanted to help out Webb Hubbell. Coincidence? At Commerce, Huang had access to classified documents that investigators believe may have been improperly transferred to Riady.
Webb Hubbell - AP
For years, prosecutors have claimed that the money paid to Hubbell was "hush money" -- cash for silence. No work appears to have been done in exchange for the payment. Now Tucker must fall under the same suspicion that these payments may have been made to keep him quiet.
Tucker was facing a possible long prison sentence at the time that Riady reached out to him. It was also shortly after Kenneth Starr announced that Tucker was cooperating with the government. Yet, according to the Journal, Tucker apparently neglected to tell Starr or the federal judge about his side deal with Riady, even though he concluded the arrangement two months prior to his sentencing.
The timing of the Tucker-Riady dealings stinks to high heaven. If, as reported, the Tuckers concealed the deal, the independent counsel should reopen the Tucker case, find out all of the details surrounding the Riady "hiring" and re-examine what Tucker has revealed about Whitewater. Why is it that every corrupt Clinton official who might implicate the president and first lady ends up on the Riady payroll?
Any suspicions that the Riady-Hubbell deal (where Riady paid Hubbell large consulting fees for no work) was an effort to buy his silence should be heightened by the revelation of the subsequent Riady-Tucker partnership, and the Huang payoff.
Now we face the real issue: Is Robert Ray, Starr's successor as independent counsel, going to roll over and play dead or is he really going to prosecute? According to the Journal, Ray's office was apparently unaware of the Riady-Tucker relationship. Based on his bad health, Tucker never faced jail time, which reduced the leverage Starr presumably had over him during the plea and cooperation negotiations. But now Tucker has received a liver transplant and may be fit to go to prison. His perfidy in not telling Starr that he was on the Riady payroll could provide Ray with the reason he needs to reopen the case, this time with a credible threat of prison hanging over Jim Guy's head.
Will the independent counsel be up to the job or will he just wrap things up and get out of town? The answer to that question could determine whether these three payments were just a coincidence or much more.
I post this column as a reminder to those who would give any credence to the Clintons' criticism of George Bush over Scooter Libby's clemency. This item should also serve as a reminder to all of us that there is no comparison between Libby's clemency and the series of events that enabled Tucker, Riady, Huang, Hubbell and Clinton to escape justice.
I saved this item before I had a blog, so I don't have the link (I don't think it would work anyway). [I have added the photos.]
Click here for previous item re: Clinton pardons.
After reading this column, try once again to remember what Libby was charged with.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JIM GUY'S HUSH MONEY?
By DICK MORRIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COINCIDENCE? The Wall Street Journal reported last week that shortly after former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was convicted in the Whitewater scandal, he was hired by James Riady, head of the Indonesian Lippo Group.
Riady is a longtime Clinton friend and supporter whose illegal campaign contributions, access to the White House and possible receipt of classified materials have made him the subject of congressional and Justice Department investigations. His name came up in a tape of one of the White House "coffees" when one of the guests was heard telling President Clinton that "James Riady sent me." According to published reports, Riady's lawyers are currently negotiating with the Justice Department for a plea bargain.
James RiadyFor years, Riady has eluded American investigators and stayed out of the United States. But that was no problem for Clinton. Clinton greeted him warmly in New Zealand, where he was invited to a private reception last September -- even though he knew that the Justice Department was after Riady. A friend is a friend.
Jim Guy Tucker - CNN photoIn addition to hiring Tucker in 1999 (without waiting to see if he would begin serving a long jail sentence in a few months), Riady and former Hillary Clinton law partner Joe Giroir stepped in right after Tucker was indicted by Kenneth Starr in 1996 and arranged an unusual and lucrative deal for Tucker's wife, Betty. The deal meant a minimum of $325,000 per year for the Tuckers, no doubt helping tide them over during his difficult time. According to Giroir, Tucker's hiring was "a strictly merit situation."
What's the coincidence? Well, Riady and Giroir have also helped out other Clinton confidants in trouble with the law. When former Assistant Attorney General Webb Hubbell was under investigation by the independent counsel, Riady hired him and paid him $100,000. When this was revealed, Riady and Hubbell claimed that it was just a favor for a friend, although it was later disclosed that Riady barely knew Hubbell. The payment was arranged by John Huang, a longtime Riady employee and the Democratic Party fund-raiser who pleaded guilty to collecting more than $1.6 million in illegal foreign campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.
Huang - APAnd guess what? When Huang was under investigation, Riady provided him with $38,000 -- again, just out of friendship. He's some good friend, isn't he?
By further coincidence, Giroir and Riady were in the Oval Office at the fateful meeting that led to the transfer of John Huang from the Commerce Department to the Democratic National Committee as a fund-raiser. It was only a day or two later that Riady decided he wanted to help out Webb Hubbell. Coincidence? At Commerce, Huang had access to classified documents that investigators believe may have been improperly transferred to Riady.
Webb Hubbell - APFor years, prosecutors have claimed that the money paid to Hubbell was "hush money" -- cash for silence. No work appears to have been done in exchange for the payment. Now Tucker must fall under the same suspicion that these payments may have been made to keep him quiet.
Tucker was facing a possible long prison sentence at the time that Riady reached out to him. It was also shortly after Kenneth Starr announced that Tucker was cooperating with the government. Yet, according to the Journal, Tucker apparently neglected to tell Starr or the federal judge about his side deal with Riady, even though he concluded the arrangement two months prior to his sentencing.
The timing of the Tucker-Riady dealings stinks to high heaven. If, as reported, the Tuckers concealed the deal, the independent counsel should reopen the Tucker case, find out all of the details surrounding the Riady "hiring" and re-examine what Tucker has revealed about Whitewater. Why is it that every corrupt Clinton official who might implicate the president and first lady ends up on the Riady payroll?
Any suspicions that the Riady-Hubbell deal (where Riady paid Hubbell large consulting fees for no work) was an effort to buy his silence should be heightened by the revelation of the subsequent Riady-Tucker partnership, and the Huang payoff.
Now we face the real issue: Is Robert Ray, Starr's successor as independent counsel, going to roll over and play dead or is he really going to prosecute? According to the Journal, Ray's office was apparently unaware of the Riady-Tucker relationship. Based on his bad health, Tucker never faced jail time, which reduced the leverage Starr presumably had over him during the plea and cooperation negotiations. But now Tucker has received a liver transplant and may be fit to go to prison. His perfidy in not telling Starr that he was on the Riady payroll could provide Ray with the reason he needs to reopen the case, this time with a credible threat of prison hanging over Jim Guy's head.
Will the independent counsel be up to the job or will he just wrap things up and get out of town? The answer to that question could determine whether these three payments were just a coincidence or much more.
Quote of the day - David Sanders - Arkansas News Bureau
"Are we to conclude that if John [Edwards] is sitting in the Oval Office when Hezbollah's leader calls him the great Satan, he'd trot Elizabeth out on the evening news to let the world know she disapproves?"
David Sanders - Arkansas News Bureau
[commenting on John Edwards' use of his wife to attack Ann Coulter (not to mention starting arguments with bloggers).]
David Sanders - Arkansas News Bureau
[commenting on John Edwards' use of his wife to attack Ann Coulter (not to mention starting arguments with bloggers).]
Minggu, 08 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Mark Steyn
The other day in Thailand, where 800 folks have been killed by Islamists since the start of the year [2005], two Laotian farm workers were beheaded. I suppose that's Bush and Blair's fault, too.
Mark Steyn - 7-8-05 - [written hours after the 7-7-05 bombings.
Mark Steyn - 7-8-05 - [written hours after the 7-7-05 bombings.
Sabtu, 07 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Joe Sobran [McCarthyism]
Even now the standard liberal account of America in the early 1950s is that it was in the grip of "McCarthyite hysteria." The real hysteria was the liberal hysteria over McCarthy himself. It was a hysterical distraction from the Democrats' role in helping make the Soviet Union a nuclear-armed superpower.
Joe Sobran
Joe Sobran
Jumat, 06 Juli 2007
Clemency for Scooter Libby versus politicized Clinton pardons; Hamilton Jordan
Many commentators have noted the irony of the Clintons criticizing President Bush' clemency for Scooter Libby. But few have really dredged up the Clinton pardons from 2001. Those pardons received almost universal condemnation, even from some in the MSM/DNC. [The Clintons really left them with no choice.] Almost no one defended the Clintons at that time. The Clinton pardon scandal was that ugly, obvious and clumsy.
The Clintons' criticism of President Bush is so hypocritical that it merits a revisit to that Clinton pardon scandal. Below is a column that Hamilton Jordan (President Carter's chief of staff) wrote in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the odor from the Clinton pardon mess overwhelmed the public airwaves. I had no blog at that time, so I did not save the URL and I cannot hyperlink it. But I have the contents, which I reproduce in full here.
The point of the story is an explanation of how the pardon power is supposed to work, and how foul the Clinton pardons look in comparison to administrations that follow the rules.
Read it all. I will print more articles from the immediate aftermath of the Clinton pardon scandal soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Grifters
Clinton saw the pardon power as just another perk of the office.
by HAMILTON JORDAN
Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST
It is difficult for the average citizen to comprehend how outrageous Bill Clinton's pardons are to those of us who have worked in the White House.
Let me describe the attitude and processes that were in place for pardons in the Carter administration and for all recent presidents up until Mr. Clinton. The constitutional power of a president to pardon is unique and sacred, meant to give the chief executive the ability to correct injustices. But while the president's right to grant a pardon is unequivocal, certain procedures have evolved over time that are honored and passed along from president to president.
In the Carter administration, a request for presidential pardon would have required the following:
* A formal, written analysis of the case by the Justice Department.
* A description of the crime and a history of the trial.
* The written statements and recommendations of the prosecuting team that won the conviction.
* A listing of the substantive argument for and against the pardon and a statement of any extenuating circumstances that justify the review of the case.
* The formal and written recommendations of the Justice Department (usually the attorney general in high-profile cases like Patricia Hearst or Marc Rich) and of the White House counsel.
This package of written information would be presented to the president for his study and review, and it would be normal for the White House counsel or the attorney general to be directly involved in the case.
Yet it appears there was no effort to formally collect opinions from the key parties in the Marc Rich case. Indeed, the 11th-hour presentation of the request to Mr. Clinton was made by Mr. Rich's attorney, Jack Quinn, who happens to be a former Clinton White House counsel. We do not know how, when or even if the Justice Department and then-White House counsel Beth Nolan formally weighed in with written information.
Mr. Quinn and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder testified before a congressional committee that they had "conversations" on the Marc Rich pardon application. But these discussions were no substitute for the time-honored tradition of a formal evaluation. These conversations also did not satisfy the president's need to receive recommendations from independent, knowledgeable authorities in the Justice Department. Indeed, Mr. Holder acknowledged that based on what he has recently learned about the Rich case, he would today recommend against the pardon.
We do know that Mr. Clinton found time to confer with his political advisers, party fund-raisers, Denise Rich, her friends, and even foreign leaders about the pardon. In fact, in an op-ed piece published Sunday in the New York Times, the former president points to a combination of legal and foreign policy considerations--particularly pressure from Israel--as the main reasons for the Rich pardon. It's therefore extremely curious that he never bothered to pick up the phone and call Attorney General Janet Reno or Mr. Holder or the prosecuting attorney to get their advice and perspective. Nor did he seek input from his foreign policy advisers. He was either uninterested in their opinion or not interested in hearing what they surely would have told him.
I could not imagine walking into the Oval Office and raising the subject of a pardon with President Carter. Nor could I imagine other chiefs of staff in this modern era--e.g., Dick Cheney, Howard Baker, Jim Baker or Leon Panetta--discussing with their president the political pros and cons of a pardon for a fugitive who had renounced his citizenship and fled the country to escape prosecution on tax fraud and racketeering charges.
If I'd have had the nerve to walk into the Oval Office to discuss a pardon with Mr. Carter, I would have been peppered with questions:
"Hamilton, why on earth are you bringing this to me?"
"What does (Attorney General) Griffin Bell think?"
"Why isn't Lloyd Cutler (the White House counsel) here?"
"What is the case history and rationale for this pardon?"
"What are the extenuating circumstances that merit my overturning the judgment of a jury and our court system?"
"Do the former prosecutors favor a pardon, and if so, why?"
After a series of my answering "I don't know," President Carter would have surely given me one of his famous icy stares and admonished me, "Pardons are serious legal business and not your business, Hamilton. Don't ever come in here again to talk to me about a pardon."
If I had summoned the courage to say, "But Mr. President, this pardon is for someone who contributed generously to our campaign and has even promised to contribute to the Carter Presidential Library," he would have thrown me out of the Oval Office and probably fired me on the spot.
It is incredible that the ethical atmosphere of the Clinton White House had sunk to a level whereby the constitutional power of a president to issue a pardon was discussed among Mr. Clinton and his White House staff as just one more perk of office. It was treated in the same vein as: "Who is going to be regional HUD director?" or "Which campaign contributors are staying in the Lincoln Bedroom tonight or flying on Air Force One?"
It is a great mystery how this gifted politician could have had such an enormous lapse of judgment. I attribute it to the fact that the Clintons are terribly self-absorbed. As well, I believe they developed a feeling of invincibility and even arrogance after his impeachment trial, when the Clintons confused their short-term victory with the sense of national exhaustion and disgust that followed the scandal.
If a president can get caught having sex in the Oval Office with an intern and committing perjury about it to a federal grand jury, and still get away with it, what could possibly stop him? Bill Clinton--whose every decision was guided by public opinion polls--interpreted his high job-approval ratings following his impeachment at least as a vote of confidence and more likely as some form of national forgiveness.
Instead of leaving him for his public betrayal, Hillary Clinton exploited her public image of a wronged but loyal spouse to create a new persona for herself and win election to the Senate.
The Clintons are not a couple but a business partnership, not based on love or even greed but on shared ambitions. Everywhere they go, they leave a trail of disappointed, disillusioned friends and staff members to clean up after them. The Clintons' only loyalty is to their own ambitions.
They belong to no place. Arkansas was just a starting point for Bill Clinton and a place Hillary had to tolerate while nurturing national ambitions. It was their home for a quarter-century, the birthplace of their only child and their political base, but they left the state behind in favor of New York City, a place that can match the scale of their own egos, appetites and ambitions.
They have never looked back. One talking head recently called the Clintons "political drifters," but Webster's defines drifters as people who move around "aimlessly." There was never anything aimless about the Clintons' wanderings: Little Rock, Yale, Oxford, Little Rock, Washington, Chappaqua and now New York City. Every move was calculated, part of their grand scheme to claw their way to the very top.
When one considers pardons for political friends and donors, gifts to the White House taken by the Clintons for their personal use, and the attempt to lease extravagant penthouse offices for the former president with taxpayer money, a better word comes to mind: grifters.
Grifters was a term used in the Great Depression to describe fast-talking con artists who roamed the countryside, profiting at the expense of the poor and the uneducated, always one step ahead of the law, moving on before they were held accountable for their schemes and half-truths.
No longer able to dominate the national news with moving speeches or policy initiatives, the First Grifters have been unable to move beyond the Marc Rich pardon, White House gifts and other events related to their noisy and ungraceful departure from office. Robbed of the frills of high office, we can now examine these last-minute pardons--and the Clintons--for what they are.
Mr. Jordan was White House chief of staff in the Carter administration. He is author of a memoir, "No Such Thing as a Bad Day" (Longstreet Press, 2000).
The Clintons' criticism of President Bush is so hypocritical that it merits a revisit to that Clinton pardon scandal. Below is a column that Hamilton Jordan (President Carter's chief of staff) wrote in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the odor from the Clinton pardon mess overwhelmed the public airwaves. I had no blog at that time, so I did not save the URL and I cannot hyperlink it. But I have the contents, which I reproduce in full here.
The point of the story is an explanation of how the pardon power is supposed to work, and how foul the Clinton pardons look in comparison to administrations that follow the rules.
Read it all. I will print more articles from the immediate aftermath of the Clinton pardon scandal soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Grifters
Clinton saw the pardon power as just another perk of the office.
by HAMILTON JORDAN
Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST
It is difficult for the average citizen to comprehend how outrageous Bill Clinton's pardons are to those of us who have worked in the White House.
Let me describe the attitude and processes that were in place for pardons in the Carter administration and for all recent presidents up until Mr. Clinton. The constitutional power of a president to pardon is unique and sacred, meant to give the chief executive the ability to correct injustices. But while the president's right to grant a pardon is unequivocal, certain procedures have evolved over time that are honored and passed along from president to president.
In the Carter administration, a request for presidential pardon would have required the following:
* A formal, written analysis of the case by the Justice Department.
* A description of the crime and a history of the trial.
* The written statements and recommendations of the prosecuting team that won the conviction.
* A listing of the substantive argument for and against the pardon and a statement of any extenuating circumstances that justify the review of the case.
* The formal and written recommendations of the Justice Department (usually the attorney general in high-profile cases like Patricia Hearst or Marc Rich) and of the White House counsel.
This package of written information would be presented to the president for his study and review, and it would be normal for the White House counsel or the attorney general to be directly involved in the case.
Yet it appears there was no effort to formally collect opinions from the key parties in the Marc Rich case. Indeed, the 11th-hour presentation of the request to Mr. Clinton was made by Mr. Rich's attorney, Jack Quinn, who happens to be a former Clinton White House counsel. We do not know how, when or even if the Justice Department and then-White House counsel Beth Nolan formally weighed in with written information.
Mr. Quinn and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder testified before a congressional committee that they had "conversations" on the Marc Rich pardon application. But these discussions were no substitute for the time-honored tradition of a formal evaluation. These conversations also did not satisfy the president's need to receive recommendations from independent, knowledgeable authorities in the Justice Department. Indeed, Mr. Holder acknowledged that based on what he has recently learned about the Rich case, he would today recommend against the pardon.
We do know that Mr. Clinton found time to confer with his political advisers, party fund-raisers, Denise Rich, her friends, and even foreign leaders about the pardon. In fact, in an op-ed piece published Sunday in the New York Times, the former president points to a combination of legal and foreign policy considerations--particularly pressure from Israel--as the main reasons for the Rich pardon. It's therefore extremely curious that he never bothered to pick up the phone and call Attorney General Janet Reno or Mr. Holder or the prosecuting attorney to get their advice and perspective. Nor did he seek input from his foreign policy advisers. He was either uninterested in their opinion or not interested in hearing what they surely would have told him.
I could not imagine walking into the Oval Office and raising the subject of a pardon with President Carter. Nor could I imagine other chiefs of staff in this modern era--e.g., Dick Cheney, Howard Baker, Jim Baker or Leon Panetta--discussing with their president the political pros and cons of a pardon for a fugitive who had renounced his citizenship and fled the country to escape prosecution on tax fraud and racketeering charges.
If I'd have had the nerve to walk into the Oval Office to discuss a pardon with Mr. Carter, I would have been peppered with questions:
"Hamilton, why on earth are you bringing this to me?"
"What does (Attorney General) Griffin Bell think?"
"Why isn't Lloyd Cutler (the White House counsel) here?"
"What is the case history and rationale for this pardon?"
"What are the extenuating circumstances that merit my overturning the judgment of a jury and our court system?"
"Do the former prosecutors favor a pardon, and if so, why?"
After a series of my answering "I don't know," President Carter would have surely given me one of his famous icy stares and admonished me, "Pardons are serious legal business and not your business, Hamilton. Don't ever come in here again to talk to me about a pardon."
If I had summoned the courage to say, "But Mr. President, this pardon is for someone who contributed generously to our campaign and has even promised to contribute to the Carter Presidential Library," he would have thrown me out of the Oval Office and probably fired me on the spot.
It is incredible that the ethical atmosphere of the Clinton White House had sunk to a level whereby the constitutional power of a president to issue a pardon was discussed among Mr. Clinton and his White House staff as just one more perk of office. It was treated in the same vein as: "Who is going to be regional HUD director?" or "Which campaign contributors are staying in the Lincoln Bedroom tonight or flying on Air Force One?"
It is a great mystery how this gifted politician could have had such an enormous lapse of judgment. I attribute it to the fact that the Clintons are terribly self-absorbed. As well, I believe they developed a feeling of invincibility and even arrogance after his impeachment trial, when the Clintons confused their short-term victory with the sense of national exhaustion and disgust that followed the scandal.
If a president can get caught having sex in the Oval Office with an intern and committing perjury about it to a federal grand jury, and still get away with it, what could possibly stop him? Bill Clinton--whose every decision was guided by public opinion polls--interpreted his high job-approval ratings following his impeachment at least as a vote of confidence and more likely as some form of national forgiveness.
Instead of leaving him for his public betrayal, Hillary Clinton exploited her public image of a wronged but loyal spouse to create a new persona for herself and win election to the Senate.
The Clintons are not a couple but a business partnership, not based on love or even greed but on shared ambitions. Everywhere they go, they leave a trail of disappointed, disillusioned friends and staff members to clean up after them. The Clintons' only loyalty is to their own ambitions.
They belong to no place. Arkansas was just a starting point for Bill Clinton and a place Hillary had to tolerate while nurturing national ambitions. It was their home for a quarter-century, the birthplace of their only child and their political base, but they left the state behind in favor of New York City, a place that can match the scale of their own egos, appetites and ambitions.
They have never looked back. One talking head recently called the Clintons "political drifters," but Webster's defines drifters as people who move around "aimlessly." There was never anything aimless about the Clintons' wanderings: Little Rock, Yale, Oxford, Little Rock, Washington, Chappaqua and now New York City. Every move was calculated, part of their grand scheme to claw their way to the very top.
When one considers pardons for political friends and donors, gifts to the White House taken by the Clintons for their personal use, and the attempt to lease extravagant penthouse offices for the former president with taxpayer money, a better word comes to mind: grifters.
Grifters was a term used in the Great Depression to describe fast-talking con artists who roamed the countryside, profiting at the expense of the poor and the uneducated, always one step ahead of the law, moving on before they were held accountable for their schemes and half-truths.
No longer able to dominate the national news with moving speeches or policy initiatives, the First Grifters have been unable to move beyond the Marc Rich pardon, White House gifts and other events related to their noisy and ungraceful departure from office. Robbed of the frills of high office, we can now examine these last-minute pardons--and the Clintons--for what they are.
Mr. Jordan was White House chief of staff in the Carter administration. He is author of a memoir, "No Such Thing as a Bad Day" (Longstreet Press, 2000).
Quote of the day - Amanda Marcotte [John Edwards former blogmaster]
"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.”
Amanda Marcotte - [After Marcotte wrote this and other similar items, the Edwards campaign hired Marcotte as its blogmaster. She resigned shortly after conservative bloggers brought this and other controversial items into greater public focus. Following Marcotte's resignation, Elizabeth Edwards began devoting her time to attacking four-year-old "hateful" columns from Ann Coulter and leaving comments at this blog.]
Marcotte
Amanda Marcotte - [After Marcotte wrote this and other similar items, the Edwards campaign hired Marcotte as its blogmaster. She resigned shortly after conservative bloggers brought this and other controversial items into greater public focus. Following Marcotte's resignation, Elizabeth Edwards began devoting her time to attacking four-year-old "hateful" columns from Ann Coulter and leaving comments at this blog.]
Marcotte
Kamis, 05 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Byron York [John Edwards]
In the last several weeks, a number of Democrats have been cooling on John Edwards, troubled by what has become known as "the house, the hedge fund, and the haircut." Now they've got another reason. The New York Times reports that Edwards' much-ballyhooed tax-exempt poverty center in North Carolina, the Center for Progress and Opportunity, mainly benefited one person: John Edwards.
Byron York - 6-22-07
Byron York - 6-22-07
Rabu, 04 Juli 2007
What exactly did Lewis "Scooter" Libby do?
Memory is such a useful thing. In general, the MSM/DNC opposes memory because (1) MSM/DNC needs to change the story [whatever the "story" is about] to suit its present day needs and (2) MSM/DNC has much to hide in any given situation.
more dangerous than a muslim doctor?
In the Libby case, I found the following item from March, 2007:
This story was released on the day the verdict was announced. As I wrote in March, the jury heard the entire trial without understanding what Libby was accused of.
But MSM/DNC outlets today dutifully report politicians' comments that Libby received clemency despite no doubt existing as to his guilt. But only a simple examination reveals that the jury was confused for good reason. Libby's detractors cannot tell you what exactly he did or why he was prosecuted (other than vague generalities relating to the Bush-Hitler-Halliburton-Diebold conspiracy).
MSM/DNC sources can say nothing about Libby that would not actually apply to Armmitage, Novak, Fitzgerald, Plame, Woodward and Wilson.
The same people who want Libby to serve jail time for some imagined offense want desparately to close Guantanamo and release the terrorists housed therein. By now, they will also start advocating increased immigration rights for muslim doctors.
more dangerous than a muslim doctor?In the Libby case, I found the following item from March, 2007:
Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing.
. . . .
In their questions, which were released Tuesday morning, jurors seemed confused about what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was alleging. Were prosecutors saying Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA by the time of his FBI interview, jurors asked, or does the government believe Libby's account of the Cooper conversation was untrue?
This story was released on the day the verdict was announced. As I wrote in March, the jury heard the entire trial without understanding what Libby was accused of.
But MSM/DNC outlets today dutifully report politicians' comments that Libby received clemency despite no doubt existing as to his guilt. But only a simple examination reveals that the jury was confused for good reason. Libby's detractors cannot tell you what exactly he did or why he was prosecuted (other than vague generalities relating to the Bush-Hitler-Halliburton-Diebold conspiracy).
MSM/DNC sources can say nothing about Libby that would not actually apply to Armmitage, Novak, Fitzgerald, Plame, Woodward and Wilson.
The same people who want Libby to serve jail time for some imagined offense want desparately to close Guantanamo and release the terrorists housed therein. By now, they will also start advocating increased immigration rights for muslim doctors.
A key anniversary in the 2d American revolution - Rush Limbaugh broadcast anniversary
Today is the 19th anniversary of the day that Rush Limbaugh went national with his radio program. I wrote the following in 2005:
That paragraph listed one item in a series of numerous events that formed the "new media" revolution. Without that revolution, the amnesty bill would have been adopted last month, Dan Rather would be a hero for exposing George Bush' national guard story and Hillary Clinton would likely have already been crowned empress by now instead of being a leading candidate for President.
2) July 4, 1988 - Rush Limbaugh debuts nationally on his syndicated radio program. Rush took the Reagan election a step further and literally made conservatism marketable to a commercial audience. Rush proved that at which Reagan's election only hinted. Conservatism sells. Not merely politically, but commercially. Without Reagan's election in 1980, I believe that Rush Limbaugh would never have been given the opportunity to turn conservatism into nationwide commercial success.
That paragraph listed one item in a series of numerous events that formed the "new media" revolution. Without that revolution, the amnesty bill would have been adopted last month, Dan Rather would be a hero for exposing George Bush' national guard story and Hillary Clinton would likely have already been crowned empress by now instead of being a leading candidate for President.
Quote of the day - Arkansas News Bureau [John and Elizabeth Edwards]
"It's bad enough to claim to be offended, hurt and outraged by comments while simultaneously and feverishly promoting those words out of context to raise money and capture media attention. But that Mr. Edwards hides behind his wife is beyond the pale."
David Sanders - Arkansas News Bureau - commenting on John Edwards' use of misquotes of Ann Coulter to raise money for the Presidential campaign.
David Sanders
David Sanders - Arkansas News Bureau - commenting on John Edwards' use of misquotes of Ann Coulter to raise money for the Presidential campaign.
David Sanders
Selasa, 03 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Elizabeth Edwards [Mary Cheney, Lynne Cheney]
"I think that it indicates a certain shame with respect to their daughter's sexual preferences. . . It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."
Elizabeth Edwards, attacking Lynne Cheney for defending Cheney's daughter following Kerry/Edwards' lesbian outing of Mary Cheney in 2004.
Elizabeth Edwards, attacking Lynne Cheney for defending Cheney's daughter following Kerry/Edwards' lesbian outing of Mary Cheney in 2004.
Senin, 02 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Mark Steyn [John Edwards]
According to Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton-stain-mopper-turned-Guardian-columnist, "He bears the memory of his father taking the family to a local restaurant after church only to leave when he realised he could not afford anything on the menu."
Really? Robbins was a town of just over 1,000 people, so presumably it was, if not the only restaurant, one of only two or three. In small towns, folks generally know what the local eateries charge. And, while the Edwards family was poor by comparison with John Kerry, dad was in fact the mill's production manager (though the son tends to leave that bit out). So, in a mill town, at a restaurant presumably priced to cater for mill workers, the management of the mill couldn't afford to eat?
Mark Steyn - July 11, 2004
Really? Robbins was a town of just over 1,000 people, so presumably it was, if not the only restaurant, one of only two or three. In small towns, folks generally know what the local eateries charge. And, while the Edwards family was poor by comparison with John Kerry, dad was in fact the mill's production manager (though the son tends to leave that bit out). So, in a mill town, at a restaurant presumably priced to cater for mill workers, the management of the mill couldn't afford to eat?
Mark Steyn - July 11, 2004
Minggu, 01 Juli 2007
Quote of the day - Ann Coulter [John Edwards]
Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."
Ann Coulter - 11-20-03 - (from the column that caused Elizabeth Edwards to call Chris Matthews and complain nearly four years later.)
Ann Coulter - 11-20-03 - (from the column that caused Elizabeth Edwards to call Chris Matthews and complain nearly four years later.)
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)