29 October 2006

A Brave New Islamic World

A chilling prediction over at Ttueoop blog from an anonymous contributor:

What will Europe look like when Muslims assume control? Using the past history of 1,300 hundred years Muslim raids and wars, conquests and subjugations of Infidels as a guide, I expect great slaughter, looting, rape and destruction, with Christian religious and cultural targets to be especially hard hit—defiled or destroyed. Those European Infidels who survive the initial conquests can look forward to a life as a semi-slave, a “dhimmi”; without any real rights, unable to testify in court, forced to pay a huge annual “protection tax,” the “jizya,” women will become property. The art, philosophy, music, science and other cultural hallmarks that defined European culture will be banned and a great pall of stagnation will envelop Europe—think Afghanistan under the Taliban. A new dark age will settle over Europe and even if, sometime in the future, it is lifted, Europe as we know it will be irretrievably lost.


Sounds about right with EurAbia's current self implosions because of political correctness, cultural diversity and moral equivalence. Europe's libraries, churches and synogogues will be burned to the ground. The Eiffel tower will be blown up like a Buddhist statue. Pogroms and mock-trials will take the place of rational justice - where people will be accused of 'defaming Islam" and will be summarily executed.

God help us. The Religion of Peace is anything but peace-filled.

Another MSM angle on Withdrawal

Today's Tribune carries an article in the Perspective section, written by Jeremy Manier, that shows just how desperate and out of touch the Liberals in the media are in regards to the War in Iraq.

Speaking of Perspective, it appears that Jeremy and his Tribune cronies have little or none of that precious commodity.

Back in the early 70's the radical Left had created a formidable wedge in the fabric of American society, pushing us to the brink of civil war. The issue that most garnered national attention was their opposition to the war in Vietnam. Culling tropes from Marxist propaganda handbooks, the demonstrators called the action in Vietnam an "act of American Imperialism." The radicals claimed that we didn't belong there; that it was an internal Vietnamese civil issue. After all, the French couldn't maintain a foothold there and were soundly trumped off the continent.

The slogans of the time were ubiquitous - "Hell No - We Won't GO!", "Make Love, Not War!", "Flower Power"; were just a few of the empty platitudes that Leftists simply love to project on to their hapless listeners. The slogans filled mingled in the air with the rich smell of marijuana and hashish.

The Leftists were short-sighted and uninformed about the reasons we were in Vietnam. With China supplying the NVA with arms and resources, it appeared that China was going to add another satellite country to its arsenal. Strategists in Washington envisioned the Chinese as crawling across the asian continent, gobbling up swaths of real estate and establishing a Communist powerhouse in conjunction with the Soviets. They were scary times. The cold war combined with nuclear obliteration added up to a threat that the US could ill-afford to ignore.

We made mistakes in Vietnam, especially after Lydon B. Johnson took over the reins of command and control. Battlefield commanders in Vietnam were told to "just bring in a body count, and weapons confiscation numbers." The strategy became a numbers game - not a goal to achieve victory. After we abandoned South Vietnam to the NVA, 1 million people were murdered.

And an even important lesson we learned from Vietnam is that our enemies now know that, by using the US media, they can influence our own domestic policies. In a letter from Al-quaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri who wrote a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam – and how they ran and left their agents – is noteworthy. . . . We must be ready starting now." Our enemies now know that all they have to do is turn a few news outlets toward their favor and public opinion will start doing the enemy's dirty work for them.

The Media has tried to pull the tired 60's slogans out of retirement to work public opinion but, thankfully, most people aren't that gullible nor naive. So the Tribune tries to present the Iraq "quagmire" as boardroom fiscal exercise. You have to hand it to the article's author, Jeremy Manier. He tries to pull off a quantifiable - almost academic - examination of why we shouldn't be in Iraq.

But his comparison's are laughable.

He begins with the presupposition that our presence in Iraq is a mistake and an abject failure. By what criteria does he make this misguided assessment? He never says. But if you look at the stories coming out of the MSM, it sure does look like we're losing over there. But the absence of success stories coming out of Iraq doesn't mean that there aren't any - it just means that the MSM's agenda of "doom & gloom" has no quarter for stories about how well we're doing over in Iraq.

He claims that we should be doing "cost-benefit analysis" on the war. Equating money spent with soldiers lives, he writes "Ideally, economists say, prior investments--whether of money or soldiers' lives--should not affect decisions about the future. The only thing that should matter is whether the future benefits of a choice will justify its total cost.

What Manier misses in his exegesis is that we're fighting the Islamic jihadists over in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here. Back in the 1960s, there was no chance of a group of Vietnamese coming to the US to fly commercial jetliners into buildings in downtown Manhattan. That was a localized conflict, this battle with Islamic extremists is worldwide. Iraq was recognized as a central hub of Islamic jihadists and we were right to go in there and eliminate as many of them as we could. This is a new kind of conflict, one which we've never seen before. It calls for different tactics and new innovations in how we conduct the war.

The reason why this war is being cast in the light of Vietnam is that our Liberal intelligensia are busy demonizing our president, his staff, his policies and our interests overseas. They are taking the side of the "freedom fighters" in an attempt to dethrone and disempower the White House. They're busy bestowing "human rights" on the terrorists where none should be given. They want terrorists to have rights under the Geneva Convention; they want, and have, given the terrorists confidential information about our surveillance techniques and operations; they have gone to the wall on behalf of these murderous savages - all in the name of "freedom of the press" and "human rights."

What the MSM glosses over are the rights of the average American citizen to be safe.

So, nice try Jeremy. This is not a sterile experiment on supply-side economics - it is war. It is bloody, dirty and necessary. You and your ilk in the press sit around at your cocktail parties, chortling over the latest book by Noam Chomsky, but don't understand that by hindering our military operations, you're helping the very people who want to kill you simply because you're a kaffir. By saying we should cut our losses if our "target slips away" boils this conflict down to numbers, goals and budgets. It cannot, in all honesty, be confined to such narrow restraints. Of course, the author of the article portrays Bush as someone who is committed to staying in Iraq, at all costs, and is invested his own self-worth in the war, with the attendant position that no matter how bad it gets Bush won't back down.

How droll and transparent. It is no wonder that newspapers across the country are losing readership. It is this kind of "reporting" that the average American can see right through in an instant.

Indeed, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. It is minimally a character defect.

27 October 2006

2,500 Cops wounded in France by Muslims

The Action Police trade union (FOP) in France says that 2,500 police officers have been wounded by Muslim extremists. The Muslims attack the officers in large groups - using bats, pipes, molotov cocktails and rocks.


Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.

He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."




A few days ago 3 officers were savagely attacked by a group of 30 Muslim men who poured out of a building to assist a Muslim man who was being arrested by the 3 officers. One officer sustained a 20 stitch cut on his head and another lost most of his teeth during the melee.

The answer to this problem is obvious.

DA hasn't interviewed accuser yet in Duke case

The DA in the Duke LaCrosse rape case confessed today in open court that he hasn't interviewed the accuser in the case yet.


DURHAM, N.C. - The district attorney prosecuting three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a woman at a team party said during a court hearing Friday that he and his assistants haven’t interviewed the accuser about the facts of the case.

They have only spoken to the woman to monitor her well being, Mike Nifong said, and have left the investigation of the case to police.
“I’ve had conversations with (the accuser) about how she’s doing. I’ve had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids,” Nifong said. “I haven’t talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We’re not at that stage yet.”



What does he mean he's not at that stage yet? He's indicted, tried and hung these kids out to dry without interviewing the whore- um, stripper yet? These guys have even submitted DNA samples that didn't match any of the samples taken off the whore stripper.

WTF? How can the judge in the case allow this to happen?

It sounds like this DA is an incompetent boob who decided that the kids were guilty and used the case to garner himself some national attention.

Those LaCrosse players should sue DA Nifong for civil rights violations.

Benefit for Naperville Police Officer

*-* I'm keeping this up at the top of the blog until the benefit is over*-*-*

Officer Greg Rink is a 6 year veteran Police Officer with the Naperville Police Department. In June of this year, Greg suffered a severe injury which nearly left him paralyzed. As a result of this injury, Greg has undergone significant and extensive surgery to his spinal cord and neck area, which has caused him to be off of work for an extended period of time. Greg has exhausted all of his vacation and sick time, and unfortunately has not received a paycheck in over 2 months.

It is currently unknown when or if Greg will be able to return to his normal duties. Greg is just like the rest of us with financial responsibilities such as a car and a mortgage.



On October 28th 2006 the Naperville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #42, in cooperation with the Phoenix Club of Aurora, will be hosting a benefit to assist Greg with some of his financial responsibilities.

The event will be held at:
The Phoenix Club
515 Phoenix Court
Aurora, Illinois
Time : from 5:30 PM to 12:00 AM on Oct 28th 2006.
Cost is $20.00 which includes food, music and all the fun you can possibly have!
There will be a cash bar and possibly some games.

Questions can be directed to Ken Gettemy (email: GettemyK@Naperville.Il.US)
tel: (630)750-5666 or Joe Matchett (email: Matchett@Naperville.IL.US)

If you can, step up and help one of our own.

Thanks.

Design change

The Sith Lord has decided to make some format changes to the blog. Nothing big but just some new Logo/Branding changes. I wanted the design layout to match the edginess in my writing lately. I thought the site should be tied more into an archetype of St. Michael and all that that stands for in respect to police officers and the battles we are dealing with as a country.

If you notice that the page loads too slowly (especially those of you with dial-up) please let me know. Comments are always welcome - complimentary and otherwise.

25 October 2006

Australian Mufti: "Women are Meat."

Australia's Grand Mufti, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali said that the 9 Lebanese men who were convicted of the infamous Sydney Gang Rapes were not entirely to blame for their crimes.
The cleric said that there were women who "sway suggestively" and wore make-up and immodest dress ... "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years".

Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.
"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."



Here is a transcript of an interview by Australia's version of 60 minutes with 2 of the 4 victims of these vicious attacks. You can see how these teenage girls were kidnapped and transported to various locations and repeatedly and savagely gang-raped.

At one point one of the Lebanese rapists said,"You deserve it because you're an Australian."

Here is the Wikipedia article on the rapes. The first one occurred on August 10, 2000 where two women, aged 17 and 18 were kidnapped and taken to Greenacre where they were forced to fellate eight Muslim males. One of the rapists called the victim an "Aussie Pig" and then asked her if "Leb cock tasted better than Aussie cock" and explained to her that she would be now be raped "Leb-style".

The Nine eventually received a combined total of 240 years in jail.

This shows clearly that the fundamental attitudes in Islam contribute to a culture in which women are seen primarily as chattel. According to a study in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, the likelihood of rapist being born abroad (ie. in a Muslim country) is four times higher than for those born in Sweden.

There is a virtual "epidemic" of Muslims raping women in Norway and Sweden. Fjordman wrote back in 2005 that the Norwegian and Swedish governments may be "looking the other way" when it comes to Muslim rapists because of Political Correctness sensitivities.

Swedish laws prohibiting "hate speech" against racial minorities have been vigorously enforced. There have, for example, been a number of gang-rapes of Swedish women by Muslim immigrants. But Swedes must be careful what they say about them. On May 25, neo-Nazi Bjorn Bjorkqvist was convicted and sentenced to two months in prison for writing, "I don't think I am alone in feeling sick when reading about how Swedish girls are raped by immigrant hordes."



Robert Spencer writes about Jihadi rapes over at Jihad watch. He points out that Mohammed explicitly permitted himself and his followers to take sex slaves from among the conquered.

Ahhh...the Religion of Peace strikes again.

Well sadly this is heading our way if we don't start stepping up and affirming that immigrants are to be American first and not tied to their country of origin. These are the types of results you get when you import people who do not share your values. Parts of France are now 30% Muslim. The police are getting ambushed, attacked and beaten. Do they use deadly force to protect their own lives and the lives of their fellow officers? No. Because political correctness and the false belief that Muslims are a "protected minority" keep the police from doing their jobs - protecting citizens and property.

Just like their fellow Fascists through the years, Islamofacists love to control, dominate and humiliate. Using their religion as an excuse to rape and murder is just one reason why these savages need to be wiped off the planet.

24 October 2006

Al-jazeera Gloats over Death of Bush

Accuracy in Media reports that Al-jazeera has posted a review of the movie "Death of a president" by entitling the story "Death Becomes Bush" on its website.



From AIM:
Even liberals seem uncomfortable with Al-Jazeera's latest ploy.
A left-wing blogger at the Huffington Post called it Al-Jazeera "comin' out swinging," as he noted the headline on the Al-Jazeera website over a story about a movie depicting the assassination of President Bush. The headline said: "Death Becomes Bush," as if Al-Jazeera wanted Bush dead.


The film features Bush getting killed by a sniper while campaigning in Chicago in 2007. The director of the film said in an interview that no one should take away from the film that they're endorsing the assassination of the president.

Naaa ... how could we?

The Al-jazeera story comes from the network that interviewed US envoy Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department who offered an unusually candid assessment of America’s war in Iraq.

“We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq,” he said.

Al-jezeera also ran a poll in which it was revealed that 49.9% support Osama bin Laden and 79.8% believe the war in Iraq is a war on Islam itself. George Galloway has appeared on Al-jazeera claiming to be broke and asking viewers to send him money. And let's not forget that every terrorist Jihadi-bin-laden-al-zaheeri video has come gleaming across the continents via Al-jazeera.

23 October 2006

The Scorecard

The Scorecard: How to fix your Man in One Year or Less is a book that I'm helping to support. One of the authors is the wife of a brethren Chicago Police officer. I haven't read it yet as I'm juggling 3 books right now on my nightstand but it's on my Amazon WishList.

scorecard_cover

If you're interested in improving your relationship with your wife, husband, fiance or significant other - this book may give you some guidance. Here are some highlights & tips from it:

Simple ways to start fixing your man – and marriage:
*Brag, don’t nag. Reinforce and recognise good behaviour by praising him.
*Be polite. Never raise your voice.
*If you ask for his opinion, pay attention to it.
*Never put him down in front of his children.
*Don’t sign his name on joint Christmas and birthday cards.
*Compliment each other every day.
*Talk for at least 15 minutes each day.
*Support without stifling. In other words, back off!
*Remember, if one person in a marriage is transformed, so is their mate.

I'm keeping an open mind about the topic because, at face value, it seems like another "Man=Bad / Woman=Good" tome but I'm sure it's not all one-sided.

My favorite book about relationships was Dr. Laura Schlessinger's book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands

My wife thought the premise of her book patently absurd but, the fundamental truth of the book was simple. Dr. Laura asserts that man is a "very simple creature," who needs only "direct communication, respect, appreciation, food, and good loving'" to respond with devotion, compassion and love. She claims that every woman can achieve a deeply satisfying marriage if she adheres to certain fundamentals men require. Preparing dinner, caring for the children without complaint, greeting her husband with a kiss and engaging in sexual intimacy instead of "tearing down a husband's necessary sense of strength and importance" can result in the harmonious marriage women crave.

Now that's what I'm saying! We are simple creatures to keep happy - it's astounding how so many women delve into overly complex issues when it comes to their husbands. As Dr. Laura says,"Drop the score keeping, make him something to eat and then have sex with him."

Sounds like the perfect recipe for a happy hubby!

21 October 2006

Obama: Walking in Clinton's footsteps

Is it just me or is Barack Obama all over the place in the Mainstream Media lately?

obama

Teri O'brien puts fingers to keyboard and enlightens us as to what's really going on with Barack "The Man-God" Obama. He's all over the MSM because the DNC is desperate to get black and hispanic voters out for the upcoming mid-term elections.

Barack Obama has been featured in theChicago Tribune, in Chicago magazine, in Time magazine, in Street prophets, NPR, NewsWeek, Larry King Live, and, of course, Oprah is openly endorsing BO for president.

Of course she's endorsing him ... he's black and so is she. You go Girl!

Obama’s great talent is the ability to cloak his socialist leanings and plans(“health care is a right,” “when we start talking about family values we start focusing very narrowly on things like abortion or gay marriage, but what we don’t spend enough time talking about is are mothers and fathers getting paid enough so they can support their kids and send them to college”) in a warm and fuzzy mask of perfect reasonableness and non-partisanship. In this regard, he runs laps around his Illinois colleague, Sen. Dick “Eddie Haskell” Durbin, who no matter how he tries, still comes off as a bug-eyed, fleshy-faced phony. Obama is a cool, smooth deceiver, the ultimate salesman, able to say inconsistent, or even false, things and yet convince many listeners that his is absolutely sincere. He represents the triumph of image over ideas. As such, he is the perfect democrat politician, with an ability to twist and distort the truth unseen since Bill Clinton. He is the walking embodiment of the most important arrow in the liberal quiver, the one without which they’d be lucky to break double digits in any election, stealth.


Why so much media exposure for the Brilliant-One? Because as a shill for the Democratic party, Obama must go out and start working the black and hispanic voting base on behalf of his DNC masters.

obama_clinton_sax

No one with any political savvy believes that OB is going to the White House. He is on par with Slick Willy Clinton - transparent, well-groomed, eloquent and charming. And just like Bill Clinton, Obama is all flash and no flavor. He sticks to the Democratic National Committee's talking points and agenda. He's their foot soldier who knows which side his bread is buttered. But don't expect the press to root around too deeply around OB - they're too busy spinning the yarn that OB is warm and fuzzy. Photo essays showing OB at home with his wife, making orange juice and kissing his kids good bye are all over the place.

So let's dig down and shed some light on Obama. His voting record in the senate is atrocious. He's voted exactly the same as Dick Durbin in virtually every category. Obama talks centrist but he's clearly and unequivocally Left of Center. The Tribune reported State GOP Chairman Murray Clark said Indiana Democrats were "blinded" by Obama's star power and apparently think he represents Hoosier values. But he said in 2005, Obama had a 100 percent voting record according to what he called "the far-left" organization Americans for Democratic Action.
"Whether it's wanting to cut and run in Iraq or obstructing highly qualified judges, Sen. Obama has a voting record that matches Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy," Clark said. "A vote for Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth or Baron Hill is a vote to further the agenda of the far left."

obama_tards

Let's break down the senator's voting record to see where he really stands on the issues and you tell me if he's a moderate:

Voted against the amendment to make marriage between a Man and a Woman only.
Voted against the original Patriot Act amendment (12/2005)
Voted against making English the official national language.
Voted against putting up a double-layered fence at the Mexican/US border

Here is a table I put together to show the voting records for Barack Obama (BO) and Dick Durbin (DD) for this year. The tables can be found here. Notice that they differed on only 2 votes out of the 20:

DateVoteDEMOCRAT PositionOBDD
9/29/06Vote 263: On the Cloture Motion: Child Interstate Abortion Notification ActNoNoNo
9/29/06Vote 262: H R 6061: H.R. 6061; Secure Fence Act of 2006YesYesNo
9/29/06Vote 261: H R 5631: H.R.5631 Conference Report; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007YesYesYes
9/28/06Vote 260: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 6061; Secure Fence Act of 2006NoNoNo
9/28/06Vote 259: S 3930: S. 3930 As Amended; Military Commissions Act of 2006NoNoNo
9/28/06Vote 258: S 3930: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5088; To provide for the protection of United States persons in the implementation of treaty obligations.YesYesYes
9/28/06Vote 257: S 3930: Byrd Amdt. 5104; To prohibit the establishment of new military commissions after December 31, 2011.YesYesYes
9/28/06Vote 256: S 3930: Rockefeller Amdt. No. 5095; To provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs.YesYesYes
9/28/06Vote 255: S 3930: Specter Amdt. No. 5087; To strike the provision regarding habeas review.YesYesYes
9/27/06Vote 254: S 3930: Levin Amdt. No. 5086; In the nature of a substitute.YesYesYes
9/25/06Vote 253: On the Nomination: Confirmation Francisco Augusto Besosa, of Puerto Rico, to be U.S. District JudgeYesYesYes
9/20/06Vote 252: On the Cloture Motion: Proceed to H.R. 6061; Secure Fence Act of 2006YesYesYes
9/19/06Vote 251: On the Nomination: Confirmation Alice S. Fisher, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney GeneralNoNoNo
9/19/06Vote 250: H R 5684: H.R. 5684; United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActNoYesNo
9/14/06Vote 249: H R 4954: H.R.4954 as Amended; Security and Accountability For Every Port Act or the SAFE Port ActYesYesYes
9/14/06Vote 248: H R 4954: Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 4930; To improve maritime container security by ensuring that foreign ports participating in the Container Security Initiative scan all containers shipped to the United StatesNoNoNo
9/14/06Vote 247: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R.4954; Security and Accountability For Every Port Act or the SAFE Port ActYesYesYes
9/13/06Vote 246: H R 4954: Menendez Amdt. No. 4999; To improve the security of cargo containers destined for the United States.YesYesYes
9/13/06Vote 245: H R 4954: Coleman Amdt. No. 4982; To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that all cargo containers are screened before arriving at a United States seaport.YesYesYes
9/13/06Vote 244: On the Motion: Motion to Table Biden Amdt. No. 4975; To establish a Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust FundNoNoNo


You can further compare OB to Bill Clinton. Look at Clinton's 1992 announcement speech. Clinton lists all manner of initiatives that he couldn't and didn't do anything to fix. What he didn't bother telling the American people in that speech is that Democratic initiatives going back to the 1960's were directly responsible for drug use, illiteracy, divisiveness, illegitimacy and crime. But Slick Willy made the points that people wanted to hear; he intoned how "blessed" he was, extolled the virtues of his wife Hillary - positioning themselves in a united front, and gave lip service to "maintaining a strong America."

He then made this comment, which in hindsight, is hysterical: The country is headed in the wrong direction fast, slipping behind, losing our way...and all we have out of Washington is status quo paralysis. No vision, no action. Just neglect, selfishness, and division.
For 12 years, Republicans have tried to divide us - race against race - so we get mad at each other and not at them. They want us to look at each other across a racial divide so we don't turn and look to the White House and ask, why are all of our incomes going down, why are all of us losing jobs? Why are we losing our future?

Playing both sides, positioning himself initially as a left-leaner, big government fat cat then, moving decidedly to the middle after his polling data told him to, showed that Clinton was just saying whatever the people wanted to hear. Just as the press maintained an incestuous relationship with JFK, they went the same way with Bill Clinton. With Clinton, the press was warm, inviting and uninterested in digging very deep into his past. He was an expert as reframing the facts that surrounded him so that he could literally "piss in your face and you'd think it was raining."

I'm seriously concerned with the MSM's ramp up on Barack Obama. When they throw so much time, effort and coverage at one person, it shows how entrenched their agenda is to get that person into office.

It should be a huge Red Flag and, thankfully I think many people can see through the smoke and mirrors. In all of these interviews with OB, he's never asked the tough questions. The interviewers just want to know his human side, discussions center around his book, his father, his mother, his wife and his kids.

Ultimately, the press doesn't care if Barack Obama is good for the country. For them it's just enough to know that he's a well educated black man who doesn't talk like a gang-banging thug. And he shares their core beliefs in Big Government, Cut & Run and higher Taxes.

And just like Clinton, he can talk for hours about absolutely nothing of substance.

God help us.

Supporting Illegals: Not Cheap

Back in 1994 when Ross Perot was running for President, he made one of the most memorable remarks to come out of a presidential race. It wasn't as memorable as Reagan's "Well, Fritz - there you go again" remark to Walter Mondale but, it turned out to be prophetic.

I'm paraphrasing but when Perot was discussing NAFTA, he said in his trademark Lollipop Guild voice, "If NAFTA passes, you're going to hear a great sucking sound coming from south of the border."

How right he was. Indeed you can probably hear a tremendous sucking sound if you live in AZ, TX or NM - it's the sound of US currency flooding the Mexican economy. It's not entirely the fault of NAFTA but the program is a peripheral cause. It is mainly due to the flood of illegal immigrants.

According to the Houston Chronicle. illegals in Texas will send $5.2 billion US dollars to Latin America [primarily Mexico]. That is up 64% over 2004 numbers. California will send back $13.2 billion

Tammy Bruce writes about the economic impact of having so many billions flowing out of the US:

Wait until you get to the actual spin of this particular story: we are essentially asked to accept this because while they do send billions and billions out of the country, illegals allegedly spend most of their money here (obviously not on health care with the rate our hospitals, trauma centers and emergency rooms are closing), sending only a supposed 10 percent "back home."
The point, however, is not how much illegals spend here and send there--it is the fact that we're dealing with billions of dollars that should be in the pockets of American workers; money which in its entirety would remain here, and without the concomitant abuse and destruction of our infrastructure, including health care, roads, schools, law enforcement and the judicial system. All provided to people who do not pay taxes, and have the gall, instead of paying for health insurance, to send tens of billions out of the country entirely.
What's fascinating to me, is the Republicans still seem to have no clue that it is illegal immigration that has angered the base more than any other issue, including the president's maniacal spending. Democrats, especially people of color and those who live in the inner city, who are perpetually taken for granted by the Democrat party, are the first ones to be fundamentally harmed by this illegal alien invasion. That party is also so disconnected it has no clue (or more likely, as I argue, actually doesn't care) how this scourge affects the life of the average American.


A related story out of Tucson reports that pro-illegal immigrant groups have signed a "hospitality" agreement with the government of Mexico to allow the groups to prepare and assist Mexicans, who are south of the border, to enter the US illegally.

Nice.

It is interesting to note that the Mexican government actively supports, guides and helps its citizens enter the United States illegally. The illegals then come here and start sending billions of US currency back to Mexico. It seems to me that the Mexican government can get behind their citizens because all the people in Mexico consider themselves Mexican first. When they come here they're still enamored of Mexico. They want to maintain their culture, their language and - after having made enough money - will go back to Mexico and purchase a rancho with their "hard-earned" savings. That begs the question: Where is the United States government's support and aid for its citizens? It seems that as soon as the illegal crosses the border, the US automatically bestows "rights" upon that individual. A pregnant Mexican can come across illegally and her offspring is now a full fledged American.

Years ago I wondered why socialized welfare programs seemed to work in countries like Sweden, Norway and Holland (this was before immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East swarmed into those countries, stressing their social services to the point of collapse). And it occurred to me that those programs worked in those countries because the recipients of welfare in Sweden were people who's first priority was being Swedish. The same of those in Norway - they're Norwegians getting welfare. They are identified with their culture and their nation.

Not here. We have so many millions of people who consider themselves anything BUT American. There is no esprit de corps. The liberal establishment has been hard at work telling you that Nationalism is a bad thing. The Liberal media won't show the Jihadis beheading people, they don't show the World Trade Centers getting hit, they don't show you positive stories coming out of Iraq. All you get is a big dollup of Guilt for being an American. The media gives people who are critical of America full voice to air their grievances.

Drive through a "depressed" section of Chicago around the 4th of July and count the number of American flags being flown - for every 100 homes you'll see 1 flag. A stopped a 16-year old Maniac Latin Disciple who was standing on Fullerton avenue waving a Mexican flag. I asked him what he was doing. His answer was, "Celebrating my independence." He was born here in the US and didn't speak spanish. I asked him if he knew what the meaning of September 16th was. He just stared at me with a blank look and shrugged his shoulders. He didn't know. Many of these kids have no idea about US history and barely know the history of the culture that they supposedly celebrate and identify with. All they want is to eat, drink, smoke and fuck. Sadly there is a whole generation of these empty, vapid truants being raised by single mothers. And when they get out of the gangbanging, the only job they're qualified to do is work as movers.

From Frontpage magazine, back in April:

But it is not “cheap labor.” It may be “cheap” to those who pay the wages, but for the rest of us it is clearly “subsidized” labor, as we taxpayers pick up the costs of education, health, and other municipal costs imposed by this workforce. That has become a substantial and growing cost as the nature of illegal immigration patterns has changed.
Illegal immigration today isn’t “cheap” labor, except to the employer. To the rest of us it is “subsidized labor,” where a few get the benefit and the rest of us pay. These costs ought to be obvious to all, but the myth of “cheap labor” and “jobs Americans won’t do” persists
.
It is hard to get an exact profile of the people who live in the underground economy, but the average family of illegal immigrants has 2 to 4 school-age kids. It costs U.S. taxpayers more than $7000 a child just to educate them in our public schools. Now no minimum wage workers, or even low wage workers, pay anywhere near enough in taxes to pay for even one child in school. Even if their parents were paying all federal and state taxes, Colorado’s estimated 30,000 school-age children of workers illegally in the U.S. impose gargantuan costs on other taxpayers.

The dilemma is compounded by the fact that approximately 50 percent of illegal workers are paid in cash, off the books. Go to any construction site almost anywhere in America, and you will find workers paid cash wages. Virtually every city in America has an area where illegals gather and people come by to get “cheap” cash-wage labor.



From the same article: Professor George Borjas of Harvard, an immigrant himself, estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market from newcomers.

The only thing cheap about illegal labor is the saving to the employer.

You and I and all other taxpaying American citizens make up the difference. To the tune of billions.

¡Despiert√°nse norteamericanos!

19 October 2006

CNN airs video of "insurgent" snipers

CNN aired a video last night which showed a 3-man Iraqi sniper team, systematically killing US soldiers in Iraq.

Today, due to a storm of criticism, they aired a clarification as to why they decided to show the footage.

I read their explanation and it is utter fluff. The fundamental reason why they aired it was to garner ratings and to aid and abet the enemy. Helping the enemy by demoralizing and demonizing US troops seems to be CNN's raison d'etre.

A guy named Junior left this comment over at LGF:

#19 Junior - 10/19/2006 07:24PM PDT
 
What CNN will show: Abu Ghraib photos, American soldiers' coffins, 25 war protesters when they claim they will have thousands, more Abu Ghraib photos, videos of jihadists picking off American soldiers, enemy propaganda, a running death toll of Americans in Iraq eagerly awaiting the next thousand mark, Sheehan, and on and on.

What CNN will not show: 9/11 footage or photos, the running death toll of jihadists, ANY continuous footage of the riots from France or anywhere else in Europe, any tapes from MEMRI, Muhammad cartoons, jihadist beheading of innocent people (even journalists), the thousands of successes of our troops in Iraq, and on and on.

We all know whose side they are on. Whores of the Caliphate; all.
They are so blinded by their hatred of one man that they have sold their souls to the death cult of radical Islam.


Here is LGF's original link.

UPDATE: Meet Marine 2 Lt. Joshua Booth, murdered by an Iraqi sniper

18 October 2006

Video says it all



If you're not voting Republican, this may change your mind. It puts it all into its proper perspective.
The Dems have utter fools running their show, and its nothing but "doom-gloom" and selective amnesia. Don't be fooled by their slight of hand tricks.

Blair: "Muslim culture is divisive"

The comment most used in the press is "how can we integrate Muslims?" The question should be turned around: "When will Muslims choose to integrate and assimilate into their host countries?" The difference is profound. The first question puts the onus on the host country to change. We have seen how this type of appeasement simply paralyzes the immigrant Muslims into remaining secreted away inside their ethnic enclaves. The latter puts the burden of responsibility on the Muslims, exactly where it belongs. Muslims must choose to conform to the mores and culture of their host countries.

But conforming to the culture of "The Great Satan" can be difficult. Just as with the black community in the US, if a Muslim wants to integrate he may be criticized by his fellow Muslims as a traitor. Back in August, Sajid Mahmood, a 24-year-old fast bowler [cricket pitcher] born in the northern town of Bolton, produced the finest performance of his career to lead England to a vital victory against the touring Pakistani cricket team. For his troubles, Mahmood was heckled and labeled a traitor by a section of the crowd. Mahmood took the abuse--hurled by a group of vocal British Muslims--in stride, but the moment offered a snapshot of two possible futures for British Muslims: welcome integration into the mainstream or a retreat into isolation, bigotry, and violence.

The fundamental problem with Muslim integration is that fact that they don't consider themselves to be British. Eventhough a majority of immigrant Muslims in Britain sought and were granted asylum, reaping welfare and housing benefits, there doesn't seem to be much gratitude on the part of the Islamic community. How can someone expect an immigrant to assimilate when they consider themselves anything but British:

A recent opinion survey of Muslims carried out by Channel 4 News concluded that just 44 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds feel Britain is their country, and 51 percent of them believe September 11 was the result of an American-Israeli conspiracy. Furthermore, 30 percent of British Muslims would like to live under sharia law, and 28 percent would like Great Britain to become an Islamic state. These findings, alas, cannot be considered the result of a rogue poll. A Pew Research Center survey this year found that 81 percent of British Muslims consider themselves Muslim first and British second. As Timothy Garton Ash noted in a prescient piece in Thursday's Guardian, "This is a higher proportion than in Jordan, Egypt or Turkey, and exceeded only by that in Pakistan (87%)." No wonder the Channel 4 pollsters concluded that nearly one in ten British Muslims "can be classified as 'Hardcore Islamists' who are unconcerned by trifles like freedom of speech."


Blair is correct to point out that the burqa and hajib are divisive. The Liberal British intelligensia has been giving in to Muslim cultural "requirements" for the last 30 years so now Muslims simply expect to live and operate in British society under their own set of special laws.

When you account for less then 3% of a population, you really have no right to impose your limited set of beliefs on the majority population. But the opposite has been happening in Britain for a long time. From "Londonistan" by Melanie Phillips:
"Until forty years ago, British society had been relatively homogeneous. True, the nation had originally been forged from waves of invasion by Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans: but for around 1,000 years, its demographic profile remained remarkably stable. Such immigrations that occurred during that time, such as by the Irish, the Huguenots or the Jews from Eastern Europe, were on a very small scale. During that period, British national identity centered upon a set of traditions, laws and customs arising out of its Christian heritage. This strong majoritarian culture meant that minorities were expected to fit in."

She goes on to say that Multiculturalism has become the driving force in British life, ruthlessly enforcing a doctrine of state-financed army of local and national bureaucrats enforcing a doctrine of state-mandated virtue to promote racial, ethnic and cultural difference and stamp out majority values. British institutions have been brainwashed to believe that they themselves are intrinically racist and, therefore, "nonjudgmentalism" is the new law of the land.

And if the British want to look to their leaders for some support, don't cast your gaze upon the Prince of Wales for help. He has been very vocal about how much he loves the Islamic culture. Prior to the July London bombings, Prince Charles was quoted as saying, "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational." In a major address on Islam on October 27, 1993, at the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford where he is a vice patron of the Centre for Islamic Studies, Charles declared: 
“Our judgment of Islam has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to the norm. . . . For example, people in this country frequently argue that the Sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric and unjust. Our newspapers, above all, love to peddle those unthinking prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex. My own understanding is that extremes, like the cutting off of hands, are rarely practiced. The guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law, taken straight from the Qur'an, should be those of equity and compassion.” (Londonistan, pg 67)

Unbelievably he went on to suggest that the Islamic world had just as much respect for Women's rights, and maybe more, than they did in Europe.

No one wants to limit Muslims' free exercise of their religion and no one is calling for that. We simply want to live in a country where we ALL feel united in our national identity. If I went to Germany, I'd attempt to learn the language, wear lederhosen and drink lots of beer. That's because it is inherently a courteous act to conform to your host country's culture. It's disrespectful to act otherwise. And you can't entirely blame the Muslims for asking for the Sun, Moon and Stars when they enter a new country. Europe has given them everything and more than what they asked for, why not continue to demand? The chances are very good that the Liberals in those countries will give you exactly what you asked for.

So it comes down to this: Do our leaders have the courage to call these immigrant groups on their divisive behaviors. Apparently Tony Blair now does, since he's leaving office soon. What about Bush? Hardly. He's too busy pandering to the illegal immigrants and laying out pork like blubber on a Japanese whaling ship.

So while Bush probably received some very clear and courageous guidance from his talkradio friends, it appears that he doesn't have the courage to act on it.

17 October 2006

Bush brings in the cheerleaders

As an avid listener to conservative talkradio (WIND and WLS), it was no surprise to hear the news that a select few talk shows hosts were called into the White House to meet with President Bush. With the prospect of "Speaker Pelosi" I'm not surprised.

The list includes Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, and Mike Gallagher. Rush Limbaugh was invited but was unable to attend. The meeting lasted about 90 minutes and the transcript of what was discussed remains off-the-record. Some details of the meeting were leaked. Apparently Bush told his guests that the war on terror has to be about right versus wrong, "because if it's about Christianity versus Islam, we'll lose."

Other subjects reportedly discussed were interrogation rules for suspected terrorists, immigration and Bush’s thoughts on various foreign leaders. Neal Boortz said that Bush gave them a short tour of his private dining room. He also showed them the pistol Saddam Hussein had when he was captured.

I heard Micheal Medved and Laura Ingraham both discuss the meeting with the President on their respective talkshows. They both refused to disclose details of the meeting.

And everytime I hear them mention it, it makes them sound like they're waving it in your face ("I met with the president, and you didn't! Nah, nah, na-na-nah!)

But it speaks volumes that the only hosts who were invited are those that carry Bush's water on virtually all his policies. I've only heard them (Ingraham and Medved) criticize Bush on two fronts: 1.) that he's soft on immigration and 2.) that he's not out in front of the people making his case more often.

It's interesting that there two voices left out of this "inner circle" - Micheal Savage and Mark Levin. It's apparent that Bush wanted only ideas and not criticisms during this junta.

The BlogFather has alot to say about why the Republicans will get their asses handed to them this November :

1.The Terri Schiavo affair: The bitterness it aroused, which was substantial, opened a fracture in the GOP coalition: Social-conservatives against the rest. And as I noted at the time, the social conservatives were pretty nasty to the rest. No, it wasn't really a case of "theocracy" at work, as people like Ralph Nader agreed with the social conservatives. But the haste to enact federal legislation over a matter of state law, and the mean-spiritedness with which those who disagreed were treated, did the Bush coalition no good. What's more, as I noted at the time (see first link above), this wasn't enough to make the social conservatives happy anyway. Politically, I think this marked the beginning of the end.
2. The Harriet Miers debacle: Plenty of warning in the blogs that this was a big mistake, but all ignored by the White House and Congressional leadership. Social conservatives were mad here, and so was anyone who cared about the credentials of nominees. The nomination was withdrawn, but the damage was done.
3. The Dubai Ports disaster: Here I think that the Administration was on defensible ground from a policy perspective, but its ham-handed approach -- once again ignoring early warnings from the blogs -- turned it into a mess, and cost it major credibility with its national security constituency. The Administraiton was bumbling and inept in addressing this matter, which gained currency because of its flaccid stance on the cartoon Jihad. The consequence: Lost faith from its strongest constituency.
4. Immigration: Another unforced error. The national security constituency once again lost faith in the Administration. You can't talk about secure borders when the borders are porous. The Administration also failed to make a strong clear argument for immigration, outsourcing that to the Wall Street Journal, which did its best but couldn't do the President's job. Again, the White House's position on immigration was defensible in the abstract, but favoring easy immigration is one thing, favoring easy illegal immigration is another.
5. William Jefferson: A Democratic Congressman is caught in a bribery scandal with a freezer full of cash, and Dennis Hastert backs him up, making clear that protection of insider privilege is more important to the Republican leadership in Congress than either party or principle. The White House, at least, intervened here, eventually. Add to this the GOP leadership's failure to follow through on promised ethics reforms, and its addiction to pork-barrel spending, and you've got lots of reason to think that they don't stand for anything except stuffing their pockets.
6. Foleygate: Not much of a scandal in itself, but the last straw for a lot of people. As Rich Lowry noted, a long chain of missteps and self-serving actions has exhausted their stock of moral and political capital, leaving them vulnerable to, well, almost anything. This was probably enough.

At the end of this process, the Republicans have managed to leave every segment of the base unhappy, mostly over things that weren't even all that important. It's as if they had some sort of bizarre death wish. Looks like the wish will come true . . . .

As I've said before, the Republicans deserve to lose, though alas the Democrats don't really deserve to win, either. I realize that you go to war with the political class you have, but even back in the 1990s it was obvious that we had a lousy political class. It hasn't improved, but the challenges have gotten greater. Can the country continue to do well, with such bad political leadership? I hope so, because I see no sign of improvement, no matter who wins next month.


RINOS like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Lincoln Chaffee should be ashamed of themselves. Another issue that upsets Republican supporters is the incestuous bed of duplicity that Bush has maintained throughout his tenure.

Anti-Idiotarian blog wrote a scathing piece back in April :

Oh yes, it’s going to be a fun, fun November this year.
President “Wide Open Borders, as Long as You’re a Criminal” Bush and his kissing cousin Ted Kennedy’s deal to reward criminal activity and thus ensure even more of the same (that’s called “logic.” Reward something — get more of it. Punish something — get less of it) continues apace with Senate RINOs fellating Democrats left, right and center.

President Bush and a group of senators yesterday reached general agreement on an immigration bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for many illegal aliens.
But left out of the closed-door White House meeting were senators who oppose a path to citizenship. The meeting even snubbed two men who had been considered allies of Mr. Bush on immigration — Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and chairman of the immigration subcommittee, and Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.

There’s more, and LC & IB Michelle Malkin is livid. With excellent reason.
You better hope and pray that those Democrats that you’re kissing up to remember your obeisance when November passes and they suddenly find themselves with control of the House and/or Senate, Bush. It’d be such a shame if you were to spend the last two years of your Administration running from the impeachment proceedings that the Donks have been dying to put into motion ever since you took office, wouldn’t it? A shame only mitigated by the sheer entertainment value of watching an asshole who’s been pissing on the ones who got him elected ever since he moved into 1600 Penn Ave being hounded like a cheer leader wandering into the Kennedy compound by mistake with a bottle of Scotch in each hand.

Enjoy your imminent minority status, you lying, treacherous, arrogant RINO assholes. You earned it. In spades. Along with our eternal and undying derision and scorn.



I hope that come November 8th, I'm writing a blog post entitled "The Rumors of my Death were Greatly Exagerated" with regards to the Republican party.

Hope springs eternal. Maybe the GOP will start actually acting like the Republican party sometime before the elections.

14 October 2006

Schoolgirl arrested for refusing to sit with Muslims

Coming to a school near you ---

Michael Savage has a link to an outrageous story over at the Daily Mail which shows just how insane political correctness has gotten in the UK. It is a story that is fit for the pages of The Onion. Unfortunately this story is not fictional - it actually happened.

The teacher of a 14-year old girl put her with a group of "Asian" students (UK newspeak for Muslim) who only spoke Urdu. When the student approached her teacher and asked to be moved to a different group because she couldn't understand the other students, the teacher accused the student of being "racist" and called the police.

The teenager had not been in school the day before due to a hospital appointment and had missed the start of a project, so the teacher allocated her a group to sit with.
"She said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils," said Codie yesterday.
"Only one could speak English, so she had to tell that one what to do so she could explain in their language. Then she sat me with them and said 'Discuss'."
According to Codie, the five - four boys and a girl - then began talking in a language she didn't understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.
"I said 'I'm not being funny, but can I change groups because I can't understand them?' But she started shouting and screaming, saying 'It's racist, you're going to get done by the police'."
Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.


The girl was arrested and questioned by police whether she committed a "Section five racial public order offence." She was eventually released without charging.

This story elucidates perfectly where we are headed if we continue to subscribe to the nonsense that underlies the tenets of political correctness. It is no surprise that one of the Minutemen of totalitarianism is none other than a Liberal school teacher. The same people that are charged with teaching our children, are also poisoning them with their cultural diversity agendas.

The article seems to prove the adage: "there is nothing common about common sense."

13 October 2006

Whatever Bono says, Do the opposite

The beautiful thing about being a LibTard is that you get accolades and praise for being a poseur. You can talk with nothing more than empty rhetoric and vapid platitudes - and be called a Hero. But when it comes to the frontman for the Irish pop band U2, don't let the greasy, hippy, unkempt look and the Irish accent fool you. Bono is a rich man and is just as elitist and insular as Michael Jackson.

Bono and some others have recently put their celebrity weight behind the Red Campaign. A tithing campaign of sorts in which producers forward a percentage of their sales to African relief agencies so that anti-HIV drugs can be purchased. The (red) products are being sold for a significantly higher price than their regular retail price.

Sounds very noble. Too bad it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Here is what the Red "manifesto" looks like:
red.manifesto

Does the Manifesto look familiar? It looks like the Communist Manifesto to me.

Bono and Oprah did some public relations by being photographed in front of a bunch of red-clad screaming groupies in order to promote the launch of a Red iPod line.

This is nothing but pure grandstanding. Bono gets credit for "doing something" about, yet another, dead-end Third World initiative. Oprah gets to focus on how wonderful she is - when she's probably anything but in private ("m'thinks the lady doth protest too much."). Look at all the other female celebrities who were lauded as "nice" - Katie Couric, Rosie O'donnell, Martha Stewart - all have been shown to have a significant dark side to their character. I'm sure the reason why Oprah has all of her employees sign a non-disclosure contract (which she rigorously enforces through the courts) is nothing more than another example of how "compassionate" she is. And the manufacturers of the various products get positive public relations, product placement and a bigger bottom line through higher sales.

It's a Win/Win --- for everyone except the people dying in Africa.

Michael Medved writes, "The exploitation of trendy African imagery is a bit laughable in some of the (RED) promotions. For instance, Converse is offering special (RED) shoes “made of Mali mud cloth, a traditional woven cotton fabric that is painted with dyes made of mud and bark.” Isn’t it just a bit laughable that some of the nation’s most trendy and well-heeled sophisticates will over-pay for shoes made of “mud cloth” and dyed with “mud and bark”?

He goes on to point out that it is laughable that many of the ads use sex to promote the products which are designed to help a campaign which is caused by rampant sexual excesses.

And then we have the people who are involved in this campaign - Bono, Oprah and WJClinton:

Mr. Bono is no saint and may even be called a hypocrite. According to WikiPedia, Bono has some 'splaining to do:
As the leader of the "Drop The Debt" Campaign, Bono has been strongly criticised in asking the top richest 25 countries to drop the debt to the poorest countries, in effect requesting the tax payers to foot such debt. The criticism was underlined by virtue of the fact that Bono has recently moved his accounts base to Amsterdam in order to avoid tax payable on artists royalties - a tax artists in Ireland wouldn't have had to pay up to recently.[citation needed]
U2 were able to exploit a 1969 artists-tax exemption, intended to help struggling artists, until it was semi-repealed in 2005 and pay relatively little tax despite their great wealth, estimated at €690 million+ by the Sunday Times. This, coupled with his charity campaigning has led to accusations, in the Irish media, that he is two-faced [citation needed]. When he criticised the Irish government for not meeting the DATA target of 0.7% of GDP to be set aside for the 3rd World a government minister, Conor Lenihan, suggested that if he paid his taxes then the government would be halfway to meeting the figure.
He has also been accused of hypocrisy[citation needed] for his decision to buy a 40%, £160 million share in Forbes magazine, as its pro-capitalism, right-wing politics are seemingly at odds with Bono's left-wing campaigning. Bono is reported to be an avid reader of the publication. An article in The Daily Mail on 12 August 2006 also presented a different picture of him than his own publicity. He is an owner of several luxury houses, a fleet of expensive cars and is a noted wine connoisseur who regularly spends thousands on a single bottle at his favourite New York restaurants. And despite his campaiging for reduction in fuel emissions, along with the other members of U2 he purchased an Airbus A320 to fly them around the world on their latest tour. His interest in making money was noted by investment expert Roger McNamee with whom he formed Elevation Partners, which invested £200 million merging two computer games firms. Sources also report he is interested in buying a stake in the large U.S newspaper group Knight Ridder in addition to his well-publicised
~Wikipedia


Bono and his liberal compatriots go full force after easy marks: global warming, starving children, thirdworld debt reduction, Land Mine elimination and addressing the Aids "epidemic". The easiest position to take are those that favor Children and Puppies. These vapid fools don't stand before the cameras criticizing Militant Islam, with the attendant murders of innocents. Each beheading video out of al-Jazeerah is met with deafening silence by the collective Left. Do you know why? It is easy to figure that one out. It's because Leftists are cowards.



The fact is that this campaign will do absolutely nothing to help the people in Africa. The reason that it won't help them is because their problems are rooted in their behaviors, not in the amount of drugs that they have access to. Look at all the money that is spent. Over the last 50 years, over $1 trillion dollars have been pumped into Africa in an attempt to jumpstart a "Big Push" in economic development. No "Big Push" has occured. The decadent and corrupt dictators line their pockets with the money and the masses continue to suffer because they aren't educated and, dare I say, aren't motivated to improve their own plight.

This chart shows clearly that pumping money into Africa does nothing:
africa_aid_charter

The BBC wrote an article on this very topic. Entitled "Why Aid doesn't work" it is a scathing indictment of the touchy-feely liberal tendancy to throw money at a problem and then hope for the best. If nothing else, writes the BBC, aid to Africa seems to have lowered rather than increased economic growth. In fact, Africa seems to have a propensity towards a closed-door society that hinders, rather than helps, its overall economic position. When similar economic aid packages were injected into fledgling Asian economies, those economies were sparked into action. Thus the "Asian Tiger" was born. Sadly no such ignition occured in Africa.

The policies of debt elimination in Africa are destined to backfire. Why? Because it is a reverse subsidy. By eliminating the debt, the West is subsidizing poverty, illiteracy and illegitimacy. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. Geldoff says that Third World debt is a direct result of Colonialism. That is ridiculous and is on the same level of logic as saying entitlements were needed because of all those years of slavery.

Thomas Sowell has something to say about Clinton, guilt and Third World debt relief:

Are people around the world to be encouraged to look to us as their sugar daddy, instead of looking to themselves to do the things that have lifted other countries from poverty to prosperity? The whole world was once poorer than today's Third World and there was nobody to give them foreign aid.

We should also forgive Third World debt, according to Clinton. What this means, in plain English, is that American taxpayers should be lied to when they are told that their money is being lent overseas, because no one should expect the loans to be repaid. It also means that no one should expect adult responsibility from Third World rulers, who live lavishly, build monuments to themselves and stash money in Swiss bank accounts.

The vast sums of money that can be borrowed legitimately from private lenders in international financial markets make it wholly unnecessary for Third World governments to "borrow" from the U.S. government in the first place. The difference is that private borrowing requires adult responsibility and investing the money in something that is going to actually produce some tangible benefits for people other than rulers and bureaucrats.

~Thomas Sowell - "Another Outrage"




But people like Bono, Oprah and Geldof won't let the facts influence how and what they devote their energies into. If it feels good doing it, then - by God - they're going to do it. If Oprah can pump up her ratings alittle with some cross promotional product placement in her show, then she'll do it. If Bono can talk about eliminating ThirdWorld debt and that gets him an audience with George Bush - complete with photo ops - then so be it. Sign him up. World Aid, Band-Aid, Live Aid, UniCef - all have done little or nothing to affect the people in Africa.

Don't pay the outrageous price on these (red) goods. Buy the product at its regular price and donate the difference to a local charity. The money will be used much more efficiently that way.

No audience for Liberal Mouthpieces

As proof that Liberal ideas just don't play well to educated, informed and emotionally stable audiences, Air America filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

It was just a matter of time. I would listen to their broadcasts once in a while, simply to fish for new material, and the level of hysteria and rumor-mongering was astounding. The Libtards over there were just not articulate nor believable.



At least this will give Al Franken time to write a follow up to his book "Lies, and the lying liars who tell them" - maybe a good title would be "Comedy, fiction and Hollywood: A Liberal Landscape". He should have stayed doing stand up comedy and left the political commentary to more educated people.

It is probably Haliburton's fault for the demise of Air America. Bush and Cheney probably went to their Big Oil buddies and pressured the FCC to restrict the number of people who would be allowed to listen to their programming, thus forcing Air America into bankruptcy. It may be a Vast Rightwing Conspiracy!!!

Good bye to bad garbage! I'm going to have a smile on my face all day long with this news.

11 October 2006

Sex, Packers and Politics

Only in Wisconsin - yah, hey dere!

Sandy Sullivan of Oregon, Wisconsin is running for Secretary of State under the GOP ticket. She has no political experience and is expected to lose the race to the encumbent. That being said, Miss Sullivan is creating quite a stir because of the memoirs she published back in 2004, which were entitled Green Bay Love Stories and Other Affairs
In it she claimed to have affairs with Paul Hornung and Bart Starr back in the 60's during the Pack's heyday.

Upon meeting Hornung for the first time Sullivan wrote,"Here he was, in the flesh! Oh! My God! He was soooo CUTE! ... He immediately asked me out and I immediately accepted."

She quickly learned "there are two things football players think about all the time ... FOOTBALL AND SEX ... and seldom in that order."

I wonder if cheese kurds are an Aphrodesiac? Here's her website, and here's her blog.

Her most impressive talent listed on her website is - Grew up hunting and fishing - skilled marksperson

Wisconsin desperately needs some conservative backbone. It is a socialist nightmare up there. Best of luck Sandy!!!

10 October 2006

The case for voting Republican

I know! I know! (heavy sigh...) I think Bush and the Republicans have dropped the ball on a number of fronts. I've been more than tempted to chuck it all and not vote at all. I completely understand the sentiment of those who want to "send a message" to the President through the voting box. Some of the things that I see as GOP problem areas are: through-the-roof social spending, Bush's dangerous, ridiculous and unbelievable immigration policy, and - it doesn't help things that Bush still can't give a speech to save his ass. If he says "new-cler" one more time I'm going to scream! It is pronounced "nu-clee-ar" you big dope!

If you're seriously considering jumping on the Democratic bandwagon this fall, please reconsider.

The Republicans have done some very good things. The CBO says the deficit has dropped from the $423 billion to $250 billion. The CBO says the reason for the decline is better than expected tax receipts, especially from corporate profits. Because corporations have more money to keep, due to Bush's tax cuts, they're keeping more of their receipts and thus paying more taxes.

More good news is that gasoline prices are down sharply. The Dow Jones Industrials set a new record high last week. The unemployment rate now stands at 4.6 percent which is down from 6.3 percent in 2003, lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, or the 1990s, and equivalent to the unemployment rate in September 1998. Since August 2003, the economy has created 6.6 million new jobs. Those are all sterling accomplishments.

Still the Left in the MSM is in full propaganda mode in an attempt at swaying undecided voters away from the Republicans. The NYTimes ran this op-ed piece in which they continue to focus on giving terrorists just as much rights as you. They continue to hammer away at Gitmo, torture, abu-graib and the fact that Libs think that jihadis should know everything about our domestic surveillance methods. They continue to cast Bush as the root cause of all of the World's problems.

Cal Thomas over at Townhall.com writes eloquently for the case for voting Republican:
Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands.
This election isn't about House pages; it's about survival. In his new book, "America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It," columnist Mark Steyn states this irrefutable fact about the importance of winning in Iraq: "Being seen not to run - or, if you prefer, being seen to show Œresolve' - should be the indispensable objective of U.S. foreign policy. Were these colors to run from Iraq, it would be the end of the American era - for why would Russia, China, or even Belgium ever again take seriously a superpower that runs screaming for home at the first pinprick."
For all of their promises to do a better job of fighting this war, Democrats have no plan, other than retreat. That is the plan the terrorists have for us. Retreat is not in their playbook. The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don't speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home in time for Ramadan. They're in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats next month will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder.


Sure the GOP has made some mistakes but look beyond the headlines. Mistakes were made in Iraq but since when don't people make mistakes? No one said Iraq would be a 2 week war...we were prepped from the get go that this would be a long process. It took US forces 9 months to find Manuel Noriega in Panama. No wonder it's taking us so long to get Bin Laden.

The US people deserve better but they're not going to get better served by a Democratic congress. Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ned Lamont, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer are moonbats. They are the phalynx of the Unhinged Left. They don't have a plan for anything - let alone something as complex and dynamic as a War. All they fall back on is Tax and Spend. They didn't even have the wherewithal to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. Instead of focusing on national security, they continue to focus on Mark Foley. Instead of closing our borders and enforcing our laws, they're focused on working with the ACLU to remove christian symbols from county seals. Instead of identifying and naming our enemies, they're busy bestowing "human rights" onto Jihadis who want to cut your throats and claiming that "cultural diversity" and "ethnic sensitivies" are paramount considerations.

beastofburder

Sorry folks. If the Democrats get a foot in the door this November, it's going to be a very cold winter. I just hope enough of us recognize what's going on and take action.

David Limbaugh's take on the topic is insightful and a must read.