Paranoia Runs Deep, Into Your Mind It Will Creep...

I found this really amusing paranoid rambling on DemocratUnderground.com. Yes I admit, I go there for a laugh every now and then. I have never seen a more wretched hive of hatred, paranoia, and ignorance anywhere on the internet except maybe at whatreallyhappened.com, a true "tin-hat" community. This was posted by one of the denizens of that hive named "bvar22"

Anyway I took it upon myself to respond to each item in the list. The farther I got into this excercise the more absurd I felt responding to it, but I persevered, and here is the result:

The Republicans have been In Charge of America for 5 years. Are we beginning to look like a Fascist State?

*Demanding Party Loyalty above National Security (Plame Outing and Coverup)

National Security has never been put at risk in the “Plame outing” and there has been no “coverup.

*Military “PURGED” of commanders loyal to the Country and not the Party

There have been no “purges” of commanders in the military

*Using the Military to “POLICE” inside own borders

There have been calls for “policing” by the National Guard, but those have been primarily made by those on the Left. We have been repeatedly told by the Left that the National Guard are not the “military"

*Whitewashes and Cover Ups masquerading as Governmental Investigations

What, because the facts don’t match the paranoid delusions of people like you?

*Secret Prisons where people are "disappeared"

Your missing the key factor, our “secret prisons” intern foreign prisoners not our citizens which is the most important implication about “secret prisons”

*Dismantling of Individual Protections from Government

Finally something with which I agree, to an extent

*Torture as a National Policy

?? Oh well, I'll bite. “Torture” is not and has never been stated as a “National Policy” and that which has been being described as “torture” is not torture

*Police State Powers Increasing

Police state? What Kool-aid have you been drinking

*One Party Government (No Effective Opposition Party)

Just because you have offered no ideals or candidates worthy of the American voters trust and for that reason can not win an election, it is not a sign of “fascism” it is a sign of ineptitude

*Absurd (OBSCENE) and expanding Military Budgets

By whose standards? As a percentage of GNP it is not even close to a traditional wartime budget. You Liberals really need to learn to check the facts before making inane statements

*Dismantling of Humanitarian Programs to pay for Military

More money as a percentage of GNP is being spent on “humanitarian” programs than in the Clinton administration

*Restricting access to information about government

What, no leaks to a press in pursuit of an anti-American agenda?

*Restricting access to information contradicting Republican Party ideals (birth control).

There is no restriction of access to information about birth control, simply a refusal to use tax-payer money to fund such propaganda

*Rewriting (forging) scientific data to support Republican Party ideals

Your right, but then Kyoto was a stupid idea anyway

*State Owned Media

You mean like the extremely Left-wing NPR and CPB/PBS

*Persecution of Dissent

Where? When? Examples please.

*HyperNationalism masquerading as Patriotism

Patriotism IS Hypernationalism, and there is nothing wrong with it.

*Emerging SMALL Class of POWERFUL ELITES

You mean unlike the “good old days” of Kennedy's "Camelot?"

*Bogus and unverifiable elections

Truly laughable, but I do agree in the need for a printed backup

*Private Police and Security Forces not accountable to the Public.

Where? When? Examples please.

*Republican Party Secret Police to screen at Bush* appearances

????????

*NO Civilian Control and Oversight of Military

They are scrutinized at every turn

*Highest percentage imprisoned in Western World

Large number of criminals

*Potemkin Villages for the Press and Red Cross (Iraq and Guantanamo)

Potemkin Villeges? In what way? The two cited are real and mis-represent nothing

*Rampant Historical Revisionism

You mean of the sort that you are engaging in right now?

*Privileges and Access for Republican Party Members Only

This is getting ridiculous now...Where? When? Examples please. To what, the Lincoln bedroom?

*Ruling by Executive Order

Examples please.

*Judiciary controlled by Executive Branch

Can you say "Midnight Judges?" Only in your deluded mind

*Legislative Organs controlled by Executive Branch

Organs, so now the Government has organs? Show me how this differs from any previous time in history.

*Power Consolidated and Concentrated in One Person

Only in your deluded mind

*Government Officials WARNING to be careful what we say

What? You mean like “loose lips sink ships?”

*Controlled and Scripted PUBLIC appearances of Republican Party Officials

Only in your deluded mind (need to add PARANOID)

*Government encouraging citizens to spy on each other

You really are quite stupid if you don’t know the difference between maintaining awareness of your surroundings and suspicious behavior, and encouraging citizens to spy on each other, only Extreme Left-wing governments do that, you know socialists?

*Secret files on law-abiding citizens

Once again, signs of the Patriot act not acceptable but neither was Hillary's filegate

*Manufactured phony State Heroes (Tillman, Lynch)

Not to mention John Kerry and Al Gore

*State Medals awarded by Cronyism and Republican Party Loyalty, not merit

Huh???

*Governmental business cloaked I secrecy.

You mean it never has been before?

*Government “contracts” awarded in secret to Party Members and Cronies

Bad, but business as usual in America, nothing new here

*Odor of Arrogance and Contempt from Republican Party Officials

Your opinion here, nothing factual

Quite an extensive list isn't it. Not very significant, just long. I would welcome debate with this individual, but the vast majority of these "examples" are so vague that they are basically meaningless. They are intended to sound ominous, but in truth contain little of substance. In fact, as is common when dealing with these kind of light weight paranoic ramblings, I kind of got bored with it all. However, If you feel up to it and want to engage in a debate about some of these, feel free, I never duck a fight. If you know bvar22, give him some Prozac and lithium and let him know I'm praying for his recovery.

His original post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5478044&mesg_id=5478397

Language warning for the DemocratUnderground web page

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Still More Bad News for the Liberal Democrat Naysayers

Spending is the real cause of the budget deficit

By Lawrence Hunter
The Hill

Contrary to popular belief, the federal budget deficit is not out of control — yet. And to the extent it is projected to spiral out of control in the coming decades, it is totally because of a projected explosion in federal spending, not any deficiency of federal revenue.

Right now, the federal government is awash in money. Just last week, the Treasury Department reported that total revenue in fiscal year 2005 was up $275 billion, a 14.6 percent increase over 2004.

Let that sink in for a minute. During a period when inflation has averaged just over 3 percent, federal revenue went up 14.6 percent. Wouldn’t you have appreciated having a 14.6 percent raise last year?

Even more important, of that $275 billion in new federal revenue a full $207 billion came from higher income-tax revenue.

Why is that important? Because for the past several years the Bush administration has cut income-tax rates in various ways — through eliminating the estate tax, through cutting taxes on dividend income, through reducing the marriage penalty. And, despite those tax cuts, federal income-tax revenue rose — substantially.

The reason the Bush administration (and supply-siders in general) argues in favor of cutting taxes on work, saving and investment is the belief that low taxes generate faster economic growth, which in turn will raise revenues.

The statistics cited above, as well as the entire economic experience in the United States of the past 25 years, proves that the supply-side assumption is true.

But the converse is true as well, although most liberal politicians simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious: Raising tax rates will fail to translate into higher revenues and in fact would result in lower revenues over the long run.

Even the patron saint of liberal economists and politicians, John Maynard Keynes, argued that as a general rule tax rates should not exceed 25 percent. By Keynes’s standard, there is still a lot of cutting to do, since the current top marginal tax rate on income is somewhere in the neighborhood of 45-50 percent when the full panoply of state, local and federal taxes is taken into account.

But even supply-siders realize that, while the tax cuts have done their job and further lowering of tax rates is necessary, tax cuts alone will be insufficient to keep the deficit from exploding. Even a faster growing economy and the resultant increase in revenues will not solve the long-run deficit problem if Congress does not immediately put in place the mechanisms to slow the growth of federal spending to something approaching the annual growth rate of the economy.

There is a coming deficit crisis if Congress doesn’t take action to avert it. But the crisis is one of big government — spending out of control — not a deficiency in federal revenue. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that, by midcentury, federal spending will explode from its current level of about 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 34 percent.

But liberal politicians don’t want the Bush tax cuts to be made permanent, and they certainly don’t want even further tax cuts. Despite the clear evidence of the wisdom of tax cuts, liberals are arguing for increased and even new taxes to deal with the deficit.

But even using the government’s own flawed revenue-estimating model, the CBO projects that repealing the Bush tax cuts will only raise revenues to about 25 percent of GDP, a full 14 points short of what would be required to eliminate projected deficits. In other words, no matter how fast the federal money machine pumps out new revenue, it won’t be enough to cover the tremendous projected increases in federal spending.

The only solution to the coming federal deficit disaster is to control spending, and that means not only reforming a federal budget process that allows Congress to spend as much money as it wants without any restrictions but also reforming the biggest drivers of the deficit disaster scenario: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Now I am no fan of the Congressional Republican's and the President's spending habits, but here once again for you Liberal Democrats, is proof positive that tax-cuts always generate increased revenues. We do not have a deficit because we don't tax the American wage-earner enought, we have a deficit because our government is spending too much money. Pure and simple.

Original Post: Budget Deficit Binge

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Lieberman: One Democrat Head and Shoulders Above the Rest

Lieberman: Failure in Iraq would be 'catastrophic'

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 Posted: 1804 GMT (0204 HKT)

BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Speaking from Baghdad on his fourth trip to Iraq since July, Sen. Joseph Lieberman on Wednesday said failure in Iraq would be "catastrophic" for the United States and the entire Middle East, and that U.S. forces should not pull out before Iraqi forces are fully trained.

"The two extremes that are often described by different people here ... is that everything is going fantastic here in Iraq or that the country is about to collapse. In my opinion, neither one is true," he told CNN. "We are somewhere in between."

Lieberman, a senior Democrat from Connecticut, said Iraqis are striving to "put the nightmare of Saddam Hussein behind them," but still need U.S. help.

"They are making progress, but they are not where they need to be yet and that's what we have to help them to do before we can leave," he said.

"The cost of successfully completing our mission here will be large in terms of American lives lost and money spent, but the cost of failure here would be catastrophic for us in the U.S. and for the Iraqis, of course -- and I believe for the entire Middle East.

"And that's why we are going to continue to be here until we get to the point where the Iraqis can take it forward on their own, and I think we are making progress in that direction."

Lieberman's comments come amid rising calls from prominent Democrats for the United States to set a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home -- proposals the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have dismissed as a "cut-and-run" strategy that would embolden Iraqi insurgents.

This story is hard to find in the MSM. Seems they prefer Murtha to Lieberman. Objective Press? I don't think so. They demonstrate their bias everyday with every story. Lieberman is a man in the midst of a zoo. He's surrounded by "'rats," weasels, snakes, and all sorts of vermin infecting his party. I am proud of him for daring to speak the truth rather than hewing to the party line. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy (the Killer), Durbin and the rest must be choking on their food pellets.

Full Story: Lieberman, Only Truthful Democrat in Congress?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Is President Finally Taking a Stand on Border Issue?

Bush Vows to 'Enforce Our Border'
In Texas, President Promotes Plan to Curb Illegal Immigration

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; Page A04

DENVER, Nov. 29 -- President Bush on Tuesday wrapped up a two-day visit to the Southwest to promote his policy for stemming the tide of illegal immigration, vowing that his administration will "enforce our border."

Bush started his day in El Paso, where his motorcade drove along a dusty road just inside the border with Mexico. Afterward, Bush repeated his observation that it will take a multi-pronged plan to get a handle on illegal immigration.

"We've got a comprehensive strategy that says we're going to enforce this border," Bush said. "We're going to prevent people from coming here in the first place. . . . And then I told you we've got to have better interior enforcement, plus a rational worker plan that is not amnesty."

The visit to the border highlighted the second day of Bush's effort to win support for his plan to step up border security and immigration enforcement while instituting a guest-worker program that would grant foreign workers temporary legal status to take jobs that go unfilled by Americans. On Monday, he gave a speech in Tucson urging lawmakers to support his plan for revising the nation's immigration laws.

Officials including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) joined Bush in his tour.

El Paso, like most areas along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, has experienced an increase in the number of illegal immigrants in recent years despite intensified enforcement efforts that include high-tech sensors, more Border Patrol agents and cameras aimed at catching illegal entrants.

Government agents have captured 4.5 million people trying to cross the southern border since 2001. Nonetheless, the number of illegal immigrants in the country has more than doubled to an estimated 11 million over the past nine years, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

I hope that Bush is finally taking this seriously. I'll reserve judgment, but so far the President has shown little inclination to retake control of our border. I blame the President for this problem because he has been trying to work both sides of the street, pandering to the companies which use undocumented workers in direct violation of the law and to those in the Hispanic community who favor illegal immigration, and those of us in his base who find this wholesale invasion reprehensible. I hope he has finally developed a backbone on this issue, but I will wait for more proof before I relax.

Full Story: Controlling our Borders

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Milbank Forgetting Usual Liberal "Modus Operendi"

Rumsfeld's War On 'Insurgents'

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; Page A18

Last weekend, while other Americans were watching football and eating leftover turkey, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ended the Iraqi insurgency.

It was easy, really: He declared that the insurgents would, henceforth, no longer be called insurgents.

"Over the weekend, I thought to myself, 'You know, that gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit,' " Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon briefing yesterday, said of his ban on the I-word. "It was an epiphany," he added, throwing his hands in the air.

Encouraging reporters to consult their dictionaries, the defense secretary said: "These people aren't trying to promote something other than disorder, and to take over that country and turn it into a caliphate and then spread it around the world. This is a group of people who don't merit the word 'insurgency,' I think."

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, standing at Rumsfeld's side, evidently didn't get the memo about the wording change. Describing combat in Iraq, he paused and said, "I have to use the word 'insurgent' because I can't think of a better word right now."

" 'Enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government' -- how's that?" Rumsfeld proposed.

"What the secretary said," Pace continued, to laughter. But Rumsfeld's new description -- ELIG, if you prefer an acronym -- didn't stick with the general. Smiling, he uttered the forbidden word again while discussing explosive devices.

The secretary recoiled in mock horror. "Sorry, sir," Pace explained. "I'm not trainable today."

It was not the first time the defense secretary sought to reorder the world according to his tastes. Also not for the first time, the world wasn't following his plan. This summer Rumsfeld tried to change the "war on terror" to the "global struggle against violent extremism," or GSAVE. President Bush ended that plan.

This time, it's the Joint Chiefs chairman, still new to the job, who isn't marching to Rumsfeld's orders.

When UPI's Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that "obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility" other than to voice disapproval.

I understand Milbank's objection, with his rather limited intellect, Dana apparently has difficulty with his long term memory. Allow me to assist him. Dana, Liberals such as yourself, love to point out to Conservatives how important the impact of words is. We just had an example of that kind of "new-speak" when those in the Milbank world objected to the use of the word "refugees" in reference to the "refugees" from the two hurricanes back during the summer. Or perhaps we should discuss the evolving "mot de jour," for describing the various minority groups, e.g. "negro," "colored," "Afro-American," "black," African-American." I'm surprised that it took so long for Rumsfeld to attempt to make this change, and equally surprised (not really) to hear such a dedicated Liberal like Milbank whine about it.

Full Story: Idiot Calling the Kettle Black

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

America Needs to Decide Whether or Not They Wish to Live Under Capitalism or Socialism

Drugmakers Win Exemption in House Budget-Cutting Bill

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; Page A08

As part of a House budget bill that reduces spending on Medicaid prescription drugs, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co. and other businesses secured a provision ensuring that their mental health drugs continue to fetch top price at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the states.

The provision -- inserted by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), whose district flanks Lilly's Indianapolis headquarters -- would largely exempt antipsychotic and antidepressant medications from a larger measure designed to steer Medicaid patients to the least expensive treatment options. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved Buyer's amendment this month over the strenuous objections of Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.) and the National Governors Association. It survived unchallenged in the $50 billion budget-cutting bill that narrowly passed the House just before Congress left for Thanksgiving recess.

Mental health advocates defend Buyer's provision, saying it is necessary to ensure that vulnerable mental health patients receive proper treatment.

Andrew Sperling, the director of legislative advocacy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said his organization has been fighting efforts to restrict access to mental health drugs for years and strongly backed Buyer's amendment. "We believe these [restrictive] policies are destructive and contrary to good clinical policies," he said. "We don't like them."

To opponents, however, Buyer's measure underscores the excessive power that corporate interests wield on Capitol Hill. Critics say the measure also violates the purpose of the budget-cutting bill, which was drafted to give state governments the flexibility to cut program costs in ways that minimize the harm done to beneficiaries.

"This is obviously an attempt to prevent state Medicaid offices from getting cheaper, just-as-beneficial drugs to patients, and it's really going to stick it to the taxpayers," said Steve Ellis, a vice president and Medicaid analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the provision will raise federal drug spending by $125 million over five years, while state officials say they are likely to face far higher costs.

In a letter to the California congressional delegation, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) estimated the provision would raise the state's prescription drug costs by $50 million a year.

"This would definitely limit states' flexibility," Barton protested earlier this month, before nine committee Republicans joined 22 Democrats to override the chairman's wishes. "And again the underlying basis of the bill is to give states more flexibility, not less flexibility."

Under the budget-cutting bill's Medicaid provisions, states would be allowed to create lists of preferred medications. Then, for the first time, they could charge higher co-payments -- even to poor children and pregnant women -- for medicines not on those lists. The bipartisan National Governors Association, which promoted the changes, maintains that states will save billions of dollars by guiding patients away from newer drugs that may be far more expensive -- but no more effective -- than older alternatives.

There is no doubt that we could restrict the return on investment that the drug corporations get and put their research sectors out of business. The question remains do we want to do so? Just so you drug company bashers understand, without profits, the drug companies will go out of business, and the drugs will not be available at any price. The cost to the state will be even higher without private enterprise bearing the burden of research and development.

Full Story: Stop Whining and Take Your Medicine

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TSA Attempting to Allow Sanity to Return: Prioritizing Measures

TSA Would Allow Sharp Objects on Airliners
Screeners to Focus More on Bombs

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; Page A01

A new plan by the Transportation Security Administration would allow airline passengers to bring scissors and other sharp objects in their carry-on bags because the items no longer pose the greatest threat to airline security, according to sources familiar with the plans.

In a series of briefings this week, TSA Director Edmund S. "Kip" Hawley told aviation industry leaders that he plans to announce changes at airport security checkpoints that would allow scissors less than four inches long and tools, such as screwdrivers, less than seven inches long, according to people familiar with the TSA's plans. These people spoke on condition of anonymity because the TSA intends to make the plans public Friday.

"We'll be announcing a number of new initiatives that will have both a positive security and customer service impact," said TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark, who declined to comment on the details of the announcement. The plans must be approved by the Homeland Security Department and the Office of Management and Budget.

Faced with a tighter budget and morale problems among its workforce, the TSA says its new policy changes are aimed at making the best use of limited resources. Homeland Security Department officials are increasingly concerned about airports' vulnerability to suicide bomb attacks. TSA officials now want airport screeners to spend more of their time looking for improvised explosive devices rather than sharp objects.

The TSA's internal studies show that carry-on-item screeners spend half of their screening time searching for cigarette lighters, a recently banned item, and that they open 1 out of every 4 bags to remove a pair of scissors, according to sources briefed by the agency. Officials believe that other security measures now in place, such as hardened cockpit doors, would prevent a terrorist from commandeering an aircraft with box cutters or scissors.

However, many flight attendants do not believe sharp objects should be allowed on board. They argue that even though such items would not enable another Sept. 11, 2001-style hijacking, the items could be used as weapons against passengers or flight-crew members. "TSA needs to take a moment to reflect on why they were created in the first place -- after the world had seen how ordinary household items could create such devastation," said Corey Caldwell, spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants, which has more than 46,000 members. "When weapons are allowed back on board an aircraft, the pilots will be able to land the plane safety but the aisles will be running with blood."

That last statement is typical of the knee-jerk liberal fear mongering which leads ultimately to oppression. If a plane load of 200 people can't overpower a few hijackers, and if we surrender all of our freedoms to prevent a few people from being injured out of fear, then we might as well just turn the controll of our nation over to the terrorists right now. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

Full Story: Sanity Returning to TSA

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Bad News for Democrats: Signs of Progress in Ramadi

U.S. Debate on Pullout Resonates As Troops Engage Sunnis in Talks

By Ellen Knickmeyer, Jonathan Finer and Omar Fekeiki
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; Page A01

RAMADI, Iraq, Nov. 29 -- Outside Ramadi's city auditorium, the mortar rounds fell, two, then three, each rattling the concrete walls slightly. Inside, locked in an intense debate about what it would take for American troops in Iraq to withdraw, none of the camouflaged Marines or robed Sunni Arab tribal leaders even flinched.

"We all want the withdrawal," Nasir Abdul Karim, leader of Anbar province's Albu Rahad tribe, told scores of the armed Marines and Sunni sheiks, clerical leaders and other elders at the gathering Monday in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad. "We all believe it is an illegitimate occupation, and it is a legitimate resistance."

"We're committed to withdrawing," responded Brig. Gen. James L. Williams of the 2nd Marine Division, "as soon as we have strong units" in the Iraqi army to replace U.S.-led forces. "I understand the resistance," Williams added, commenting later that he was referring to the peaceful opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq. "But you must understand we're military people. People who are shot at will shoot back."

The spirited exchange in Ramadi came at the largest meeting yet between those suspected of supporting the Iraqi insurgency and the U.S. forces battling them. The comments by the tribal leaders, and similar remarks to reporters Tuesday in Fallujah, 30 miles away, offered fresh evidence of how the debate in the United States about pulling out troops is also echoing through Iraq. President Bush is expected to address growing public sentiment for withdrawal in a speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis.

Nowhere is support for a U.S. military exit stronger than in Anbar province in western Iraq, heart of the Sunni insurgency, where fighters control whole communities along the Euphrates River, and where money and materiel flow in from neighboring Syria. Elsewhere in Iraq, many people who resent the U.S. presence say they fear factional struggles and upheaval if the U.S. troops leave too quickly. But in Anbar cities such as Ramadi and Fallujah, the calls for a pullout are enthusiastically applauded.

"The people of Fallujah love Cindy Sheehan," declared Farouk Abd-Muhammed, a candidate for National Assembly in Dec. 15 elections, referring to the mother of a slain Marine who became a U.S. antiwar activist. He spoke Tuesday at a pre-election meeting of local leaders in Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad, scene of the largest U.S. offensive of the war in November 2004.

Abd-Muhammed described watching recent television reports with his family showing Americans waving banners that read "Stop the war in Iraq."

"I salute the American people because we know after watching them on satellite that they are ready to leave," Abd-Muhammed said.

"We know that there are now voices, even in the Congress, that want America to leave Iraq as soon as possible," said Fawzi Muhammed, an engineer who is the deputy chairman of Fallujah's reconstruction committee. "It makes us feel very happy and comfortable because it is the only solution to the problems in Iraq."

Unlike Fallujah -- seen now by some U.S. commanders as a model of cooperation between Sunni leaders and the military -- people in Ramadi appear to know comparatively little of the debate in the United States over the war. Fighting here, including insurgent bomb attacks, knocked out most of the provincial capital's communications to the outside world, and U.S. forces were able to restore a vital fiber-optics cable only this month.

But the distrust -- and the disconnect -- between the U.S. forces and the Iraqis here runs strong. Sunday, the day before the meeting, was the first "zero casualty" day the city had experienced in some time, Williams said.

Heavy fighting, and a heavy U.S. presence to try to curb it, have left the city a bombed-out, weed-overgrown, deserted wasteland. As observers arrived for the meeting, Marines prodded them to run from the government building to the nearby meeting hall, fearing that bullets or mortar rounds would make it over the blast walls.

U.S. Debate on Pullout Resonates As Troops Engage Sunnis in Talks
Williams said he had discussed the planned gathering since July with Mamoun Sami Rashid Alwani, the third governor of Anbar to take office so far this year. One of Rashid Alwani's predecessors was killed in a U.S. firefight with insurgents; the other quit after his sons were kidnapped.

Rashid Alwani, a target of insurgents because he has worked with the new Iraqi government and the Americans, survived "seven or eight" assassination attempts before the meeting came about, Williams said.

For U.S. officers, the fact that the gathering took place was heartening. "If there's a debate today, the whole city is seeing democracy," Capt. Philip Nash, a Marine commander in Ramadi, said before it began. "It's a town-hall meeting in Ramadi."

"Today's awesome," Nash added as scores of U.S. Marines took up positions for the meeting, and Iraqi forces checked the Sunni leaders filing in for weapons. "They're coming, and I haven't seen that before."

Here we have some of the most determined of the hard-liner Sunnis coming to the table to debate about troop withdrawal. This is some of the progress that the MSM have been reluctant to show/talk about. For the most vehement of the anti-American Iraqis to be willing to come to the discussion table is something that we never seem to hear Ted "the Killer" Kennedy or Jack Murtha mention. This doesn't sound like failure to me. Yes they want us out, yes they are impatient to regain total control of their nation, I would be too, but...they are talking rather than just lobbing bullets. Certainly, as described by the authors, they are still having to dodge the mortar rounds even at the conference, but they are talking! We are really being blessed in getting to witness the birth of a new democratic/republican government. I wish the killing wasn't there, but over all it is fascinating.

Full Story: Iraq, Birth of a Nation

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Even The French Have a Greater Understanding of Iraq War than Murtha

France warns against hasty U.S. pullout from Iraq

29 Nov 2005 18:38:45 GMT
Source: Reuters

PARIS, Nov 29 (Reuters) - French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, one of the sharpest critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, warned Washington on Tuesday against pulling out troops without regard to regional security.

Villepin, interviewed in Paris by CNN, said a badly planned withdrawal could cause chaos in Iraq, "which of course would be disastrous for the whole region."

U.S. officials said last week the Pentagon planned to reduce its troop presence in Iraq from 155,000 to 138,000 after Dec. 15 parliamentary elections there, and could cut numbers back to 100,000 by next summer if conditions allowed.

Asked whether Washington should set a timetable for bringing home troops, Villepin said any withdrawal "should be coordinated with the local situation in Iraq and the regional situation."

"I think that the timetable should be a global timetable," he said. "The real timetable is the Iraqi situation."

Villepin identified two main risks in Iraq: "the division of Iraq, which is of course a nightmare for the region, and ... a growing role of terrorism."

The international community should support an Arab League effort to hold a national reconciliation conference in Iraq, a regrouping of political forces in the country and further cooperation among all countries in the region, he said.

Villepin, who as foreign minister gave a dramatic speech at the United Nations in early 2003 opposing U.S. plans for war in Iraq, said: "We knew since the beginning that it was very easy to go to war but very difficult to get out of Iraq."

But he said France wanted to work with its allies in Iraq. "We have to face the situation as it is, and it is the responsibility of all the international community to help the process, to make sure that we go forward all together."

Did someone say they were serving ice-cream in Hell? What has come over the Froggies to make them begin sounding reasonable? Well I can suggest a couple of things. One, they have just had a rude awakening (one might say "baptism of fire," if he had a twisted sense of humor) courtesy of their muslim "guests," and two, they only sound that way because our Extreme Left Wing Democrat Congressmen sound so irrational and traitorous. When you have people like Ramsey "I Hate America" Clark going over to Iraq to help a mass murderer's defense team, it's not hard for people to rise to a higher level of morality.

Original Story: Villepin, Villian No More?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Under the "Who Really Cares" and "Does It Really Matter" Heading

Canadians Vote to Throw Out Government

By ROB GILLIES
The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 29, 2005; 8:21 AM

TORONTO -- Canadian politicians will hit the campaign trail this holiday season after opposition parties seized upon a corruption scandal to bring down the minority government of Prime Minister Paul Martin in a vote of no confidence.

Monday's loss means an election for all 308 seats in the lower House of Commons, likely on Jan. 23. Martin and his Cabinet will continue to govern until then.

The Conservative Party teamed up with the New Democratic and Bloc Quebecois parties to bring down the government, claiming the ruling Liberal Party had lost its moral authority. Recent polls have given the Liberals a slight lead over the Conservatives, with the New Democrats in third place.

The same surveys suggest the Bloc Quebecois would sweep the French-speaking province of Quebec, making a majority government unlikely no matter which party wins the most seats.

Martin is expected to dissolve the House of Commons on Tuesday and set a firm date for the elections. Canadian law sharply restricts the duration of the campaign.

"The vote in the House of Commons did not go our way," Martin said. "But the decision of the future of our government will be made by Canadians. They will judge us."

Martin has had frosty relations with the White House, standing by the Liberal Party decision not to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He also declined to join in Washington's continental ballistic missile shield, infuriating the Bush administration, has been called weak on terrorism, and was vocal in his opposition of high U.S. tariffs on Canadian lumber.

His push to legalize gay marriage throughout Canada also raised the hackles of Republicans south of the 49th parallel, but Martin is widely respected worldwide for Canada's neutrality and open arms toward immigrants and minorities.

Canada's Conservatives, by contrast, are seen as much more receptive to improving relations with Washington, though a majority of Canadians opposed the war in Iraq and the policies of President Bush.

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper favors tax cuts and opposed Martin's successful bill to legalize same-sex marriage throughout Canada. He would become prime minister if the Conservatives receive the most seats in Parliament.

"This is not just the end of a tired, directionless, scandal-plagued government," Harper said after Monday's vote. "It's the start of a bright new future for this country."

Truthfully, what happens in Canadian Politics is just about as important to America as what happens in Sri Lanka. Perhaps a change in government will bring a change in attitude towards America, but I doubt it. A lot of nice folks live in Canada and I wish them well, but they have been so hateful towards America and President Bush that I have little sympathy for them. Canada is best used as an example of what America should not do. Confiscatory gun policy, socialized medicine, Balkanized populace (Parlez vous Anglais?), U.N. oriented foreign policy. I see nothing to recommend them...Pretty country though.

Full Story: Canada's France-lite Province Loses Control of Government

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Come On Fitzgerald, Get a Life!

Time Reporter Called a Key to Rove's Defense In Leak Probe

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 29, 2005; Page A01

The reporter for Time magazine who recently agreed to testify in the CIA leak case is central to White House senior adviser Karl Rove's effort to fend off an indictment in the two-year-old investigation, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Viveca Novak, who has written intermittently about the leak case for Time, has been asked to provide sworn testimony to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in the next few weeks after Rove attorney Robert Luskin told Fitzgerald about a conversation he had with her, the two sources said.

It's not clear why Luskin believes Novak's deposition could help Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, who remains under investigation into whether he provided false statements in the case. But a person familiar with the matter said Luskin cited his conversations with Novak in persuading Fitzgerald not to indict Rove in late October, when the prosecutor brought perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges against Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"This is what caused [Fitzgerald] to hold off on charging" Rove, the source said. But another person familiar with the conversations said they did not appear to significantly alter the case.

Luskin presented evidence, including details of his own conversations with Novak, to Fitzgerald at a secret meeting at a downtown law office shortly before Libby was indicted on Oct. 28, according to a source familiar with the case.

It could not be learned what Luskin and Novak, who are friends, discussed that could help prove Rove did nothing illegal in the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters and the subsequent investigation of it.

Novak is not related to Robert D. Novak, the columnist who first disclosed Plame's identity in July 2003. Viveca Novak is expected to write a firsthand account after she is deposed.

The disclosure of Novak's impending testimony is the latest indication that Fitzgerald is still considering charges against Rove and that the investigation of Bush's top aide continues, even as the prosecutor prepares for Libby's trial. It also shows that Rove, who, like Libby, was dragged into the case for talking to reporters, is now hoping that a reporter will help pull him out.

Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward told Fitzgerald earlier this month that he had discussed Plame with a senior administration official -- and that the official was someone other than Libby -- before Libby's first conversation with another reporter about Plame. The Libby legal team cheered Woodward's testimony, calling it "a bombshell" and contending that it undercut Fitzgerald's case that Libby was the first official known to have talked about Plame and her CIA status with a reporter.

Libby's legal team plans to rely on testimony from Woodward and other reporters to show that the former Cheney aide is not guilty of lying, providing misleading statements and obstructing justice in the course of the investigation, a person familiar with the legal strategy said.

Luskin, Viveca Novak and Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn declined to comment. The two sources, both of whom are familiar with the Luskin-Novak conversations, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the prosecutor has warned everyone involved in the case not to discuss it publicly.

Fitzgerald has spent the past two years investigating whether any Bush administration officials disclosed Plame's name and employment at the CIA as part of an effort to discredit allegations by her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, that President Bush had twisted intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with the crime he originally set out to prove: the illegal disclosure of a covert CIA operative's identity. Instead, he has focused on alleged wrongdoing in the course of the investigation.

Talk about beating a dead horse...HEY PATRICK! THERE WAS NO ORIGINAL CRIME. Time to fold up your tents and go home. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. This time you lost, no crime was committed until you began to stir up the political pot. Stop looking for a justification for your investigation, stop disrupting people's lives and go home. Go find a bug to pull the legs off of. This death of a thousand cuts routine is getting old. You are not doing anything positive for the country, you are just contributing to the negative atmosphere that hangs over Washington, DC. GO HOME! PLEASE!

Full Story: Tend to the Log in Your Own Eye...

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Birnbaum: Looking for More Story Than He Found, Some Perspective Please

A Growing Wariness About Money in Politics

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 29, 2005; Page A01

For several years now, corporations and other wealthy interests have made ever-larger campaign contributions, gifts and sponsored trips part of the culture of Capitol Hill. But now, with fresh guilty pleas by a lawmaker and a public relations executive, federal prosecutors -- and perhaps average voters -- may be concluding that the commingling of money and politics has gone too far.

After years in which big-dollar dealings have come to dominate the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers, both sides are now facing what could be a wave of prosecutions in the courts and an uprising at the ballot box. Extreme examples of the new business-as-usual are no longer tolerated.

Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, are most vulnerable to this wave. But pollsters say that voters think less of both political parties the more prominent the issue of corruption in Washington becomes, and that incumbents generally could feel the heat of citizen outrage if the two latest guilty pleas multiply in coming months.

No fewer than seven lawmakers, including a Democrat, have been indicted, have pleaded guilty or are under investigation for improper conduct such as conspiracy, securities fraud and improper campaign donations. Congress's approval ratings have fallen off the table, in some measure because of headlines about these scandals.

"The indictments and the investigations have strengthened the feeling that people have that in fact there's too much money in Washington and that the money is being used to influence official decisions," said William McInturff, a Republican pollster with Public Opinion Strategies. "Polls show that neither party is held in high regard."

The latest court case came yesterday in San Diego when Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) wept openly after pleading guilty to tax evasion and conspiracy. His plea bargain came less than a week after public relations executive Michael Scanlon coolly admitted his role in a conspiracy to try to bribe a congressman.

Members of Congress, lawyers and pollsters recognize that both events taken together could signal the start of a cyclical ritual in the nation's capital: the moment when lawmakers and outsiders are widely seen as getting too cozy with each other and face a public backlash -- and legal repercussions -- as a result.

"I've been in town for 30 years, and it seems that every 10 years or so there is an episode of this type," said Jan W. Baran, a Republican ethics lawyer at Wiley Rein & Fielding. "We clearly are at that period now."

"It's gotten to a level that it can't be ignored anymore," agreed Stanley M. Brand, a criminal defense lawyer at Brand & Frulla who used to work for Democrats in Congress.

The worst of the blowback, both legal and electoral, could be blunted if ongoing probes turn up little or nothing. Indeed, some of the investigations are in the early stages and may take months or years to resolve. In addition, experts say that the most prominent cases are aberrational or else there would be even more investigations and indictments than there are.

Yet the activities under scrutiny can also be viewed as logical extensions of actions that once were rare but over time have become commonplace: massive political fundraising, freewheeling private travel given to lawmakers by groups interested in legislation, and the bestowing of other gifts and benefits on government officials by lobbyists.

As the Scanlon case demonstrates, the extent of this favor-buying has gone so far that the Justice Department is no longer deterred from bringing charges even if the gifts fall within Congress's gift-giving limits or are below campaign finance maximums. "It doesn't matter," Brand said. Charges could come, he said, if "anything of value is given to a public official that can be linked to an official act."

Amazing...politics attracts money, who'd have guessed? We once again see an example of the brevity of the press' memories and that of the voters. This is nothing new, bribery is as old as is politics. Some individuals in any political party lack the character to resist the temptations of proffered money. Sometimes the amount of money can be staggering...on the low end, I mean. It is astounding how little money it takes to persuade some public officials to betray their constituents and their own morals. On the other hand, some corruption involves large sums of money...some prostitutes cost more than others, we're just talking price here, not morality. This kind of thing happened with the Clinton Administration (remember pardon-gate? or how about the Clinton Slush...oops, strike that, "Legal Defense Fund." As is stated in the article, this kind of thing is pretty common place, and when it is pursued by prosecutors (usually when it becomes too userous or obvious) then it comes to the forefront of the news. With money comes temptation. That is one reason I am surprised that more people aren't investigating the activities of George Soros. But then he is supporting Democrats, so I guess I'm not surprised. Jeff, Grow up! Find something more news worthy.

Full Story: History Repeats Itself...Yawn

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Pseudo-Science From the Doom and Gloomers

World Leaders to Discuss Strategies for Climate Control
Bush Administration Shuns Conference On Strategies to Build on Kyoto Pact

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 27, 2005; Page A03

The nations of the world will meet in Montreal this week to start discussing the next step in combating the global warming problem, hoping to devise a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that was scorned by the Bush administration in 2001. But the United States is saying it doesn't want to talk.

Despite the Bush administration's resistance, an assortment of U.S. elected officials, industry representatives and environmentalists are pushing to chart a new climate change strategy that will bring the United States back into international discussions while forcing developing countries to make meaningful cuts in their own carbon dioxide emissions. This push for a more flexible approach than Kyoto provided will be on full display in Montreal and could frame how the world confronts climate change in the years to come.

"Most people are ready to take the dialogue forward. The only place where that is not the case is the administration," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Many advocates, analysts and policymakers are willing to move beyond the "one size fits all" approach of Kyoto, she added.

Climate experts such as Claussen are grappling with how best to proceed after 2012, when Kyoto -- which set a goal of cutting heat-trapping gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels by then -- expires. Scientists such as Princeton University's Michael Oppenheimer believe the world is in the middle of "the critical decade" in terms of curbing greenhouse gas emissions and needs to lock in carbon dioxide cuts soon before the warming trend has irreversible consequences.

"We do have a little time, but not much. . . . If we don't get a serious program in place for the long term in this second post-Kyoto phase, we will simply not make it and we will be crossing limits which will basically produce impacts that are unacceptable," Oppenheimer told reporters in a telephone conference call this month.

Starting tomorrow and continuing until Dec. 9, two overlapping groups will be meeting in Montreal: the 156 countries that signed Kyoto, which include every industrialized nation except the United States and Australia; and the 189 signatories to the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, a pact without binding emissions limits that the United States and Australia have both endorsed.

Negotiators are hoping to have talks about a post-Kyoto climate strategy under the auspices of the U.N. Framework Convention, the broader coalition. But Paula J. Dobriansky, the undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs, said the United States would prefer that each country to pursue its own way of curbing harmful emissions.

"We don't see the commencement of a negotiation process as contributing to progress now . . . given the differing positions held by parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change," she said. "One of the best ways forward is to allow for the development of different approaches."

There continues to be no proof that man's activities have any effect, adverse or beneficial on the climate change which is occurring. There is a tremendous amount of demagoguery on this subject, but no real evidence. Opinions abound and people are prone to believe the faux science because they see some variations in climate. This is especially true when you have idiots like Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Al Gore running around touting this bad science. This is what happens when emotion rather than logic is allowed to run your life and lead you in your decisions. At that point, facts become irrelevent. Bobby Jr. is the poster boy for this kind of thinking.

Full Story: Oh No! Mr. Bill, Another Kyoto Fol de rol

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Lining Up the Liars

Advocacy Groups Targeting Vulnerable Senators on Alito Vote

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 28, 2005; Page A02

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Fifteen foot soldiers newly recruited to the campaign to derail the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. introduced themselves at a recent meeting not only by name but also by offering their reasons for joining the cause.

Their concerns sounded a lot like an anthology of liberal talking points, bringing faint smiles to the faces of the organizers from Rhode Islanders for a Fair Judiciary, which is working to marshal opposition to Alito across the state. Abortion, gay rights, worker rights -- all are imperiled if Alito receives a lifetime appointment to the nation's high court, the volunteers said.

To prevent that from happening, these activists have joined a growing grass-roots campaign aimed at persuading the state's U.S. senators to oppose Alito. And one of those two senators is foremost in their minds: Republican Lincoln D. Chafee, who is up for reelection next year.

Coming from the small liberal wing of his party, Chafee is a supporter of abortion rights whose future is imperiled from both directions. He is facing a conservative challenge in the primary, and if he survives that he faces a general election battle in a distinctly Democratic-leaning state. Few are weighing Alito's nomination more gingerly -- and these activists know it.

This is the mirror opposite of the vulnerability that Alito's supporters are hoping to exploit in states such as Nebraska and North Dakota, which President Bush won easily last year but where Democrats hold Senate seats.

This gives activists on both sides incentives to plunge into the political trenches -- distributing postcards to be mailed to senators, writing letters to the editor, passing out literature extolling Alito's virtues or warning of the dangers he would present if elevated to the high court.

In Providence, one volunteer even offered to prowl downtown streets with a mobile phone and a script, offering passers-by a chance to call Chafee's office on the spot to register opposition to Alito.

"I know some of you might be wondering: Is this going to make a difference? It's only postcards," said Marti Rosenberg, the lead organizer here, who opposed the 1987 Supreme Court nomination of Robert H. Bork. "In the Bork fight, we got nearly 1,000 cards to Senator [John H.] Chafee, the dad. And we did beat Bork."

Backed by the money and know-how of Washington-based advocacy organizations, activists on both sides are duplicating those efforts in about 25 states. In many cases, the grass-roots campaign is being supplemented with television advertising focused on swaying swing-vote senators.

Opponents of the nomination, who are concentrating on states with moderate Republican senators or conservative Democrats, are trying to drive home the argument that Alito is a threat to long-established rights. His confirmation, they say, will put the judiciary in the hands of conservative extremists, threatening the right to abortion, crippling the power of Congress to pass anti-discrimination or gun-control laws, and resulting in more police power over individuals.

It will be no surprise if this "blacksmith" acts like a powderpuff. John Chafee was a complete embarassment to the Republican party and a sad excuse for a man, and his son, Lincoln, fails to measure up to the father. I guess it's true that the acorn doesn't fall far from the balsawood tree. To call Chafee a moderate is to insult moderates. He hasn't the backbone of a moderate. Chafee is the least Republican Republican in Congress. At least Liberal Republicans like Lowell Weicker had a backbone. Alito is the perfect nominee, he will be the epitome of a constitutionalist. He will be certain to avoid legislating from the bench, and that is precisely what the Liberals don't want. The Liberal agenda is dead without an activist judiciary.

Full Story: Democrat Distortion Machine

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Demagoguery Runs Deep in Pelosi Camp

Medicaid Cutbacks Divide Democrats
House Condemns Provisions Crafted By Governors

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 28, 2005; Page A01

Controversial House legislation designed to gain control of Medicaid growth has split Democrats, with lawmakers in Washington united in their opposition while Democratic governors are quietly supporting the provisions and questioning the party's reflexive denunciations.

The Medicaid provisions have become a flashpoint for the opposition of Democrats -- and some moderate Republicans -- to the $50 billion budget-cutting bill that narrowly passed the House last week. The provisions would reduce Medicaid spending by $12 billion through 2010 and $48 billion over the next decade, in part by making it difficult for more affluent seniors to transfer their assets to relatives, then plead poverty to get Medicaid to pay for them to stay in nursing homes.

But the measures would also save $2.4 billion over five years by allowing state governments to impose higher health insurance deductibles, co-payments and premiums on poor Medicaid recipients, including, for the first time, impoverished children and pregnant women. An additional $3.9 billion would be saved by relaxing mandated preventive health care and screening of children and pregnant women.

The changes would trim just 1.7 percent from a program expected to spend nearly $2.8 trillion though 2015, but the proposals have prompted bitter condemnation from congressional Democrats.

"As the number of people without health insurance has increased for four years in a row, Republicans are charging ahead with $45 billion in cuts to Medicaid -- the health insurance program that provides medical care to America's poorest children and many of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) thundered Nov. 18, just before the pre-dawn passage of the bill. "Republicans give new meaning to the words 'suffer little children.' "

What she did not say is that those changes were proposed over the summer by a bipartisan task force of governors, led by Virginia's Mark R. Warner, whose popularity in a Republican state has made him a rising star in the Democratic Party.

In fact, the most controversial provisions in the House bill were adapted almost word for word from a document drafted by Govs. Warner, Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa), Haley Barbour (R-Miss.), Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.), Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.), Jennifer M. Granholm (D-Mich.), Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), Jim Doyle (D-Wis.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Edward G. Rendell (D-Pa.), said Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association.

More proof of the amorality of Pelosi and her supporters. In spite of the fact that the proposal was the result of "a bi-partisan task force of governors, led by Virginia's Mark R. Warner," a Democrat. The egregiously hateful and deceptive Nancy Pelosi sees nothing wrong with blaming Republicans. Really Nancy, you can't even support a 1.7% cut on a $2.8 Trillion program? Where are you going to get this money? Do you want to destroy our economy? Do you really care so little about the American people that you will saddle them with a Jimmy Carter Economy? Nancy, you must really hate the American people to be so cold blooded and political. I have changed my mind, you are not stupid, you are evil and a malevolent influence on our nation.

Full Story: Pelosi's Hatred for America and Capitalism

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

On the Hilarious Side of the Life Politic

Mother Sheehan’s Book Signing"

Sometimes several pictures are worth several thousand words:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan waits for people to show up at her book signing near President Bush’s ranch on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 in Crawford, Texas. The Washington Post chose this photo to use in their story.

Mother Sheehan Sings Sinatra:
"It's quarter to three, there's no one in the place except you and me
So, set 'em up, Joe, I got a little story you oughta know
We're drinkin', my friend, to the end of a brief episode
Make it one for my baby and one more for the road"

Frankly I’m amazed the DNC/AP (one in the same) allowed these photos to see the light of day.

My caption: Ever have one of those days when you think "Where did I go wrong?"

Usually their photogs do their (unlevel) best to angle their cameras and crop their pictures to make Mother Sheehan always appear to be at the center of a worshipful swarm.

CNN Reports: Cindy Sheehan today had a turn away crowd at her book signing held in Crawford Texas. Supporters were lined up around the ditch to get a signed copy of her new book "Not One More Mother's Child."

I’m afraid someone is going to be in hot water for letting us glimpse the truth.
Update! As if to drive home my point, this is the photo from this series that Reuters decided to run with:

Again, note the bizarre angle and the severe cropping. In Hollywood this is called "protecting your star."

Photos and Blue font comments courtesy of Sweetness & Light.com To you guys I am very greatful for making these photos available so that Americans can get the truth.

Full Story: What If You Gave a Book Signing...

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

When State Department Goals Interfere With Military Needs

Shiite Urges U.S. to Give Iraqis Leeway In Rebel Fight
Americans Have Blocked Tougher Tactics, Cleric Says

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 27, 2005; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- The leader of Iraq's most powerful political party has called on the United States to let Iraqi fighters take a more aggressive role against insurgents, saying his country will only be able to defeat the insurgency when the United States lets Iraqis get tough.

"The more freedom given to Iraqis, the more chance for further progress there would be, particularly in fighting terror," said Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shiite Muslim religious party that leads the transitional government and whose armed wing is the most feared of Iraq's many factional forces.

Instead, Hakim asserted in a rare interview late last week, the United States is tying Iraq's hands in the fight against insurgents. One of Iraq's "biggest problems is the mistaken or wrong policies practiced by the Americans," he said.

In more than an hour of conversation at his Baghdad home and office, Hakim denied accusations that the Shiite-led government's security forces -- with alleged involvement by his party's armed wing -- have operated torture centers and death squads targeting Sunni Arabs. He also renewed his call to merge half of Iraq's 18 provinces into a federal region in the oil-rich, heavily Shiite south, and he played down Iran's interests in Iraq, saying that the Shiite theocracy to the east wants only what the United States claims to want: a stable Iraq.

During much of the interview, Hakim was critical of U.S. policies toward Iraq, though he acknowledged that U.S. forces must remain in the country as a "guest" of the Iraqi government while it builds its security forces. The Americans are guilty of "major interference, and preventing the forces of the Interior or Defense ministries from carrying out tasks they are capable of doing, and also in the way they are dealing with the terrorists," Hakim charged.

Hakim gave few details of what getting tough would entail, other than making clear it would require more weapons, with more firepower, than the United States is currently supplying. He also urged the United States to take a tougher stand against countries harboring insurgents and their supporters, and called for faster trials of insurgent suspects.

His repeated assertion that the United States was being too weak against Iraq's insurgency, allowing attacks to mushroom, appeared to suggest that any future Iraqi government that included him would share his view. With Iraqis scheduled to vote Dec. 15 for the country's first full-term government since the U.S. invasion in 2003, some analysts predict that Hakim will come from behind the scenes into direct political contention.

Until now, Hakim has opted not to hold office; the highest-ranking member of the Supreme Council in the current government is Adel Abdel-Mehdi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents. But as head of the Supreme Council, which was founded by exiles in Iran as an armed Shiite opposition group to Saddam Hussein, Hakim commands the largest bloc of seats in Iraq's transitional parliament.

In addition, Hakim oversees the party's armed wing, formerly known as the Badr Brigade. Its fighters are widely feared for what even many Iraqi Shiites say are habits of torture and other ruthless tactics learned from Iranian intelligence and security forces. Now officially converted into a private security detail and political group, the renamed Badr Organization is widely alleged to control many command-level and the rank-and-file officers in the Interior Ministry -- police, commandos, intelligence agencies and other branches.

The United States, at times openly distrustful of the Supreme Council's Iranian links and of its armed wing, took the allegations of Badr involvement in a secret Interior Ministry prison that was discovered last week seriously enough to publicly warn the government against allowing factional militias to control Iraq's security forces or ministries.

In the interview, Hakim, the son of an ayatollah, wore the black turban signifying descent from the prophet Muhammad and the long, close robes of a scholar of Islam. He spoke in a spare, formal marble-floored audience room in his Baghdad home, which until the U.S.-led invasion had been the Baghdad residence of Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

Sitting straight and intently in a high-backed chair, Hakim repeatedly invoked the assassination of his brother, Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Hakim, who was killed by a car bomb in Najaf in August 2003. He evinced distrust of the Iraqi government's principal ally, the United States, even more often.

Here we have situation similar with those we witnessed in the Vietnam War. You cannot fight a war when constrained by the niceties desired by the United States Department of State. Ultimately, this War has to be resolved using an Iraqi solution, not an American solution. In 1776 America was not constrained by any outside influences in conducting our war for freedom. We were constrained by our consciences. The War for Independence was fought in the manner in which we chose, not our allies, the French, and certainly not that of our enemies, the British. In the end, this is what must happen in Iraq. They too must be allowed to resolves much of the conflict in their own way, with support of our military and our logistics, but in a manner consisten with their own cultural standards. Some of their techniques may be of questionable moral rectitude by Western standards, but they may be seen as more acceptable by standards in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia theives are dealt with in a brutal, to us, but efficient manner consistent with their culture. It is not for us to say their way is wrong. Just so, we cannot impose our mores on the People of Iraq. They must be their own consciences. It is arrogance in the extreme for us to assume that our moral standards are better for the Iraqis than theirs. What is culturally acceptable over there may not be acceptable over here, but that is their affair, not ours. We must allow them to take the lead in combatting their own internal enemies. We presume too much to assume that we know better than they what will work in their culture. Liberal Westerners in both the political arena and in the MSM speak often of "diversity" but they rarely believe in it or mean it. Diversity means accepting the cultural differences of another nation, while not necessarily endorsing them. This is the attitude we need to adopt in Iraq. Short of wholesale slaughter, I believe that Hakim and his people are correct, let them deal with the terrorists who are killing their people.

Full Story: Let the Iraqis Dictate How to Conduct Their War

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Another Reason for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Intruder fatally shot by gun-wielding homeowner

KTRK/HOUSTON
11/22/05

A homeowner shot and killed an intruder who broke into a home near Memorial Park.

The suspect jumped a fence and broke through the side door of a town home on Lacy at Dettering just north of Memorial Drive. He had a baseball bat.
A man was home with his wife and child. He warned the intruder that he had a gun. That didn't stop him.

HPD's Mike Walker said, "(As he) began to make his way through the residence the homeowner secured his wife and child. As he tried to go upstairs he shot him."

The intruder died at the scene. Police say classify the case as a justifiable homicide.

Police are also checking out reports that the suspect may have had an accomplice. Witnesses heard a car speed off after the homeowner fired shots.

The anti-gun people are fond of telling lies such as "a gun in the home is 22 times as likely to kill or injure someone in the family as to be used for defense. I guess this family was a mistake. Actually the mistake is in having a "researcher" with an agenda (the disarming of Americans) doing research about that agenda. Kind of like having someone from the Sierra Club researching Global Warming. The results are likely to be as objective as is the researcher. Thanks God our ForeFathers had the forsight to cite gun ownership as one of our natural rights.

Full Story: Another Happy Gun Owner Story

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Yes Virginia, There Is A Strong Economy

ZOOMING IN ON BARGAINS
Stores 'swamped' with early birds
Retailers worked to renew spark of traditional shopping day — and Houstonians bought it

By DAVID KAPLAN
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Black Friday, that peculiar shopping day when people wake up in the middle of the night for a chance at a really good deal, has lost some of its effectiveness in recent years.

But retailers were out to reverse the trend this year.

"They're trying to bring back more excitement with extended hours and more door-buster specials, to make Black Friday one of the biggest days of the year again," said Jay McIntosh, director of retail and consumer products at Ernst & Young.

Houstonians responded.

At 1 a.m. Friday, dozens of shoppers were outside the Clear Lake-area Circuit City waiting for the 5 a.m. opening.

At other big box stores across town, it was a similar scene.

"Black Friday has almost become a religion with people," said Conn's district sales manager Tom Miller. "I've done this for 16 years, and this is probably the strongest I've seen. People are thrilled with the early bird deals and they come in willing to spend money."

At Conn's, sales of plasma and LCD TVs, computers and laptops were especially strong, he said.

At the Almeda Mall J.C. Penney, customers were waiting outside the store at 3 a.m., lured by door-buster specials on women's leather jackets, DVD players and other items. The store opened at 5 a.m.

"We're swamped," said store manager Woody McPike later in the morning. "I'm a little surprised by how good business has been, with energy prices and the natural disasters."

Houston Penney stores were performing "well above" projections for Black Friday, McPike said.

Retailers won't release their Black Friday sales figures until after the weekend. The day after Thanksgiving got the name Black Friday because it traditionally marks the day retailers "get back in the black," or show a profit, for the year.

Last year, the Thanksgiving weekend took in 9.2 percent of all holiday sales, less than the 9.5 percent posted in 2003.

In recent years, the Saturday before Christmas has been the biggest shopping day.

Among the nation's retailers this Black Friday, "it seems like the promotions are aggressive and widespread, particularly in apparel," McIntosh said.

Retailers generally like the cold weather at this time of year because it gets consumers in the mood to buy warm apparel. This year, however, cold is a two-edged sword: The frigid weather also reminds shoppers of the higher heating bills they'll be paying this season, McIntosh said.

It must be so depressing to be a Liberal these days, what with a strong economy, strong belief in the chances for success in the Iraq war, low unemployment, such bad news all the way around. Woe is Liberals. Of course they haven't realized the extent of their problems because t