Americans say finish the job in Iraq...

Granted it's at 57%, down from last year. But still, the vast majority of Americans want the job finished in Iraq as opposed to cutting and running. This article courtesy of Newsmax.

A solid majority of Americans oppose immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, citing as a main reason the desire to finish the job of stabilizing the country, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

Some 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized, while 36 percent favor an immediate troop withdrawal. A year ago, 71 percent of respondents favored keeping troops in Iraq until it was stabilized.

In an effort to build public support for his Iraq policy, President Bush planned an Oval Office address for Sunday night to discuss the U.S. mission and what lies ahead in 2006.

The speech will be his first from the Oval Office since March 2003 when he announced the invasion of Iraq. In the past two weeks, the president has given four speeches on Iraq.

In the poll, when people were asked in an open-ended question the main reason the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq, 32 percent said to stabilize the country and 26 percent said to finish the rebuilding job under way.
Only one in 10 said they wanted to stay in Iraq to fight terrorism; just 3 percent said to protect U.S. national security.

"You've got to finish the job," said Terry Waterman, a store manager from Superior, Wis. "The whole world is looking to us for leadership. We can't have another Vietnam."

Other recent polling has found that when given additional options, many people favor a step somewhere in between having troops leave immediately and staying until the country is stabilized.

After months of unrelenting violence, millions of Iraqis turned out this past week to choose a parliament. Early estimates placed the voter turnout close to 70 percent of 15 million Iraqis voting.

Some 49 percent of Americans now say the war with Iraq was a mistake, according to the poll of 1,006 adults conducted Tuesday through Thursday. That compares with 53 percent in August. Two years ago, only 34 percent of those surveyed said the war was a mistake.
Two years ago, after ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was captured, 64 percent of respondents said the war was the right thing to do. Now, 42 percent say it was the right decision.

Over the past two years, some of the biggest shifts on whether the war was a good decision or a mistake have come among married people with children, those with low incomes and those with a high school education or less.

"Whether the war is a mistake is less relevant than what we should do now," said John McAdams, a political scientist at Marquette University in Milwaukee. "A fair number of people may think it's a mistake, but still don't want to lose."

2 days until the Iraqi elections...

Let's hope that it all goes off without a hitch like it did before. This is a huge step for the Iraqi people.

64 years ago today...

We were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Let us never forget that tragic day in American history.

National title game...

Hats off to USC and Texas for going undefeated this year, I can't wait for the title game, the month wait will be worth it.

Joe Liberman comes to terms...

This is good news, it is showing divison in the democratic party. They can't seem to agree on anything anymore.

Following up on his Wall Street Journal article Tuesday defending the Iraq war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is reminding Bush administration critics that it's wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in 2003.

"The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs," Lieberman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday.

"[Saddam] was trying to break out of the U.N. sanctions by going back into rapid redevelopment of chemical and biological and probably nuclear [weapons]," Lieberman said, calling the Iraqi dictator "a ticking time bomb."

"I have no regrets" that the U.S. toppled Saddam, the former vice presidential candidate explained. "I think we can finish are job there, and as part of it - really transform the Arab-Islamic world."


Story Continues Below


Lieberman said that his fellow Democrats haven't taken kindly to his decision to buck his party on Iraq.
"There's been some grumbling," he told Hannity. "In Connecticut there's a 'Dump Joe' web site that has cropped up."

But Lieberman added, "I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right."

Dems don't seem to care about troop morale...

I think the most important stat is on the bottom, even democrats believe this is hurting troop morale. Nothing like supporting the troops huh liberals? Oh well, this should make 2006 and 2008 easier.


Democratic Senators who say they support the troops continue to undermine their mission with harsh attacks on the Iraq war - even after a poll released over the weekend showed that more than two-thirds of Americans believe they're hurting troop morale.

"What's happening [in Iraq] is not working; it's a disaster," Sen. Barbara Boxer complained Tuesday - oblivious to the damage her comments would do. "Right now, there's an endless war," she declared.

Reacting to President Bush's Iraq war speech Wednesday morning, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid griped that all he heard was the "recycled [and] tired rhetoric of ‘stay the course.’

"Simply staying the course is no longer an option, we must change the course. We can do better," Reid groused.

Hours earlier, Sen. Hillary Clinton complained that she was tricked into voting to authorize the Iraq war when the White House gave her "false" intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq," she chided.

The anti-war showboating by top Democrats continues despite the findings of an RT Strategies poll released over the weekend, which showed that 70 percent of Americans believe that Iraq war criticism by Democratic Senators is hurting troop morale.

A full 44 percent said the Senatorial complainers had hurt the troops "a lot."

Even self-identified Democrats agreed that their Senators were damaging the war effort, with 55 percent saying their criticism hurts the troops - and just 21 percent saying it helps.

The PC police go after Boston's Christmas Tree...

Unbelieveable. Yes Jerry Fawell is quoted in this article and even though I usually don't care for him he is right in this case.

BOSTON (Reuters) - Boston set off a furor this week when it officially renamed a giant tree erected in a city park a "holiday tree" instead of a "Christmas tree."

The move drew an angry response from Christian conservatives, including evangelist Jerry Falwell who heckled Boston officials and pressed the city to change the name back.

"There's been a concerted effort to steal Christmas," Falwell told Fox Television.

The Nova Scotia logger who cut down the 48-foot (14-meter) tree was indignant and said he would not have donated the tree if he had known of the name change.

"I'd have cut it down and put it through the chipper," Donnie Hatt told a Canadian newspaper. "If they decide it should be a holiday tree, I'll tell them to send it back. If it was a holiday tree, you might as well put it up at Easter."

Falwell and the conservative Liberty Counsel led a campaign that threatened to sue anyone who spreads what they see as misinformation about Christmas celebrations in public spaces.

The controversy reflects the legal vulnerability of city and state governments over taxpayer-funded displays of religious icons and concern over crossing the line in the separation between church and state.

Last year, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lit what he called a "Christmas tree" at a state ceremony. The year before, he and former California Gov. Gray Davis presided over ceremonies for the more secular "holiday trees."

In Boston, many residents voiced their dismay over the Web site that promotes a December 1 ceremony for "Boston's Official Holiday Tree Lighting."

Christmas has become too politically correct, said 64 percent of people who responded to an online poll by a CBS television affiliate in Boston.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said he would keep calling the Nova Scotia spruce a "Christmas tree" regardless of what it said on the city's official Web site.

"I grew up with a Christmas tree, I'm going to stay with a Christmas tree," Menino told reporters on Thursday.

But the controversy cast a pall over a long-standing tradition between Boston and Canada. Nova Scotia donates a tree each year to Boston in gratitude for the city's help after an explosion killed about 1,900 people and injured 4,000 others in Halifax in 1917.

Let me repeat a line in the article... Christmas has become too politically correct, said 64 percent of people who responded to an online poll by a CBS television affiliate in Boston. I couldn't agree more, I'm impressed with the CBS affiliate for doing something like that, it's nice to know that the PC police haven't got to them yet.

back from vacation...

I'll be back to posting tommorow or monday, the 5 day break was nice though.

House votes down pullout 403-3

This "drama" unfolded last night. I watched a little of it on C-Span and it was amazing when I switched to CNN, you would almost think they were rooting for a pullout (deep down they were). And as I listened to the pro-pullout people call in on C-Span it gave me comfort. These people have no sanity left. Note Nancy Pelosi in this Newsmax article...

Anti-war House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is blasting last night's 403 to 3 House vote in support of U.S. troops and their mission in Iraq, calling it "a disgrace."

Complaining that House Republicans had engaged in a "deception" by calling for a last minute vote on the Iraq war, the San Francisco Democrat said the pro-troop resolution was "a disservice to our country."

Pelosi said that the "Republican majority has stooped to a new low" by forcing Democrats to go on the record against an immediate pullout.

Her California colleague, House Armed Services Committee chairman, Rep. Duncan Hunter, wrote the resolution, which asked whether members thought "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

"We're going to let every member answer that, and I hope the message that goes back to our troops in Iraq is that we do not support a precipitous pullout," Hunter said.
Pelosi slammed Hunter's proposal as "a political stunt and should it be rejected by this House" - minutes before she voted with the Republican majority.

Even she didn't have the balls to vote for a immeadiate pullout. This is also why Democrats must never be in power again. Frankly, I think that the vast majority of Americans are sick of them. Yes 57 million people voted against Bush but put up a solid candidate like Rudy Gulianni and I think there could be close to an electoral sweep. I mean why should you lead this country when you don't even like it or are willing to defend it against terrorists. Plus now with people like me and other conservative bloggers out there, their monopoly on what the American people see through media is over. There are more regular people than elitests out there and they know it. Note: on the radio, given a free market choice people will ALWAYS choose conservative talk radio, that's why Michael Savage is on 7 times as many stations as Air America, and NPR doesn't count because that's not free market, take public money from them and they wouldn't last a year. They're scared of us people, last night's vote proved that. Even the dems in DC with their heads up their asses realize that, if they didn't they would have voted for the pullout, only 2 did (yes 1 republican actually voted for it). Let the silent majorirty be heard!

Bush Continues Offensive Against Dems' Intel Claims...

This is what he needs to do, finally the Bush Administration is fighting back after taking a beating from anti-war critics since he won re-election last year.


WASHINGTON — President Bush carried his battle over the build-up to the war in Iraq across the Pacific Thursday, blasting Democrats for claiming the White House distorted pre-war intelligence.

"I think people ought to be allowed to ask questions," Bush said Thursday from South Korea, where he met with President Roh Moo-hyun. "It is irresponsible to say that I deliberately misled the American people when it came to the very same intelligence they looked at, and came to the — many of them came to the same conclusion I did."

Democrats, including West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, say the White House controlled the intelligence it saw and didn't tell Congress how weak it was in some cases or that other intelligence contradicted it.

But the president has maintained that lawmakers who voted in favor of using force to oust Saddam Hussein from power saw the same intelligence he did, intelligence that showed that the former Iraqi president did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction. His aides say the Democrats' claim that he exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam to build support for the war in Iraq crossed a line and can't be allowed to stand.

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTSAdvertise Here



Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday the accusation is "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," Cheney told the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative policy group.

"I agree with the vice president," Bush said Thursday in Asia.

Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said the GOP counteroffensive against the Democrats' claims will continue.

"There's a bright line there that the Democrats have crossed. They have no facts on their side," Bartlett said while traveling with the president.

He said the administration to push back "will be sustained" because "in the last couple of weeks it has reached a critical mass and we felt it was important to respond."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Thursday blasted the remarks by Bush and Cheney.

"Instead of giving our troops a plan for success or answering the serious questions of the American people, they've decided to start up the [Karl] Rove/Cheney attack machine in an effort to restore their diminishing credibility and raise their sinking poll numbers," Reid said. "We need a commander in chief, not a campaigner in chief. We need leadership from the White House, not more white-washing of the very serious issues confronting us in Iraq."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, noted that the intelligence Bush and lawmakers had was the same that brought President Clinton to advocate regime change back in 1998. Saddam since then continued to appear to hide things from U.N. weapons inspectors and defy U.N. resolutions.

"There were all the signs of danger there and I think it would have been irresponsible not to act," Cornyn told FOX News.

Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, an influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war, called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said the Pennsylvania lawmaker, usually one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. At times during his remarks to reporters, the decorated Vietnam War veteran was choking back tears.

"It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," said Murtha, who is the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

But not everyone agrees with that move.

"We have to remember — there's no easy way out," former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told FOX News. "We are going to magnify the terror danger that got us involved in the first place" if U.S. troops pull out of Iraq too early, he added.

The coalition should wait until the Iraqi elections are held on Dec. 15 and give the new government time to get organized before any drastic troop movement is contemplated, Kissinger added.

"We do need to get out of Iraq but not until we've stabilized the country and allowed this fragile democracy that's just beginning to bloom to grow into a vital stabilizing force," Cornyn told FOX News.

Sen. Jeff Binghaman, D-N.M., who voted against the congressional resolution giving the president authority to use military force to oust Saddam because he said the administration didn't make the case for it, agreed that simply pulling troops out now is not the way to go.

"I think it would not be responsible for us just to pull our troops out at this point," he told FOX News. "I do think it's appropriate we begin to hold the administration accountable, to tell us how they're going to get us out of Iraq, and give us a timetable and begin meeting certain conditions."

Pushing back against the push-back, the Democrat's 2004 presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, said Cheney "continues to mislead America about how we got into Iraqi and what must be done to complete the still unaccomplished mission."

Bush has made two speeches in recent days that painted Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after earlier supporting the idea that Saddam should go.

Although critical of some administration tactics in prosecuting the war, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Sunday that "I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people" about prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.

The Republican National Committee has posted on its Web site a video montage of prominent Democrats — including several 2008 presidential hopefuls — who, before the war, publicly said Saddam did in fact have weapons of mass destruction and he posed a danger to the world.

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singled out a number of Democrats, including President Clinton and his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who had depicted Saddam as a threat because of weapons of mass destruction.

Following up on that theme, Cheney said Wednesday that "these are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that was made by this administration and by the previous administration."

He said there was "broad-based, bipartisan agreement" that Saddam was a threat, had violated U.N. Security Council resolution and had banned weapons.

Saddam did have WMD's

this is what I've been saying all along and I've been called crazy. Courtesy of Newsmax...

New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida

Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.

In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units."

Though the Pentagon has so far declined to make the bombshell papers public, Hayes managed to obtain a list of titles on the reports.

Topics headlined in the still embargoed Iraqi documents include:
• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)

• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents

• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)

Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:

• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity

• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq

• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals

• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims

• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

While the document titles sound stunning enough to turn the Iraq war debate on its head, Hayes cautions that it's hard to know for certain until the full text is available.

It's possible, he writes, "that the 'Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity' was critical of one or another Taliban policies. But it's equally possible, given Uday's known role as a go-between for the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, that something more nefarious was afoot."

"What was discussed at the 'Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government' in November 2000? It could be something innocuous. Maybe not. But it would be nice to know more."

Hayes also notes that an additional treasure trove of evidence on Saddam Hussein's support for al Qaida may be lost forever.

"When David Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, he instructed his team to ignore anything not directly related to the regime's WMD efforts," he reports.

"As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled 'No Intelligence Value' and often discarded, according to two sources."

Want the connection dems? Well there it is.

New laws shield terrorists...

Kinda scary that this would become law.

Tancredo: New Law Would Shelter Terrorists

A new law that exempts religious groups from prosecution if they employ illegal immigrants as volunteers protects potential terrorists, says Colorado GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo vows he'll work to repeal the legislation.

"This provision opens a hole in our immigration system so big, a terrorist could drive a truck bomb through it," said Tancredo, a vehement critic of illegal immigration, in a statement reported by the Denver Post.

"Terrorists in the United States have used religious organizations as fronts before," he said. "This provides legal cover for any church, synagogue, mosque or group that calls itself a religion to aid and abet illegals who may pose a national security threat."

The new law - authored by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) - shields religious groups from a federal law, which prohibits knowingly transporting, concealing, harboring or shielding an illegal immigrant.
Under Bennett's legislation the law no longer applies to religious groups if illegal immigrants are volunteering to serve in a religious activity, such as working as missionaries or in a soup kitchen.

"It does not under any circumstances allow a terrorist or any illegal alien any kind of special sanctuary," Bennett told the Post, adding that church volunteers who are illegal immigrants could still face legal action.

According to the Post, Bennett wrote the provision at the request of attorneys for the Mormon Church, which - according to Bennett - uses the largest number of volunteers of any U.S. religious group.

A spokesman for the church, Michael Purdy, told the Post the law would allow illegal immigrants to serve as Mormon missionaries, which they previously could not do.

"This narrow exception to the immigration act allows people of all faiths to fulfill their religious obligations," Purdy said.

Asked if a church might be protected if it housed illegal immigrants, he said, "No, I don't think so." He said the law does not protect religious groups acting as fronts for terrorists.

But Tancredo's spokesman, Will Adams, said that while Bennett might intend for the law to apply only to soup kitchen volunteers or missionaries, it would give shelter to those working with terrorists.

Adams explained that while the Department of Justice in the past could charge a religious group with immigration violations while investigating alleged terrorist activities, under the new law it could no longer do so.

He added that a large number of terrorism cases are first brought as immigration violations and that religious groups have been charged with sheltering terrorists in the past.

US preparing for bio attack...

Are they not telling us something? Sounds a little ominous to me.

U.S. Preparing for Smallpox, Bio Attack

The U.S. is preparing for a potential bioterrorism attack using the deadly smallpox virus – federal grants are funding efforts to produce a new, safer vaccine.

The terrorist and anthrax attacks of late 2001 raised concerns about the smallpox virus. Anthrax does not spread from person to person, while smallpox does, and a bioterrorism attack with smallpox could kill millions.

But for a population of nearly 300 million, the U.S. had only 15 million doses of vaccine at the time.

After that the government stockpiled enough vaccine for every American. But when President Bush announced a plan to inoculate up to 10.5 million doctors, nurses, police, firefighters and other workers ahead of time so they could respond to an attack, many health workers refused inoculation.

They were not fully convinced of the smallpox threat and worried about the safety of the standard vaccine, according to the Washington Post.
Then after unexpected heart problems emerged in some vaccine recipients, the administration canceled plans to offer shots to the public.

While the smallpox virus today is stored in only two official repositories, in the U.S. and Russia, there are fears that some other nations countries kept hidden stocks and terrorists or rogue states could get their hands on the virus.

But the standard vaccine is "relatively dangerous compared with most modern vaccines,” the Post reports.

The vaccine sickens some people, and can lead to heart inflammation and a catastrophic brain infection in a few cases. In addition, it was killing several infants a year in the U.S. when routine vaccination was halted.

Thus the government has been pushing for safer vaccines.

One newer type of vaccine is known as modified vaccinia Ankara, or MVA. It was first developed in Germany in the 1970s, and does not reproduce in the body – as the standard vaccine does – and appears less likely to cause illness.
But because it is weaker, people may need two shots several weeks apart for full protection. That could limit the usefulness of the vaccine immediately following a bioterrorism attack Two companies - Acambis PLC, with headquarters in England and Cambridge, Mass., and Bavarian Nordic A/S, with headquarters in Denmark - have received federal grants to develop MVA.

Their vaccines have undergone extensive tests, but their side effects are not yet fully known.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued bidding documents asking for at least 20 million doses of MVA - enough for a minimum of 10 million people - and has said it may eventually buy an additional 60 million doses, according to the Post.

Replacing the entire vaccine stockpile with the MVA could cost billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, with no public funds, VaxGen Inc. of Brisbane, Calif., is developing a vaccine that reproduces in the body and therefore produces strong immunity with one dose, but appears safer than the standard vaccine.

VaxGen's product is expected to be significantly cheaper than MVA and, as a one-dose vaccine, more useful in an emergency. Experts say it’s likely to be at least a year or two before significant quantities of new vaccine arrive in federal stockpiles.

Smallpox was eradicated in 1977, and routine vaccination stopped. Studies have suggested that a quarter of the U.S. population has some lingering immunity from childhood smallpox vaccination, but the rest - 223 million people - are believed vulnerable, the Post reports.

Virtually no one younger than 37 has been vaccinated.

Happy Veterans Day everyone...

Today I will leave you with a quote from General Patton.

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."

To anyone who still thinks they can say, "support the troops, bring them home." suck on that.

Do as I say hits NYT bestseller list...

in no thanks to the liberal media of course.

Peter Schweizer’s new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy” has made it to the coveted New York Times best-seller list in its first week out.

The book – which previously reached the #1 spot on Amazon.com’s list of best-selling nonfiction work after it was previewed on NewsMax – will debut at #14 on the Times list. The list will be published in the Times’ Book Review on Sunday, November 20.

The book’s inclusion on the Times list is even more remarkable considering it only received national attention last week on Wednesday evening – giving it just 3 days to make the list. The Times checks books sales each week ending Saturday to make its bestseller lists.

In his blockbuster book – and in the November edition of NewsMax Magazine – Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Barbra Streisand, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and George Soros.

The book is getting rave reviews from leading conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter. Limbaugh told his audience last week that the book was "just fabulous," adding, "It is just replete with example after example of the utter hypocrisy of the left."

New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter declared that ‘Do As I Say’ is "the book of the century.”

Schweizer sums up his book this way: "The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes. They like to condemn ordinary Americans and Republicans for a whole host of things - racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the environment, and greed. But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy.”

Big surprise huh? This book confirms what I have felt, and have said, about the left. That is the biggest reason that I am "Republican" (I put it in quotes because I consider myself more libertarian than republican but I vote republican because voting libertarian is just counter-productive).

Bad night for GOP...

But thanks to this article I am not as down as I was earlier this morning.

Election Deja Vu for Bush

After last night's gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey, Democrats are celebrating President Bush's loss of political clout as they salivate over the prospect of retaking the House and Senate in next year's midterm elections.

Not so fast, says the New York Post's John Podhoretz.

He notes that the results were much the same for Bush in 2001 - a year before he steered his party to historic gains in the House and Senate - and three years before he beat back a Democratic onslaught in his own reelection race.

"Bush won Virginia by 8 percentage points in 2004," notes Podhoretz, "while Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore appears to have lost by 5 points. But if you think Kilgore's loss reflects Bush's weakness and a nightmare for the GOP in 2006, consider this:


Story Continues Below


"Bush won Virginia by eight points in 2000, too — and the following year Democrat Mark Warner became governor with a 5-point margin of victory. The next year, in 2002, Republicans won a stunning midterm victory, taking four Senate seats and expanding their majority in the House of Representatives."
The same thing happened in New Jersey four years ago, when Republican Bret Schundler lost to Democrat James McGreevey.

What's more, there's a fly in the ointment for Hillary Clinton, the Dem's presumptive 2008 nominee. As the Post's Deborah Orin notes, last night's vote in Virginia, where Democrat Tim Kaine rode to victory on the coattails of his term-limited popular predecessor Mark Warner, only boosted Warner's status as a Democrat who can win red state votes.

That's something Hillary has yet to demonstrate she can do. And with Warner also on the party's presidential short list, anything that makes him look good hurts the former first lady.

So it's not the end of the world for us. Personally I still feel confident going into next year's election. And get this, some of the liberal blogs were already crying foul before their candidates actually won. Man they are a bunch of nuts, even when they win they still look crazy. Apparently everytime we win a election it has to be stolen according to them. How pathetic.

Bill Clinton speaks on Immigration...

he says that cracking down will hurt forigen students studying here and doesn't think the trade-off of protecting us against terrorists is worth it. Even Bill has lost it now. I've said it before and I'll say it again, liberalism is a mental disorder. They have no low.

Newsmax wins silver medal

NewsMax Magazine has won a Silver Medal in the News/Commentary category of the 2005 Eddies, the prestigious journalism awards presented by Folio magazine.

Folio, a bible of the magazine publishing industry, announced the 16th annual Eddie Awards winners on November 1 at The Folio Show New York, the largest and most comprehensive conference and exposition for the magazine industry.

Amy Zucchi, Event Director for Folio, said: "It is truly amazing to see such excellence within the magazine industry not only from publications that have been around for many years, but also from the brand new magazines on the block.”

NewsMax Magazine now has a monthly paid circulation of 101,000 on average, and a readership of well over 400,000.

"This Silver Medal, won against impressive competition, is recognition that NewsMax Magazine has become a major player in the news and commentary field of magazine journalism,” said NewsMax President and CEO Christopher Ruddy.
"It is truly an honor.”

Hats off to a great magazine, it is a daily read for me and should be for you too.

Ah the hypocrites on the left...

Remeber Micheal Moore(on) everyone? He said he never owned stock, but he did, and the company that he owned will stun you all.

Filmmaker Michael Moore has made a career out of trashing corporations and said he doesn't own any stocks due to moral principle.

How then did author Peter Schweizer uncover IRS documents showing that Moore's very own foundation has bought stocks in some of America's largest corporations – including Halliburton, other defense contractors and some of the same companies he has attacked?

In his blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

But he reserves some of his sharpest barbs for Moore.


In his first documentary "Roger & Me," Moore skewered General Motors, Schweizer points out.

In "The Big One," he went after Nike and PayDay candy bars.

"Bowling for Columbine" was an attack on the American gun industry.

Oil companies played a major role in "Fahrenheit 911."

His upcoming film "Sicko" pillories drug companies and HMOs.

On his television shows "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth," he criticized HMOs and defense contractors.

He once said that major defense contractor Halliburton was run by a bunch of "thugs," and suggested that for every American killed in the Iraq war, "I would like Halliburton to slay one mid-level executive."

Publicly, Moore has claimed he wants no part of these companies and won't own stock.

In his book "Stupid White Men," he wrote: "I don't own a single share of stock."

He repeated the claim in a 1997 letter to the online magazine Salon, saying: "I don't own any stock."

Privately, however, he tells the IRS a different story, Schweizer discloses in his book.

The year that Moore claimed in "Stupid White Men" that he didn't own any stock, he told the IRS that a foundation totally controlled by Moore and his wife had more than $280,000 in corporate stock and nearly $100,000 in corporate bonds.

Over the past five years, Moore's holdings have "included such evil pharmaceutical and medical companies as Pfizer, Merck, Genzyme, Elan PLC, Eli Lilly, Becton Dickinson and Boston Scientific," writes Schweizer, whose earlier works include "The Bushes" and "Reagan's War."

"Moore's supposedly nonexistent portfolio also includes big bad energy giants like Sunoco, Noble Energy, Schlumberger, Williams Companies, Transocean Sedco Forex and Anadarko, all firms that 'deplete irreplaceable fossil fuels in the name of profit' as he put it in ‘Dude, Where's My Country?'

"And in perhaps the ultimate irony, he also has owned shares in Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15 percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric (another defense contractor), AOL Time Warner (evil corporate media) and McDonald's.

"Also on Moore's investment menu: defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing and Loral."

Does Moore share the stock proceeds of his "foundation" with charitable causes, you might ask?

Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."

Moore's hypocrisy doesn't end with his financial holdings.

He has criticized the journalism industry and Hollywood for their lack of African-Americans in prominent positions, and in 1998 he said he personally wanted to hire minorities "who come from the working class."

In "Stupid White Men," he proclaimed his plans to "hire only black people."

But when Schweizer checked the senior credits for Moore's latest film "Fahrenheit 911," he found that of the movie's 14 producers, three editors, production manager and production coordinator, all 19 were white. So were all three cameramen and the two people who did the original music.

On "Bowling for Columbine," 13 of the 14 producers were white, as were the two executives in charge of production, the cameramen, the film editor and the music composer.

His show "TV Nation" had 13 producers, four film editors and 10 writers – but not a single African-American among them.

And as for Moore's insistence on portraying himself as "working class" and an "average Joe," Schweizer recounts this anecdote:

"When Moore flew to London to visit people at the BBC or promote a film, he took the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But he also allegedly booked a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he could meet with journalists and pose as a ‘man of humble circumstances.'"

That's hypocrisy with a capital H!

There is also a new book out there called, Do As I Say (Not As I Do):Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, that I will be getting very soon. It looks like a good read. And proves that the left really does have almost nothing left to cling onto. The book also comments on how George Soros hides his billions from the US Government and how much of a hypocrite Barbra Streisand really is. This is a must read for everyone, even the lefties out there.

Dan Rather hates us...

Gee, I wonder why? Courtesy of Newsmax...

Dan Rather: Beware of 'New Media'

Former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather on Tuesday delivered a pointed message to an audience of young people at the University of Maine.

"News is something people need to know which someone, somewhere, doesn’t want them to know,” Rather said. "All the rest is advertising.”

Speaking at the Maine Center for the Arts on the University of Maine campus, Rather called for a return to what he termed "independent journalism,” warning his listeners to cast a wary eye of the plethora of "new media" outlets that he said feign objectivity while working to advance their own - or another's - agenda, according to the Bangor Daily News.

Many of these students had never heard of Rather, according to the newspaper, because few of them watch evening news shows or read daily newspapers. A large portion of the audience receives its information from various Web sites and "non-traditional” news media.

Rather - who was driven from his anchor seat largely because bloggers and other "new media” outlets, such as NewsMax.com, exposed his use of forged documents last year to falsely attack President Bush of shirking National Guard duty - says that such media sources should be viewed critically.

"You need to ask yourself: Is more better, and is all that calls itself news really news?" said Rather, who turned 74 this week.

Rather praised the youthful audience as "more sophisticated because you have much more information coming in.” However, the former news anchor tempered the compliment immediately afterward.

"Your intelligence is not yet matched by the information that you need,” he said.

I love it, nothing is greater than making the old media tremble like this.

I like Bush's pick...

If for no other reason than this:

Charles Schumer panned Bush's choice. "It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."

Courtesy of cnn.com. If this guy is hated by the dems he is good in my book. Also, unify to Schumer means picking a liberal. This is good and exactly what the Bush administration needed.

football day...

I went to the Gophers game today, they lost 45-31, and I'm going to my former high school's game tonight. I hope they win because the Gophers blew it.

nuclear terrorism...

Yea, like most good bloggers I should say something about the leak investigation, here I go, I don't care. Yes I could give a damn about who leaked who to whom, I mean when radical Islamofacists are trying to kill us. This is an excerpt from Nuclear Terrorism: the ultimate preventable catastrophe.

Nine months after the attack on New York, Osama bin Laden's official press spokesman, Suliman Abu Gheith made a chilling statement on a now defunct Al Qaeda asspciated Web site. www.alneada.com "We have the right," Abu Gheith asserted, "to kill 4 million Americans- 2 million of them children, and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands."
Four million Americans, an eerily specific specific and precise figure, clearly not one pulled out of thin air...
it goes on to say how eeire the logic and specificity of the number. Anyway while all the other bloggers are out there covering this retarded investigation I will be pushing to find real news. And give excerpts from the book I'm reading when I feel it is necessary.

One more reason to oppose Hillary in 2008...

As if we didn't have enough already, courtesy of Newsmax...

Hillary Clinton Proposes Massive Energy Tax

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said yesterday that she backs a plan to hike gasoline taxes through the roof.

Speaking to a group of alternative energy investors in Washington, D.C., Clinton proposed to sock oil companies with $20 billion in new fees that would be used to fund research on clean energy - driving up costs for oil producers that they would inevitably pass along to consumers.

The top Democrat said her goal is to get "oil companies that have experienced these amazing profits either to reinvest them in our energy future to reduce our dependence on oil or to contribute to a strategic energy fund that will provide incentives for companies and consumers who want to be part of an energy solution."

Mrs. Clinton's whopping tax hike proposal comes just as prices at the pump are beginning to decline from records highs in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which caused a bump in energy inflation that experts warned could tip the economy into recession.

Mrs. Clinton insisted that her $20 billion fee plan was "not about new energy taxes on consumers" - but she declined to say how oil companies would absorb the additional costs without charging consumers.

This is insane, were taxed enough already, this would bring about $4 a gallon gas at least. I can live with $2.20-$2.30 a gallon here but once it gets above $3, it starts to really hurt.

Tonight at a meeting...

I met Captain Ed, from the Captain's Quarters blog (which I will be providing a link to soon, along with Powerline) which I read every now and then. I also got to show off my iPod Shuffle to a bunch of amazed middle-aged people who looked stunned when I pulled it out. He talked about the Eason Jordan debacle and other various topics (like Swift Boat Veterans). I wasn't a part of those because I started blogging daily just 3-4 months ago. There is so much more I could say (he's a very nice and cool guy to top it off) about him and the meeting but I'll leave it at this, he is (along with me) a voice for people who are conservatives but scared to speak because the loony left thinks were all facists and Nazi's (when in reality, they are the ones who act more like those groups). I think it was Richard Nixon who talked about a silent majority, well thanks to the blogopsphere and people like Captain Ed, the majority will be heard.

more of a reason to oppose Miers

When Dems stay silent, you know something is wrong.. from the LA times...


Democrats Keep Mum on Miers Nomination
For now, they are willing to let the Republicans fight among themselves over Bush's court pick.

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — For a town in which partisan warfare is daily background noise, there is an unusual silence these days on one side: Despite Republican discord over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, Democrats have been holding their fire.

On Capitol Hill, the revelation last week that Miers expressed anti-abortion views on a questionnaire as a Dallas City Council candidate years ago found most Democrats studiously avoiding confrontation on what is usually a fire-hot controversy. Regardless of their personal views on abortion, few publicly expressed strong reactions to Miers' answers.

"Do you have a gut reaction to the questionnaire?" a reporter pressed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada at his weekly news conference on the party's priorities.

"No," Reid replied, and asked for a new question.

After Democrats spent years preparing for confrontation with Republicans over a Supreme Court nomination, their silence on Miers might seem odd.

"It's the dog that didn't bark," said Don Stewart, communications director for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), perhaps Miers' most ardent supporter in the Senate. "I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come out and start mischaracterizing her," Stewart said.

Several factors help explain why Democrats are generally keeping mum.

First, there is the unusual spectacle of Republicans — once lauded for their discipline — wounding each other. Part of the GOP's right wing is in open revolt against a nominee they find disappointing, with some conservative commentators calling openly for her withdrawal.

"For Democrats, this is the rubbernecking phase," said Luke Albee, former chief of staff to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "Democrats are watching slack-jawed as problems mount for Republicans."

Few expect President Bush to withdraw Miers' nomination; such a move would be uncharacteristic of him. But at least some unhappy conservatives are hoping that continuing public pressure will cause Miers to step aside of her own accord.

So far, Democrats aren't playing a major role in the criticism of Miers because of a simple political calculation: If your opponents are shooting themselves, don't stand in the way of the bullets.

"This time, the president has picked a fight with the right wing, who wanted an extremist named to the court, and they are not happy with Harriet Miers," said a Democratic leadership aide, who like Capitol Hill staff members interviewed for this story spoke only on the condition of anonymity when discussing party strategy.

"The best thing the Democrats can do is to let this process play out," the aide added.

Another calculation is that although few senators are fervent Miers supporters, for now neither side in the chamber wants to be faulted for sinking the nomination. Both liberals and conservatives fear that if Miers is forced to withdraw, Bush could pick a nominee they like even less.

"If she withdraws, we want to be able to blame [conservatives] for it," said a second Democratic leadership aide. "The situation is obviously fluid right now, but we're always mindful of who might replace her."

That helps explain another political oddity: At this point, many Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans share some of the same views about Miers. These lawmakers see her as a C-plus candidate for a seat on the nation's highest court. And they believe Miers has been too close to the president to have developed a clear judicial philosophy of her own.

As a result, both sides say her nomination probably will succeed or fail as a result of her performance in televised hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled to begin Nov. 7.

"She has a burden," said Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), a committee member, after meeting with Miers last week. "Everyone who comes before this committee has a burden, but I think her burden is perhaps higher."

"The only thing that's going to be fatal to this nomination is how she performs before the committee," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), another committee member. "If she performs all right, then she's obviously going to be approved. But if she doesn't perform well, she probably won't be approved."

According to Democratic staffers, perhaps a dozen Democratic senators are inclined to vote to confirm Miers despite her shortcomings, more than making up for the few Republicans who might vote against her. That means that barring a new, disqualifying revelation or a poor showing in front of the Judiciary Committee, Miers remains favored to win Senate confirmation.

"Everyone feels that mathematically, this woman is a lock for confirmation; there's just a price to pay with conservatives," said a third Democratic leadership aide. "It comes down to how many Republicans are willing to hold their noses and vote for her."

The truly tricky decision for Democrats would come if Miers had a bad showing in her committee hearings and her support among Republicans eroded further, to 49 or fewer of the chamber's 55 Republicans. At that point, Democrats would be in position to decide her fate.

Few observers expect the nomination to get to that point however.

"I don't think the Democrats are secretly plotting to either derail her nomination, nor do I believe they are plotting how to salvage it," said Albee, the former aide to Leahy. "They are proceeding as they should. Her nomination will rise or fall with the outcome of the Judiciary Committee hearings."

As a result, said Grassley and other senators, all bets are off for both parties until Miers has her day — or a week — in front of the camera.

"Between now and then," Grassley said, "it doesn't really matter what happens."

I want Janice Rogers Brown. I am not a Bush supporter 100% of the time and me and my conservative buddies will rise up and stop her from being put on the bench! But that doesn't mean I will hold a grudge, yes the GOP is fractured a bit but we will bound up again and kick some donkey ass in the 2006 mid-terms.

Vikings win!!

Wow what a game, 23-20 on a last second 56 yard field goal. Were 2-4 now and hopefully this will be a season turner for us. I will not taunt ZS at all he's too crushed right now, but it was a hell of a game wasn't it ZS? Back to the grind tommorow.

Rumor Mill...

wow wouldn't this be something?

Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2005 11:13 a.m. EDT
Rumor: Cheney to Resign; Rice as V.P.

After a Washington Post story suggesting that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office is involved in the Plame-CIA investigation, rumors are flying around Washington that Cheney might step aside – and be replaced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"If that should happen, there will undoubtedly be those who believe the whole thing was orchestrated – another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP,” a White House insider told Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report.

Some observers are whispering that the driving force behind the Rice-for-Cheney scenario is political pundit Dick Morris’ new book "Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.”

In the book, Morris and co-author Eileen McGann warn that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the U.S., unless she can be stopped.

And Condoleezza Rice, they say, is the only Republican who can win the GOP nomination, beat Hillary and hold on to the White House for the GOP.
A move now to elevate Condoleezza to the vice president’s position would better prime her for a run against Hillary in 2008.

I got two words for this, Go Condi!

what a game...

I'll be bcak to politics soon enough. Right now I want to tip my hat to the Cardinals because of the way the won last night. One of the best games I have seen recently. I still want the Astros to win though.

The one time I hope he's right...

James Carville, who I normally hate, has hit the nail on the head I think here.

Thursday, Oct. 13, 2005 10:42 p.m. EDT
James Carville Sees Miers Withdrawing

Democratic Party strategist James Carville is predicting that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers will withdraw her name from consideration rather than put the White House through a politically-bruising fight to win her confirmation.

Carville made the prediction at a book party Tuesday night that he and wife Mary Matalin hosted for Vince Flynn, author of the newly released thriller "Consent to Kill."

According to one-time Rush Limbaugh researcher-turned best-selling author Joel Rosenberg - who was on hand for the event - Carville said Miers would voluntarily yank her name from contention rather than wait to be asked by the White House.

The top Democrat said he was basing his prediction on the fact that Miers is renowned for her loyalty - which means she won't want to see the President Bush bloodied by a long and drawn out fight with his own base.

If, on the other hand, Miers stays put, Carville said Democratic Senators would offer just enough votes for confirmation if Republicans remain unified, but not a single vote more.
Republican defections could be fatal, he advised, warning his guests to keep an eye on leading conservative Senators like Sam Brownback, George Allen and Rick Santorum.

This is my last political post until monday, if I post again today it will be sports related.

300th post...

well actually 301, damn not bad considering I didn't start daily blogging until mid-may. At least it keeps me sharp ;)

Al Franken Air America's buddy splits...

Big surprise huh?


Thursday, Oct. 13, 2005 1:20 p.m. EDT
Al Franken's Radio Partner Splits

Are things coming unraveled over at Air America?

Last Friday, Al Franken's radio partner Katherine Lanpher abandoned ship, explaining that she had to leave the show because she snagged a book deal.

Announcing Lanpher's departure last week, Air America's web site said that her book would be a "memoir of her move to New York" - a move she made to co-host Franken's show in the first place.

"Her deadline in mid-January is unusually aggressive and necessitates an almost immediate departure," the message insisted. It was signed, "The Staff of The Al Franken Show."

Lanpher's final broadcast was filled with tributes from some of her favorite guests - but co-host Franken decided to bug out early, insisting he had a plane to catch.
A veteran of Minnesota public radio, Lanpher was brought on board when the network launched to help Franken make the transition to live radio.

Earlier this year, Franken himself said he was considering leaving the airwaves to pursue his dream of running for a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota, his home state.

While there's no apparent connection to Lanpher's departure, the troubled network has recently come under investigation by the New York State attorney general's office over an $875,000 loan obtained under suspicious circumstances from a local social service organization.

Lanpher's abrupt leave-taking left listeners perplexed. In a post to the comments section of the network's web site, one Franken show fan wrote:

"I hope someday, maybe in a later book, Katherine comes clean about why she left. The whole, 'I need to leave to write a book' reeks of manufactured credibility. For a station that continually takes swipes at Fox broadcasting for not being completely up front, it seems Air America has an awful lot it likes to 'diplomatically' relabel."

Hey at least the stuff I listen to on the radio is profitable. I wonder why the MSM isn't picking this up... wait I forgot we have a HUGE liberal media bias here. Anyone who tells you otherwise is mentally disabled.

Just when you think they hit a new low...

Moveon.Org is digging up dirt on Harriet Miers, talk about low lifes. I may not be for her but this is embaressing.

Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2005 11:32 a.m. EDT
MoveOn Digging Dirt on Harriet Miers

The left-wing activist group MoveOn.org is enlisting its membership in a nationwide effort to dig up dirt on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Meirs.

MoveOn's "Research on Harriet Miers" project asks members to dig into her background, steering their volunteer gumshoes to episodes in Miers' past that might yield the most damaging information.

"Here are some questions to guide your search," MoveOn advises on its web site:

• "What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission?

• "What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for?
• "White House Council [sic] Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening Americas stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role?

• "Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush?

• "What are her views on environmental protections, corporate crime, and the right to choose?

MoveOn concludes its opposition research guide by saying: "What else should the public know about Harriet Miers?"

Liberalism is a mental disorder. They aren't progressive, they aren't productive, and they ain't that smart either.

An ad on newsmax...

Hey I don't know if I agree with this but what the hell...

THE NEXT 9/11 STARTS TODAY !!!
Osama’s “Great Ramadan Offensive” from October 4 – November 4, With Attacks on the U. S., Netherlands, Italy, Australia, and Russia, Will be More Spectacular than September 11 !!


Joseph Farah on WorldNetDaily.com reports that terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky, who was director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare for over ten years, discovered a letter from Abu Musab Zarqawi to Osama bin Laden describing Ramadan attacks on the U. S., Europe and Russia as a “fateful confrontation” with the U. S. and Israel. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama’s second-in-command, has warned of “horrific attacks” against U. S. cities. He has also said that Osama has acquired thirty suitcase nuclear bombs from the former Soviet Union.

Dr. Paul Williams, author of Osama’s Revenge: the Next 9/11 and The Al Qaeda Connection, says that Osama has already smuggled seven to ten suitcase nuclear bombs into the U. S. through the Mexican border. In addition, 8,000 illegals from terror-suspect countries such as Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have come across the Mexican border into the U. S. in the past six months. And, most alarming of all, Adnan el-Shukrijumah and Amer el-Maati, Osama’s ringleaders of his “American Horishima” Project, where he plans to blow up seven to ten American cities with nukes, have now entered the U. S. through Mexico! The American Hiroshima starts now!

So what can people do? Our only hope is to put the faces of el-Shukrijumah and el-Maati, the "Mohamed Attas" of Osama's "American Hiroshima", on America's Most Wanted TV Show. The FBI has been looking for these two without success for 2 years. 300 million Americans could find them in 2 weeks! If we don't do this, we are doomed! At this late date, since our government has failed to do the things necessary to stop Osama, about the only other thing people can do is to get out of the cities Osama has targeted – New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Miami, Chicago, Washington, Houston, Las Vegas, and Valdez, Alaska, where oil tankers are filled from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

After seven to ten of our cities, or more, are destroyed by nuclear blasts from terrorists in the next few days (if frightened by publicity, the terrorists may hold off until the last two weeks of November, the Mahdi’s birthday), months, or years, what can we do?

We can bomb and destroy the headquarters of the ruling regimes such as Iran and Syria that sponsor terror.

We can go into Pakistan and get Osama bin Laden.

We can build a 50-foot wall, if need be, across the Mexican border to prevent terrorist illegals from coming in.

We can provide funding to make available the radiation sickness medicine, Neumune, that cuts the death rate of people exposed to radiation from 50% to 10%.

We can send in 150,000 more troops into Iraq and win the war in Iraq.

We can cut off all funding to the Palestinian Authority until they stop all terror attacks on Israel.

And we can deport every Wahhabi cleric that spouts violence against the U. S.

Only then can we possibly live in safety.

If we fight, we will survive. If we do not fight, we will die.

Those who espouse pacifism will be overcome by the Islamo-terrorists. Being nice to the terrorists will no more ensure our safety then giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler stopped him from invading Europe in World War II.

Those who would pull out of Iraq, consider this: if we didn’t like al Qaeda in Afghanistan, just think about al Qaeda taking over Iraq, with 10 billion dollars of Iraqi oil money per year to fund their worldwide war of terror!

The way to survival is clear, America. Fight or die!

Well it's a week old. Have we prevented it yet?

Can you believe this...

This is amazing, and sad and stupid all at the same time.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez believes natural disasters around the globe are rooted in capitalism.

As reported by Agence France-Presse, Chavez, in a radio and TV interview, said the recent earthquakes in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan, and the mudslides in Mexico and Guatemala were nature’s answer to a "world global capitalist model” that has left the world "dangerously off balance.”

Chavez antagonist, American TV evangelist Pat Robertson, takes a dissenting view. He said the natural disasters were forecast in the Book of Revelation, and point to "the end times" and Christ’s return.

Yet another reason to hate capitalism. Could someone tell me why capitalism gets such a bad rap and socialism/communism (which when has been implenmented never works, and tends to kill a lot of people) is praised?

I have changed my mind...

After watching a 18 inning epic baseball game I have decided that the White Sox will lose the World Series to the Astros. The Astros are the team of destiny this year. I cannot explain it in words, it's just a very strong feeling I have.

fun day...

I'll be back to the political grind next post, right now all I care about is football and baseball. I will be spending from now until 10-11pm tonight watching sports. There are more important things going on in the world now, like defense spending, we spent $455 billion on it. When you compare that percentage wise to other countries its on par or maybe a little ahead. It's not as big of a deal as liberal blogs are making it out to be. Espically considering the debt of this country (once again sometime next week I need to do a post on that).

White Sox Won...

Wow, I was as stunned as anyone, well looks like my picks are shot..

Division series
AL
Boston over Chicago in 4 ganes
Aneheim over NYY in 5 games
NL
San Diego over St. Louis in 5 games
Houston over Atlanta in 3 games

ALCS
Boston over Anehiem in 7 games
NLCS
Houston over San Diego in 6 games

World Series
Boston over Houston in 7 games

Now I'm going to change them :)


ALCS
Chicago over Anehiem in 7 games
World Series
Chicago over Houston in 7 games

New link section...

Ok, my new "buddies" section on my sidebar is up. Quite simply all you have to do to get on there is comment on a post (don't worry soft news is coming soon people) that I made. I really don't care if you agree or disagree, just do it intelligently, I love debate. If you have put time and effort into your blog I will link to it. If you have any questions feel free to ask in the comment section below.

A good NYT article...

For all the ripping I do of the liberal media the NYT got this one right.

Third man detained in connection with terror plot
By The New York Times

A third man has been detained in a suspected plot to detonate explosives on the city’s subway system, a government official said today, as police officers searched passengers’ bags on subways, buses and ferries.


Authorities are holding Al Qaeda operatives in connection with the suspected plot, although no details were available on who they are, where they were detained or what agency captured them, said the government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official said the person who provided the information about the men had undergone explosives training with them at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

Security in and around the city’s transit network was sharply increased Thursday after city officials announced that they had been notified by federal authorities in Washington of a terrorist threat that for the first time specified the city’s transit system.

The measures were made public Thursday by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, along with Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and the head of the New York F.B.I. office, Mark J. Mershon, after an American military operation with the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. in Iraq, according to law enforcement officials. The operation, carried out this week, was aimed at disrupting the threat, the officials said.

Some officials in Washington have played down the nature of the threat. While not entirely dismissing it, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security described it as “specific yet noncredible,” adding that the intelligence community had concluded that the information was of “doubtful credibility.”

Today in Washington, President Bush said the city had decided on its own to inform the public about the threats.

”Our job is to gather intelligence and pass it on to local authorities,” Mr. Bush told reporters in a White House picture-taking session with Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany of Hungary. “And they make the judgments necessary to respond. The level of cooperation between the federal government and the local government is getting better and better. And part of that level of cooperation is the ability to pass information on. And we did, and they responded.”

When asked whether he thought New York officials had overreacted, the president demurred. “I think they took the information we gave and made the judgments they thought were necessary,” he said. “And the American people have got to know that, one, we’re collecting information and sharing it with local authorities on a timely basis. And that’s important.”

Earlier today, the White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters: “In this case, we notified New York City officials early on of the intelligence information that we had received. And while it is specific, you heard our Homeland Security officials say it is of doubtful credibility. It is something we continue to analyze.”

But in an afternoon news conference in New York, Mr. Bloomberg said he believed he had made the right decision by informing the public about the possibility of a terrorist attack.

”If I’m going to make a mistake, you can rest assured it’s going to be on the side of being cautious,” he said. “If it happened again, I would make exactly the same decision.”

Mr. Kelly agreed, saying: “I can’t think of anything other than what could have been done than what we proceeded to do.”

Asked about the disagreement over how seriously to take the threat, the mayor said that intelligence information is rarely clear cut.

”You’ll never get a consensus in the intelligence community on any one thing,” he said. “In the end, you will find that not everyone’s on the same page.”

At subway stations today, riders said they were generally unworried about the latest warning.

”I’m a fourth-generation New Yorker,” said Alexandra Noya, 35, as she got off a train at Columbus Circle. “If it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen.” The warning from the mayor and police commissioner, she said, “didn’t deter me.”

Jimmy George, 65, from Teaneck, N.J., said he doubted the seriousness of the threat. Mr. George said he believed the timing was related to the coming New York City mayoral election.

”Is it time to wag the dog?” he said. “It’s election time. It seems during election times there’s always some type of threat.”

Bradford Ellis, who turned 35 today, said the threat was likely real, but said he was comfortable taking his chances riding the train.

”Everybody was calling me today, telling me I shouldn’t get on the subway because it’s my birthday,” he said. “But you can’t let it affect you. I think it’s a possible threat, but I don’t live my life on possibilities.”

At the Times Square station, an M.T.A. conductor, Ray Volsario, said he was not told about the threat by supervisors, and learned about it from television news.

”They don’t tell us anything,” he said. “We’re supposed to be the eyes and ears of the subway system - why are we the last to know?”

A portion of Penn Station was evacuated for about two hours this morning after police responded to reports about a suspicious package and a possibly toxic substance inside a bottle. Mr. Kelly, the police commissioner, said the package turned out to be harmless litter. The bottle, said Mr. Kelly, appeared to be a “Drain-O type” fluid.

”It appears to be a prank,” said Mr. Kelly. Authorities took away the bottle to analyze the liquid, he said.

Information about the threat, came to light last weekend from an intelligence source who told federal authorities that the three men in Iraq had planned to meet with other operatives in New York, said several law enforcement officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

One official said the group would number about a dozen. Another official said the total was closer to 20 people involved. The men planned to use strollers, briefcases and packages to hide a number of bombs that they planned to detonate on the subways.

“It was a conspiracy involving more than a dozen people aimed at delivering a number of devices into the subway,” one of the officials said.

One official said the information suggested an attack could happen as early as today; another pointed to the middle of the month.

”This is a piece of information that came in as a result of operations that go on all the time, and to corroborate that information or not we had to go after certain people,” one official said.

Mr. Mershon said: “F.B.I. agents and other U.S. government personnel continue to work around the clock to fully resolve this particular threat. Thus far, there is nothing that has surfaced in that investigation or those enforcement actions which has corroborated an actual threat to the city.”

Mayor Bloomberg seemed to try to inform New Yorkers without alarming them. He said that while the threat was not corroborated, it was specific enough to warrant an immediate and overwhelming response.

”It was more specific as to target; it was more specific as to timing, and some of the sources had more information that would lead one to believe that it was not the kind of thing that appears in the intelligence community every day,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

The mayor urged New Yorkers to continue riding the subways, as he said he would, but cautioned them to be watchful, saying several times, “If you see something, say something.”

As he spoke, thousands of city police officers were swarming the transit system. An officer will be assigned to each subway station, and Commissioner Kelly said the Police Department is significantly stepping up uniformed and plainclothes patrols, increasing sweeps through subway cars and posting officers at each subway tunnel that passes beneath city waterways. The department’s heavily armed “Hercules teams” and other specialized units will also focus on the transit system, he said.

Bag searches will also be significantly increased, the commissioner said, with a focus on briefcases, baby strollers, luggage and other packages and containers, and he asked subway riders to curtail their use. The searches will take place not only on the subways, but also on buses and ferries, and the Police Department has coordinated the increased scrutiny with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New Jersey Transit, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Amtrak. Mr. Kelly used narcotics detectives from Brooklyn and Queens and other investigators from the department’s Warrant Division to increase security in the subways. Officers mobilized at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

On Thursday, Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Mershon declined to discuss the events in Iraq, or where they had occurred, saying that it was classified.

Counterterrorism officials in Washington said the information received this week was highly specific, including details about the possible use of suitcase bombs and explosives hidden in strollers. That information, along with the more general concern that terrorists might stage an attack modeled on the July bombings in London, prompted immediate concern, the officials said.

On an average weekday, an estimated 4.7 million rides are taken on New York’s subway system, which has 468 stations.

Russ Knocke, a spokesman for Homeland Security, said the credibility of the threat was still to be determined.

He said Homeland Security “received intelligence information regarding a specific but noncredible threat to the New York City subway system.”

Mr. Knocke said Homeland Security shared the information “early on with state and local authorities in New York,” adding, “There are no plans to alter the national threat level or the threat level in New York City.”

He would not say any more about the content of the threat or the origin of the information.

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s deputy commissioner of public information, would not discuss whether the source information suggested that operatives were in New York. He would say only, “We’re looking at all aspects of this case.”

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, city and national law enforcement authorities have at times reacted differently to similar threat information. In part, this is because of the varying roles that different agencies play. The New York Police Department, for example, is responsible for protecting the city and its subways and therefore is more likely to act quickly. The F.B.I.’s prime antiterrorism mission, on the other hand, is thwarting plots and apprehending any suspected terrorists - a task that is almost always complicated by information becoming public. But on Thursday, city and F.B.I. officials in New York stood side by side and seemed to present a similar message. Officials from Homeland Security did not take part in the briefing.

Of the information from Iraq, one official said: “Suffice it to say it was credible enough for us to be working it very hard and very diligently literally around the clock and around the world. Sometimes it looks incredibly detailed, and then it washes out into nothing, and sometimes pretty vague in nature and it turns into something real. You can’t know until you go through the process, and we’re going through the process.”

William A. Morange, the transportation authority’s security director and a member of a citywide counterterrorism task force, was informed several days ago about the threat, said Tom Kelly, a spokesman.

”We were kept well apprised of all the developments since earlier this week,” Mr. Kelly said.

The Police Department also put into effect a broad range of measures aimed at stepping up security around the city that did not address the specific threat, but were aimed at tightening the city’s security cordon. They included increased truck searches on East River crossings and banning trucks from the Brooklyn Bridge.

The department will also increase the use of radiation detectors, and detectives from the department’s Intelligence Division will check parking lots and garages in Manhattan and in other areas of the city.

Reporting for this article was contributed by David Johnston, Eric Lipton and Eric Lichtblau, in Washington, and Sewell Chan, Kareem Fahim and Timothy Williams, in New York.

© The New York Times Company

Scary huh?

threat

there has been some talk of a another plot on NYC subways... while that is going on this...

NewsMax.com Wires
Saturday, Oct. 8, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Washington Monument was evacuated Friday after a bomb threat was called in to local police. U.S. Park Police Sgt. Scott Fear said the call came in at 2:24 p.m. EDT and the monument was evacuated a short time later.

Bomb-sniffing dogs were called in and two blocks between Constitution and Independence avenues were closed off. An initial search turned up nothing worrisome.

A law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because other agencies were handling the case, said the credibility of the threat was low but officials did not want to take any chances.

The Washington Monument, which was built in the 1800s and dedicated on Feb. 21, 1885, rises 555 feet over the National Mall. It reopened to the public last spring after undergoing a seven-month, $15 million security overhaul that included vehicle barriers and a new lighting system.

© 2005 The Associated Press

This should be on the NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN top story and headlining the nightly news. But those bastards can't actually put real news out there. You know the stuff that makes Bush look smart, please for the love of God if someone tells me there isn't liberal media bias I will punch them in their retarded brainwashed face. THIS SHOULD BE THE TOP STORY MORONS!!!! I'M 19 AND I CAN SEE THIS!

Miers...

Well I haven't entirealy retracted my statement but it looks like Bush may have been right. I am still waiting for the confirmation hearings before I make my final decision on weather or not I like her. And the gang of 14 (the people who stopped the nuclear option last May) sees nothing wrong with her, which may be good or bad depending on where you fall in the political spectrum. I still would have perferred Janice Rogers Brown but who is to say that there couldn't be another SCOTUS pick before Bush leaves in Jan. 2009? On a different note GO ANGELS, they played a hell of a game last night.

Why I hate republicans...

Well not all of them, I don't even really consider myself a republican, I tend to lean more conservative libertarian (i.e. I don't care if your gay just leave the hanky panky to gay clubs and your homes/apartments) but reading what some of my anti-strib buddies are saying they are getting hammered by the "everything Bush says is right" club. I tend to hate these people more than the dems because it's so damn aggravating. At least with a liberal/democrat I know I oppose everything they stand for. I don't oppose everything these guys stand for yet when they tell me I'm wrong because I want to do something as drastic as disagree with Bush I want to tell them to go fuck themselves because we live in a democracy. I agree with 50-60% of what Bush says, I supported him last year because by now if Kerry was in office French would be the official language of this country. That is why I will support whoever they nominate in 2008 because unless something drastic happens Hillary will be the nominee and boy do I ever hate that bitch. So finally to everyone who think whatever Bush says is correct I will tell them 3 things. One, shut up. Two, listen to 3 hours of Michael Savage and tell me he's wrong. And three, don't give another dime to these bastards until they stop spitting on the party base, I have wanted to contribute but refuse to because they're not doing what I put them in office to do.

Info Wars...

wow look at this everyone, from WorldNetDaily...

Oklahoma bomber had jihad material
Documents found in apartment of student who blew himself up
WorldNetDaily | October 4, 2005
By Jon Dougherty

An Oklahoma University student who killed himself by detonating a bomb strapped to his body outside a packed stadium over the weekend was a "suicide bomber" in possession of "Islamic jihad" materials, according to a new report.

Joel Henry Hinrichs III, 21, an engineering major at the school blew himself up outside OU's football stadium during Saturday night's game against Kansas State. Doug Hagmann, a seasoned investigator, told WND he was informed by multiple reliable law-enforcement sources familiar with the investigation into the incident that authorities recovered a "significant amount" of "jihad" materials, as well as Hinrichs' computer.

Hagmann also said those same sources indicated police and federal agents "had pulled additional explosives from [Hinrichs'] house," including triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, "homemade explosive [that is] very potent but relatively easily manufactured."

TATP was also used in the July mass transit bombings in London, CNN reported, and was used by attempted bomber Richard Reid, who packed his shoes with the compound in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy a U.S.-bound American Airlines flight in December 2001.

The confiscated jihad documents "referenced bomb-making manuals and that type of thing," Hagmann said, who added Hinrichs' apartment in Norman, Okla., is "located near the Islamic Society."

A phone at the Islamic Society of Norman went unanswered yesterday. Also, there was no response to an e-mail inquiry by press time.

Hagmann reported his findings on his website.

WorldNetDaily reported earlier that officials carted away a huge cache of explosives from Hinrichs' apartment. Police were overheard telling residents it would take "several trips and could take up to 24 hours" to remove it all, according to the Daily Oklahoman. A canister trailer used for detonating or transporting potentially explosive material was being used to haul items away.

University officials have shrugged off reports Hinrichs was anything other than a disturbed student who acted alone.

"We know that he has had what I would call emotional difficulties in the past. There is certainly no evidence at this point which points to any other kind of motivation other than his personal problems," said University President David Boren over the weekend.

In a joint statement, the FBI's Oklahoma bureau chief, Salvador Hernandez, U.S. Attorney John Richter and OU Police Chief Elizabeth Woolen said, "At this point, we have no information that suggests that there is any additional threat posed by others related to this incident."

FBI spokesman Gary Johnson told WND he couldn't add anything, other than the investigation is ongoing.

His agency has been joined in the investigation by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Joint Terrorism Task Force; the University of Oklahoma Police Department; the Norman Police Department; and the Cleveland County Sheriff's Office.

Official accounts say Hinrichs detonated an explosive device while seated on a bench outside Cross Hall, a university science building about 100 yards from the stadium.

Some 84,000 people were inside watching the game at the time of the explosion. Officials say it did not appear Hinrichs attempted to enter the venue.

Attacks inevitable?

While it is too soon to know whether the Hinrichs incident was isolated or part of a larger scheme to launch suicide attacks in the U.S. similar to those in Great Britain earlier this year and those that are a regular occurrence in Iraq, experts believe it is only a matter of time before such attacks do occur in U.S. cities.

Bruce Newsome, a terrorism researcher at the Rand Corporation, a noted think tank, told ABC News shortly after the London bombings the four-man plot carried out there is a "likely model for future U.S. attacks."

He said the four men used for the attack were clean: no criminal records, did not show up on any terrorism watch lists, and were not part of any extremist activities – like Hinrichs.

That makes tracking such attackers virtually impossible, Newsome pointed out.

And, in Iraq last week, a woman pushed her way into a line of men at an army recruitment center before detonating a bomb she carried. The last time women were used in suicide attacks was during the war in Iraq in 2003, when two women in a car – one of them pregnant – detonated a device, killing three soldiers, the BBC reported.

Just keep in mind that we cannot judge and their retarded civilization is equal to ours even though their still 1000-1500 years behind us. God, tell me why it isn't a good idea to flatten Mecca?

Why I love this time of year...

No it's not just because football season FINALLY started. It playoff time in baseball. So many important games in just one week. The only thing that beats this excitement wise is the first two days of the NCAA mens basketball tournament. And I will be doing a post on that when that time of year comes. My predictions

Division series
AL
Boston over Chicago in 4 ganes
Aneheim over NYY in 5 games
NL
San Diego over St. Louis in 5 games
Houston over Atlanta in 3 games

ALCS
Boston over Anehiem in 7 games
NLCS
Houston over San Diego in 6 games

World Series
Boston over Houston in 7 games

Yes it will be an exciting run and I can't wait to see how accurate I was.

Newsmax agrees...

I agree with these people totally

Conservatives 'Betrayed' By Bush with Miers Pick

Many conservatives feel "betrayed” by President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, feeling he backed away from his vow to appoint a known strict constructionist, according to conservative icon Richard Viguerie and others.

"Congratulations are due to Ralph Neas, Nan Aron and Chuck Schumer for going toe-to-toe with President Bush and forcing him to blink,” Viguerie writes in a press release.

"Liberals have successfully cowed President Bush by scaring him off from nominating a known conservative, strict constructionist to the Court, leaving conservatives fearful of which direction the Court will go.”

Bush "desperately needed” to have an ideological fight with liberals to re-energize his political base, which is in shock and dismay over his big government policies, says Viguerie, a consultant and direct-mail specialist who helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980.


"With their lack of strong, identifiable records, President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees seem designed more to avoid a fight with the extreme Left than to appeal to his conservative base.”

Viguerie concludes that Bush "appears willing to lose all credibility with conservative voters by failing to fulfill his campaign vow to nominate an openly Scalia- or Thomas-like justice.”

Once again Newsmax has a great article, why don't they get any press? Oh yea, I forgot that the media is filled with a bunch of jack-off liberals...

A quote...

From Abe Lincon...

"You can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

I heard it listening to Savage last night, there are some people (me, ZS, and him to name a few) that fall into the third category there. A lot of people I know fall into the first 2 groups of people that he mentioned. I am calling on everyone who reads this to write your senators (I don't care who they are) to oppose this nomination. This woman Bush nominated hasn't ever even been a judge! We will not be fooled on this one. The blogsphere will attack it's own (I hope) on this one. I don't really care how good of a person she is, she isn't qualified and thats final!

Local dems beliefs...

what they believe, it will be fun to dissect it...
Democrats Believe...
In equal opportunity for all citizens. (I believe that)

In rewarding honest, hard work with a living wage and in a tax system that is fair. (by taxing the rich)

In family values that are more than a political slogan. (hey how about you give us one)

In quality education that gives all citizens the opportunity to reach their potential. (like the vouchers, oh wait you oppose that)

In freedom from government interference in our private lives and personal decisions. (ha, that's a good one)

That individual strengths in our diverse population are a benefit. (translation: multiculturalism)

In security in our homes and safety on our streets. Criminals should face swift and certain punishment. (by rehabing level 3 sex offenders that molest children and then put them back into society)

In separation of Church and State to preserve the freedom to pursue our beliefs. (yes god forbid we have a god fearing christian in office)

In a strong United States - morally, economically, and militarily. (how do you plan on doing that?)

In common-sense reforms that give us cleaner, safer air and water. (duh, you think?)


So basically they have "ideas" with no real IDEAS. It's very funny how hard and fast they have fell.

contrary to what I said a few weeks ago...

the rest of the world can kiss my red, white, and blue ass. We should NEVER GIVE FORIGEN AID EVER AGAIN TO ANY COUNTRY! Why? well look at Katrina, thank God we know how to take care of our own. Unlike the rest of the world that expects us to solve their problems. I am doing my own little part and so are many other millions of americans. I have not forgotten about the tragedy and will continue to help when it is needed. Sadly, the same cannot be said about the rest of the world. I say we bow out of the UN and use it as a homeless shelter. That way the space can actually be put to good use. When I hear something Katrina/Rita related that is significant you should be able to find it on my katrina blog. When I want to rant, well you know where it will be posted ;)

update...

Ok, videogames can be frusterating and that's why I love them but I am on my 3rd copy of NBA Live 2006, it's ok though because Best Buy treats their customers very well (shameless plug, their stock is VERY cheap). I just can't wait until the end of the month when PS3 comes out, it will own XBox 360.

Harriet Myers...

damn ok so I thought (more accurately hoped) that this nomination would be Janice Rogers Brown. I was wrong, man is Bush hard to figure out. No wonder the left hates him so much. Liberals hate me too, frankly I could care less because I know I speak the truth, and so does Bush. I know this quote isn't original but what the hell,

"The only way you know you are doing something right is if people hate you for doing it."

I really feel that way, look at the left.

Nancy Pelosi in trouble...

This IS a bigger deal than DeLay's trouble, newsmax.com rocks by the way...

Saturday, Oct. 1, 2005 10:35 a.m. EDT
FEC: Nancy Pelosi's PACs Broke the Law
Mr. DeLay, by then under investigation for his own campaign finance problems, reacted sharply to the news about Pelosi's campaign finance irregularities, saying: "She has violated the law. It's in the facts."
Pelosi operated two PACs: Tean Majority and PAC to the Future.

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Team Majority reported 16 contributions of $5,000 each from donors who had already given the maximum to Pelosi's other PAC. Five of the donors gave to both PACs on the same day.

Rather the refer the case to the Justice Department for prosecution, however, the FEC allowed Pelosi's two committees to negotiate "conciliation agreements" under which they were fined a total of $21,000.

Two political action committees linked to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been charged with attempting to circumvent to legal limits on campaign giving, the Federal Election Commission has ruled.

According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.

The San Francisco Chronicle explained at the time:

"The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution."

Welcome to the new media liberals! You cannot cover your own asses anymore.

Dems plan to go positive... but not until nearly 2007...

Someone should tell them that it might be too little too late by then :). Well here's an article by Mort Kondracke, a Fox News contributor...
September 30, 2005
Democrats Do Plan To 'Go Positive' - But Not Until 2006
By Mort Kondracke

Democrats have an answer to the question, "OK, what's your alternative to the Bush policies you constantly criticize?" It is: "We're working on it." When it emerges, in a form yet to be determined, it's likely to include proposals for tax reform, health insurance, energy independence, national security and retirement reform.

Both House and Senate Democrats, plus outside consultants and think tank operatives, say that the party should have a full-blown alternative agenda to take into the 2006 elections - but that it doesn't need one yet. Democrats think that 2006 could be - in the words of Democracy Corps, the liberal polling group - "a major change election," like 1994, when Republicans gained 52 House seats and nine Senate seats and took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

They think that 1994 happened to them because of negative campaigning by Republicans against then-President Bill Clinton, defeat of his signature health care initiative and perceived corruption in the Democratic Congress. Duplicating the 1994 pattern, Democrats have been relentlessly pummeling President Bush on Iraq, gas prices and hurricane lapses and just-indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for alleged "corruption."

They point out that the Republicans' positive agenda, the famous "Contract with America," wasn't unveiled until Sept. 27, 1994. According to Fox News correspondent Major Garrett, who wrote a book on the subject, it had its origins in a February 1993 House GOP decision to assemble a budget to counter Clinton's. House Democrats already produce counter-budgets - this year's is silent on tax increases - and one key House leader said that while Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hasn't said so, "I can't imagine us not" producing a contract-style agenda sometime in 2006.

"There's no doubt that we are going to lay out an agenda that meets the challenges that America faces," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and author of proposals on tax reform, lobbying reform and importation of pharmaceuticals.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who's already issued a "Democratic National Security Strategy for the 21st Century" with 15 moderate colleagues, told me that "what we needed to do in the first year of this Congress is to point out how the administration has failed.

"And, of course, the administration has helped us on that. And then next year we have to continue to talk about how they've failed. ... If we don't have some positive things to say, Americans may still vote for us because they're angry, but I don't think we should rely on that."

House and Senate Democrats are delighted with the apparent defeat of Bush's Social Security "privatization" plan - the political equivalent, they think, of the Clinton 1994 health debacle - and Senate Democrats are planning to replicate the tactics and structure of that campaign on other issues for 2006.

As Roll Call reported last week, Senate Democratic leaders have assigned Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and her chief of staff to work on "energy independence by 2020," Sen. Edward Kennedy (Mass.) to work up a health agenda and Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.) to draft national security messages, while Sen. Max Baucus (Mont.) continues to serve as the point man on retirement issues. Another Senator, identity unknown, will lead on "government reform and correcting this Republican culture of corruption," a leadership aide said.

On Tuesday, the 11th anniversary of the GOP Contract with America - and the day before DeLay's indictment - House Democratic leaders held a press conference to denounce GOP "corruption and cronyism." Emanuel charged that GOP leaders who promised reform "should be sued for breach of contract."

One key outside consultant told me he once thought Democrats needed to come forward with positive messages immediately, but that he's changed his mind. "The Republican numbers are bad now, bad across the board," he said. "So, we have time. Let them stew in their juices a bit longer. They perfected this in '94 and it worked for them. What's the one thing we've done? We've held the line on Social Security. Did we do anything else? Not that I can tell."

This consultant acknowledged, though, that while "we're not hurt," the Democratic Party's "numbers are not any better than theirs."

According to the latest Democracy Corps poll, Democrats now enjoy a 9-point advantage in a generic Congressional preference poll and are running stronger in unidentified seat-by-seat matchups.

Yet the poll found that the public's general opinion of Democrats is no better than it is of Republicans, that "feelings about Democrats are at a 2.5-year low" and that Democrats receive only 48 percent of the 2006 preference ballot - the same as their 2004 showing.

This should tell Democrats that they ought to start talking about what they stand for - and make it good.

In an interview Monday with Roll Call editors and reporters, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) claimed to "feel pretty good about the majority."

"If I had to guess today I'd say we're in a plus- or minus-two environment," he said, when Democrats need to pick up 16 seats to take over the House.

"I think the problem our friends on the other side have is that they can't win without ideas and they can't win with the ideas they have. If they don't come forward with the kind of proposals that Republicans brought to the public arena in 1994, they're not going to win the majority. And the kind of ideas that Leader Pelosi will come up with are not likely to be the kind of ideas that will appeal to the country."

Maybe. Or maybe not. Various Democrats and allied think tanks such as the Center for American Progress are crafting policy proposals that could have appeal, such as Hoyer's "Manhattan Project" for energy independence and Emanuel's plans to simplify various tax benefit provisions for the middle class and make mortgage-interest deductions available to taxpayers who don't itemize.

The CAP think tank agenda, which I'll discuss at greater length in another column, is imaginative but also expensive and involves significant tax increases for those making more than $120,000 a year. The GOP is just waiting for Democrats to raise taxes.

The good news is that Democrats know they have to be positive eventually. I think it would be to their advantage to speed up the process.

So, um let me get this straight, they plan on releasing a plan after they get their asses handed to them in 2006? Or maybe before, better question, does it really matter. We have won 3 consecutive elections because we have a plan, I'd be willing to bet that our plan points out whatever holes there are in their stupid plan. Seriously someone tell me what the Democractic party stands for now, except for being anti-Bush. Peace is great (the first answer I've had from a liberal) but how do you expect to have peace without war? My friends, the democratic party may be dead before the end of this decade.