Thursday, December 13, 2007


OK ... I used "obtuse" instead of stupid because I'm in a warm and loving mood today. The object of my warm and fuzzy feelings right now would be Mika Emilie Leonia Brzezinski. Yes, she's the 40-year-old daughter of Ziggy. She's the co-host and news reader on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program. Yesterday she was delivering the news about that shooting at the Colorado over the weekend --- you know, the one where Jeanne Assam stopped a killer with a rifle using only a handgun. After she delivers the news story her co-host Joe Scarborough says that this story shows that one person with a gun can make a difference. Mika, who is staunchly anti-gun, responds with "no, no, no, no, no – no no no no no no" and then follows with "You know, that is the most inane statement I have ever heard. You can watch the video right here.

Try to understand this, my friends, though in the end it is going to be impossible. Here is your friendly left-wing news reader delivering a story about one civilian with a gun saving multiple lives .. and then saying that it is "inane" to suggest that one person with a gun can make a difference. ONLY in the mind of a liberal could you find this thought process.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007


Democrats are trying the blame the Bush administration for pressuring experts to downplay the connection between hurricanes and global warming. A report released by Democrats on Monday called the "Political Interference With Climate Change Science Under the Bush Administration" marks the end of a 16-month investigation into the conspiracy theories of Democrats. The report says that "the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."

Now former director of the National Hurricane Center, Max Mayfield has stepped forward to contradict the Democrats' findings: political pressure did not cause him to change his congressional testimony which downplayed the link between global warming and hurricanes.

The controversy started when a staff member of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska sent an email to the NOAA asking Mayfield to say that global warming was not making hurricanes stronger. Bottom line for Democrats ... Bush was behind the whole thing. I wonder how many Democrat staffers have pressured government scientists to participate in the global warming alarmism?

By the way, part of Mayfield's original testimony following hurricane Katrina states, "the increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations/cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming."

Why are Democrats upset? They see global warming as the key to more income redistribution. They don't want to loose this argument.

Friday, December 07, 2007


Australia's new green Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has suddenly done an about-face on cutting green house gas emissions. I love to see a leader with convictions. Just days after Rudd said Australia would back a 25-40% cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020, he has suddenly decided that it is unrealistic.

The electricity industry stepped up and warned that it wouldn't be able to meet growing consumer demand and comply with the target, causing huge rises in electricity prices. The Energy Supply Association of Australia found that cutting carbon emissions by 30% of 2000 levels by 2030 would push power costs up by 30%.

Perhaps Australia's new "green" top guy has figured out that this whole global warming thing is really a badly disguised attack by tired or communists and leftists castoffs against the industrialized world and the evil specter of capitalism.

Thursday, December 06, 2007


In light of the report on Iran’s nuclear activity, an Iranian government spokesman said that “Americans should pay the price” for turning international public opinion against Iran.

I don’t think it takes the United States to turn international opinion against Iran … I think its leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does it for them. His latest idea is to create an international Islamic court to try war criminals and other human rights violators.

He claims that bodies like the UN are being “manipulated by the West.

Remember … when it comes to Iran and whether they do or don’t have nukes, which would be the biggest error:

(a) Believing that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program and taking action to stop it; or,
(b) Believing that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, when in fact they do, and failing to stop it.

I apologize for the fact that this may be too tough a problem for a government educated liberal to solve.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007


Polls are now showing that Hillary Clinton trails five Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups. The top five were Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. (Huckabee, by the way, was not considered a top five candidate in the first round of polling during the summer.) But against Barack Obama or John Edwards, Republicans were down in the hypothetical head-to-head match-ups.

Our best hope at this point is for the MoveOn Democrats to go ahead and nominate Hillary ... they we can watch with glee as she self-destructs and takes the Democrats with her.

Thursday, November 15, 2007


By Michelle Malkin

Time to bring it out again…


Just about an hour ago, the Dems passed their Iraq withdrawal bill, tying $50 billion in war funding to a demand that President Bush start bringing troops home in coming weeks (never mind that it’s already starting) with a mandated timetable of ending combat by December 2008:

House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.

The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren’t giving up.

“The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.”

Translation of Pelosi’s remarks: “Stop pestering me, Code Pink! I beg you to stop!”

The White House says it will veto the bill; the GOP reportedly will back the president. Nancy was sweating it for a bit this evening:

The bill represents about a quarter of the $196 billion Bush requested for combat operations in the 2008 budget year, which began Oct 1.

It would compel an unspecified number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins in coming weeks to reverse the 30,000 troop buildup he ordered earlier this year. It also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and states that money included in the bill should be used to redeploy troops and “not to extend or prolong the war.”

The measure also would set government-wide standards on interrogation, effectively barring the CIA from using such harsh techniques as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

The bill was on shaky ground this week, after some liberal Democrats said they were concerned it was too soft and would not force Bush to end the war. Conservative Democrats said they thought it went too far and would tie the hands of military commanders.

The bill’s prospects brightened somewhat after three leading anti-war Democrats announced they would support it. California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they had agreed to swing behind it because the bill explicitly states the money should be used to bring troops home.

But still uncertain the bill would pass, Pelosi on Wednesday delayed a vote by several hours while she met with supporters and asked them to help her round up votes.

Fifteen Democrats broke ranks and joined 188 Republicans in opposing the measure. Four Republicans joined 214 Democrats in supporting it.

Roll call vote coming up…

Here it is.

The 15 Dems who opposed the withdrawal bill:

Kucinich (because he didn’t think it went far enough)
Stark (because he didn’t think it went far enough)

The 4 Republicans who supported the withdrawal bill:

English (PA)
Jones (NC)
Walsh (NY)

One voted “present:”

Lewis (GA)

And 11 didn’t vote:



John Boehner’s office e-mailed the following statement following the vote:

“By Christmas, some 3,000 American troops will return home from Iraq after achieving remarkable success in our fight against al Qaeda. And how is Congress welcoming them back? By passing yet another politically-motivated measure that cuts off funding for those continuing to serve our nation in Iraq and hamstrings the commanders who are leading them to victory. This measure will never be signed into law, and it represents yet another failure for Democratic leaders intent on putting politics before accomplishment.

“Congress would be better served by sending the President the long-overdue veterans and troops funding bill, which enjoys broad, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. But the Majority leadership has played politics with this critical legislation, stalling its completion to take up today’s cynical proposal to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Consequently, returning troops and their families will face more hurdles and take more time to get the housing and health care benefits they deserve – all thanks to Congress.

“Under General Petraeus’ strategy, our troops are routing al Qaeda in Iraq, improving security for the Iraqi people, and laying the foundation for critical political reconciliation in that country. Congress should not undermine this success and risk having al Qaeda stand back up. Instead, Members of both parties should recognize that the Petraeus plan is working, continue to solidify our troops’ gains, and work to bring them home after victory, not defeat.”

Meanwhile, over in Iraq



More from the front on the Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette. And Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal.


The NYT covers tonight’s “rancorous debate” on the House floor:

In two hours of rancorous debate on the House floor, Republicans stressed the recent progress in Iraq while Democrats said that the political situation remained bleak and that it was time to pull out American troops.

“The sacrifice of our troops was simply not met by the actions of the Iraqi government,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “This legislation today offers something fundamentally different than what President Bush is proposing, a 10-year war, a war without end costing trillions of dollars. It provides the tools to our troops so they can get the job done. It also presents a strategy that will bring them home, responsibly, honorably, safely and soon.”

…For Republicans, the debate provided another chance to accuse the Democrats of wasting time. “Today, if my calculations are right, we will have our 58th vote on trying to restrain the commanders in the field in Iraq,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip. “The Democrats appear to never get tired of foregone conclusions, to never get tired of doing the same thing over and over again with the same result — the ultimate Groundhog Day of legislation that doesn’t get us anywhere.”

The White House also hammered the Democrats in Congress. Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, promised a veto and accused the Democrats of ignoring gains in Iraq.

You’ll love this bit of editorializing in the last paragraph of the NYT piece:

The debate over war financing also provided a forum for Republicans to praise recent developments in Iraq, including what they called a decline in violence.

“…what they called a decline in violence.”

“They” are not the only ones calling it that.

Related: A Pat Dollard reader has an interesting exchange with a WaPo reporter about the MSM coverage of Iraq. Read it.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007


Now the great John "poverty tour" Edwards has released his plan for the Family Leave Act. Edwards proposes spending $2 billion a year (that we don't have) to help states create family leave programs – that's twice as much as Hillary Clinton's suggestion. But Edwards wants at least eight weeks of paid time off every year for so-called family leave .. and he wants it by 2014

Edwards also wants to expand the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to include 13 million workers who are eligible for unpaid leave. But wait! There's more! He also wants to require all businesses to offer workers a minimum of seven paid sick days a year.

Add it up. Edwards wants to use the police power of government to force employers to pay employees for a minimum of 47 days a year ... for not working. This is in addition to vacation days!

Just remember, to Democrats like John Edwards, government is the solution to everything. Edwards says, "It works in combination with universal health care, universal preschool, and a whole series of things that are essentially aimed at making sure we strengthen and grow the middle class in this country, and provide some level of financial security that does not exist today." Universal ... universal ... that's just another way of saying "funded by your tax dollars."

There is not one single penny earned by one individual in this country that people like Edwards don't covet. They're smart, though. They'll be sure to take the money from people who's votes they don't need .. and then spend it on those more likely to vote for them.

If Edwards and the MoveOn Democrats were to get their way on programs like these, all future election campaigns would be peppered with warnings that "If you vote for my opponent he will take away your paid family leave! If you'll vote for me, I'll give you a few days more!"

Nowhere in our Constitution can I find any article or section that gives Washington the power to force employers to pay people for not working. Once you've accepted the premise that Washington does have this power ... what's the limit?

Tuesday, November 13, 2007


Would someone please give us a big-time break here?

Bill Clinton had a few things to say yesterday in Charleston, S.C., about the treatment his "wife" has been getting from the other MoveOn Democrat candidates. He said "those boys have been getting tough on her lately."

Surely he can't be serious. He's actually complaining because these "boys," as he calls them, have been tough on Hillary? If I may be so intemperate as to ask a simple question, do you think that these "boys" have been tougher on Hillary than you have been?

You want to talk about being "rough" on your wife? Let's do a short review:

We'll start with a few names: Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Then there's Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones --- plus goodness knows how many more. These are just the names of some of the women Bill Clinton either assaulted or has had affairs with during his so-called "marriage" to Hillary.

So Bill calls it "getting rough" when Hillary's campaign opponents question her flip-flopping on the issue of driver's licenses for illegals, or make statements about Hillary's planted questions (see next item) during campaign stops. That is "getting rough" on the lady ... while having multiple affairs and being a serial sexual harasser – including at least one rape – is not? If putting your "wife" in charge of cleaning up after multiple affairs and assaults isn't "being rough on her," then what, pray tell, is?

The fact is that Hillary Clinton has been engaged in a fraud marriage for decades ... a marriage born out of a desire for political power rather than an endearing love and dedication. The problem here isn't that the "boys" are being rough on Hillary, or that Hillary and Bill are playing the gender card in this primary ... the problem is that we have a woman who has conspired with her husband to disgrace the institution of marriage trying to pass herself off as a loyal wife and dedicated mother in order to appeal to women to whom the institution of marriage actually means something.

The real question here is why various pundits and columnists don't step up and call the Clinton marriage what they and everybody else knows full well it is ... a fraud and a sham. When I give speeches I love to tell people that one of the greatest status symbols one can acquire in this country is a long-term marriage. You can't buy one, and you can't inherit one. You have to work for it ... day after day. There are times you'll want to quit; times you think things are looking grim. Stick to it, recommit yourself, and you'll get there. When I say this to an older group they invariably applaud. When I say it to a younger group (those students at the University of Georgia a week ago, for instance) they just sit there. That's fine. They'll learn.

It disgusts me that these two people continue to engage in this phony marriage of theirs while the media just plays along. The institution of marriage in this country is to be valued and defended, not made a mockery by two people engaged in a political alliance with a dedication to one, and only one thing ... power.

Monday, November 12, 2007


Barack Obama is also singing the tunes of many of his fellow MoveOn Democrats. It seems that to be a presidential candidate for 2008, you must support increased social security cap so that the evil rich pay their "fair share."

Obama says, "I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected." It's just a little bit more! And look at all the people we need to protect!

But it gets better. In reference to his buddy, Warren "tax me more" Buffet, Obama says, "I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they need."

Those of you who have listened to me for any time at all will know that Obama just yanked one of my chains. Here he is promoting the leftist idea that anyone who succeeds in this country did so not because of hard work, but because they were "fortunate." They were lucky. It's not about sacrifice. It's not about work ethic. It's not about dedication. It's not about making smart choices. It's all about being lucky.

There's a reason for this language. If Democrats can convince you that the high achievers in our economy were merely "lucky," then it is so much easier to argue the cause of income redistribution. After all, they're just evening out the odds.

Sunday, November 11, 2007



It’s been a tough week for democracy and American diplomacy. In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf pulled a coup against himself and U.S. diplomats were apparently stunned. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez pulled a coup against his countrymen and U.S. diplomats were once again, well…stunned. The difference in political attention and media coverage accorded these two affairs has been -- for lack of a better word -- stunning.

Print and broadcast coverage of events nearly half the world away in Pakistan have been ubiquitous since Mr. Musharraf declared a “State of Emergency” and fired his self-appointed Supreme Court last Saturday. Photos and footage of protesting, out of work, Pakistani lawyers being dragged away in handcuffs by police in Islamabad have produced breathless coverage from correspondents who also freely reported that there is now no freedom of the press in Pakistan.

These images were apparently enough to give liberals in the U.S. Congress post traumatic stress disorder, causing a number of members to muse about cutting off economic, military and intelligence assistance -- and of course, blame George W. Bush. On Wednesday, while President Bush was giving French President Sarkozy a guided tour of Mount Vernon, Under Secretary of State John Negroponte was on Capitol Hill begging the solons not to pull the plug on Pakistan and abandon “an indispensable ally in the war on terror.”

Meanwhile, the potentates of the press and the powerful on the Potomac have all but ignored the coup in Caracas, just 1,400 miles south of Miami. Last week Venezuela’s rubber-stamp legislature approved 69 constitutional changes drafted by their party boss, Hugo Chavez. If affirmed by referendum on 2 December, the amendments would dramatically expand the powers of Venezuela’s chief executive, permit the government to seize private property without court approval, virtually eliminate civil liberties, and allow Mr. Chavez to serve -- like Kim Jung Il in North Korea -- as president for life. To make this “deal” attractive to the people, the Venezuelan work-day would be officially shortened to six hours.

On Wednesday this week, while Presidents Bush and Sarkozy toured George Washington’s gardens and Congress mulled the means of tightening the screws on Pakistan, more than 80,000 people took to the streets of Caracas to protest the Chavez coup. When students gathered on the campus of Central University and refused to disperse as ordered by police, the cops and National Guard troops pulled back allowing goons from Mr. Chavez’ United Socialist Party, many wearing ski masks, to open fire on the student gathering.

Despite numerous accounts of the Caracas clashes in the Latin American and European press -- even the BBC -- there has been scant coverage in the U.S. media -- and almost no mention of Chavez’ machinations by our diplomats. The protests in Pakistan -- including pitiful pictures of jailed lawyers -- have gotten almost as much ink and airtime in the U.S. as the Hollywood writer’s strike. President Bush even called Mr. Musharraf to tell him to “take off his uniform” and hold elections as promised. Yet, official Washington has been practically mute in criticizing Mr. Chavez. Why the difference?

Part of the answer is, of course, that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and Venezuela doesn’t -- yet. Interestingly, in his prepared remarks before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Negroponte made only one elliptical mention of Islamabad’s nukes -- and focused instead on the need to keep Pakistan with us in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism. Notably, while everyone was busy bashing Mr. Musharraf, he was quietly moving a full division of Pakistan’s army from the border with India to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Pakistan-Afghan frontier – long a Taliban-Al Qaeda stronghold.

For skeptics -- and I confess to being one when it comes to the press and politicians -- there may be other explanations for the disparity in how the two coups have been covered and commented upon.

First, Mr. Musharraf has been an ally of the United States in our war against radical Islam since 1981. America’s allies are second only to the U.S. military as whipping boys for the American media. Conversely, Mr. Chavez has proclaimed himself to be America’s enemy since he came to power in 1998. His promise of spreading a “21st Century Socialist Revolution” resonates favorably with the U.S. left. Last May, when Mr. Chavez seized control of Venezuela’s most popular radio and TV stations, it created barely a blip in the U.S. press.

Second, Venezuela is the fourth-leading supplier of crude oil and petroleum products to the United States. With oil soon to be at $125 per barrel -- or higher -- is it too cynical to ask if the Chavez coup has been buried by our political and media elites because they are worried about finding fuel for their limos?

Thursday, November 08, 2007


Hillary Clinton admitted that she flopped in last week's debate on MSNBC. She told "The Situation Room's" Candy Crowley, "I wasn't at my best the other night."

Now the latest Rasmussen polls show that Hillary's lead over Obama has slipped to its lowest level. Clinton now leads with 34%, that's only 10 points above Obama at 24%.

Meanwhile, Obama took a shot at the Clinton campaign saying that "they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60's and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

The recent publicity for Hillary's "hippie museum" in New York probably doesn't help either. Although the earmark for the museum has been removed ... is there still a way that Hillary could get her Woodstock museum? Oh hell yes, she will ... and she'll do it without ever having to take the responsibility.

So .. now that Hillary is screwing up ... watch it become even more difficult to get a straight answer out of her on anything!

Tuesday, November 06, 2007


Hillary is really trying to boost her feminine side. That, my friends, is a challenge. In a speech in Iowa she went on and on and on about how she is going to have to clean up the White House ... oh, you mean she meant politically? Wouldn't you think all the residue is gone after eight years? But as she was telling this story about cleaning the White House, she remembered a heckler from a previous speech shouting out "that's what women are good at ... cleaning up the mess." Probably a Ron Paulista.

You know things are getting bad when the feminists start calling you out. Kate Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She says that Hillary is "disingenuously playing the victim card," and she is infusing her campaign with messages about gender. Ooooh. Now mind you, Kate Michelman isn't just saying this for the baby's health, she has allied herself with the Edwards campaign.

But it gets even worse. Even Nancy Pelosi is calling Hillary out for playing the women card. Nancy Pelosi ... the first woman Speaker ... a Democrat herself. But Nancy says that Hillary's campaign appears to have been trying to exploit the perception that she is being treated differently because she is a woman.

Is anyone out there starting to feel sorry for Ms. Rodham?

Friday, November 02, 2007


Nancy Pelosi is unhappy. She says that if a pollster asked her what she thought of Congress, she would be one of those people who said Congress is doing a lousy job. She’s upset because Congress hasn’t done anything … but what she really means is that she hasn’t ended the war in Iraq.

Of course, in typical Democrat fashion, she blames Congress’ lousy job on President Bush and the Republicans. While Pelosi’s Congress hasn’t done anything, she says that “there is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done." Got it? War in Iraq … President Bush … Republicans. Not one ounce of responsibility actually falls on her or her party. That’s government for you.

By the way … that “much of what we have done” line. Can she fill us in there?

It’s not only the public that is dissatisfied. President Bush also chastised Congress for its failure to do anything. He says that Democratic leaders are stalling important aspects of his fight against Islamic extremism … dragging out Mike Mukasey’s confirmation is the obvious. Congress has also failed to act on a bill on eavesdropping on terrorist suspects, and it has been slow to approve spending for the war against Islamic extremism, the Pentagon, and veterans programs.

Oh .. almost forgot. This congress has set an all-time record in failing to send even one budget bill to the president’s desk. Durned Republicans.

Bush says that the current debate over Iraq is similar to when Lenin first talked of launching a communist revolution, when Hitler began to establish an “Aryan superstate,” and when people wanted to appease the Soviet Union rather than compete with it during the Cold War. Appeasers in those days denied that we were at war also. We see how that worked out.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007


Yesterday President Bush slammed Congress for not getting its work done. He says that Congress is too busy focusing on investigating his administration and trying to pull the troops out of Iraq.

Nancy Pelosi was not too pleased with this. She says, "Instead of criticizing Congress, the president's time would be better spent working in a bipartisan way to end this disastrous war in Iraq, keep our promises to our veterans by providing the largest veterans' healthcare investment in history, and providing healthcare for 10 million children."

OK .. first of all, Nancy Pelosi's MoveOn Democrat party controls both the House and the Senate. They can end the war in Iraq any time they want to. Right now it's the Democrat's fault the war hasn't been called off, not the president's. Just shut up, Nancy, and get it done. Secondly ... no child in America goes without health care if the caretaker of that child cares enough to seek it. You're going to get your precious nationalized health care in the U.S. You're going to get what Democrats have dreamed of for decades ... control over the health care of every single American. You're going to get your wish because Americans largely believe that they are not responsible for their own health care. So just shut up about it for now, and try to get some budget bills passed.

Back to Bush ... the president also pointed out that democrats have passed an "endless series of tax increases" and that they can't seem to solve anything without it involving a tax hike. He points to S-CHIP, the farm bill, the energy bill and a small business bill as prime examples. And while Bush is no frugal president, he points out that the Democrats seek to spend more than $205 billion over the next five years.

Is there something about this that surprises Bush?

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich has found the time to question the president's mental health, in light of Bush's comments about a nuclear Iran could mean WWIII. Kucinich says, "I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health ... There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact." Then, after telling the world that he thinks Bush has a mental health problem, Kucinich proceeded to talk about the time he saw a UFO.

No wonder our government can't get anything done. We have resorted to publicly question the mental state of our own president. Kucinich, by the way, is certifiable.

Monday, October 29, 2007


John Edwards wants to institute New Deal-like programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth prosperity ... if he is elected President. The "if he's elected president" part means that we don't have to worry about Edwards right now .. but his ideas are typical big-government Democrat. Edward's poverty fighting program will require him to ask Americans to make sacrifices like paying higher taxes. Rich Americans, that is.

Edwards says the federal government should provide universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for "low-income" people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also wants to start a government-funded educated program called "College for Everyone."

To pay for it ... increasing the capital gains taxes because "taxes on 'wealth income' should be in line with those on work income." And to top things off, Edwards says that it is important to "share in prosperity, and that "people who have done well in this country, including me, have more of a responsibility to give back."

Where do I start? Let's just attack this with some quick bullet points.

  • Raising capital gains taxes to the extent Edwards wants would chase billions, perhaps trillions of dollars of capital out of this country. Already we have $13 trillion dollars of American wealth working overseas to escape our tax system and politicians like Edwards.
  • Universal pre-kindergarten? This is just the government getting its hands on your children at an earlier age .. before you can instill values like freedom and individuality in their fresh little minds.
  • Raising the minimum wage? A perfect ploy for Democrats. "Vote for us and we'll make your employer pay you more money ... whether you're worth it or not."
  • More Section 8 welfare housing? Same stuff. "Vote for us and we'll take money from those evil rich people to buy you a place to live." Nothing ruins a neighborhood quicker than Section 8 housing. Edwards obviously believes that it is the government's role to provide people with a place to live. I would rather live next door to a hooker than to someone using Section 8.
  • "College for everyone"? Not everyone is capable of college level work. Who the hell does Edwards think is going to cook the French fries?

Friday, October 26, 2007


Combover Carl

... for the war against Islamic extremism.

Senator Carl Levin (a democrat) is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is working with Senator Jack Reed (also a democrat) on a strategy that would basically cut the White House's war funding request in half. He hopes this will put enough pressure on President Bush to change course in Iraq.

Senator Reed says that Democrats want to include language in the supplemental that would target a complete withdrawal from Iraq in nine months. In the House, Democrats want to withhold the supplemental until President Bush commits himself to changing course in Iraq ... this would force war funding to go through the regular budget process.

The White House points to the fact that Congress can't even pass its annual appropriations bills. So sending something like this through the "regular budget process" would put our troop in harm's way ... because Congress would never get to it in time. I suppose that is the Democrat's version of supporting our troops.

Interesting, isn't it, that when most analysts would agree that progress is being made ... the MoveOn Democrats want to "change the course." The course the Democrats want is a course to defeat ... for it is defeat that gives them their reward and their victory. Bush is right ... the Democrats can't pass their appropriations bills .. they're certainly not as important as insuring our defeat overseas. Weakening a Republican president is job number one.


"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

Thursday, October 25, 2007


Yesterday the DREAM Act failed to gain cloture in the Senate. It failed 52-44, eight votes short of the 60 votes required which would have ended debate and started the voting process. Still, Democrats, like Dick Durbin, feel that it is morally imperative that this bill, or some form of it, be passed.

While some Republicans, like Senator James Inhofe, were staunchly against the bill, other Republicans objected to its timing. Many complained that the Senate should be focusing on spending bills at this time, instead of debating controversial immigration reforms. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says that the Senate has yet to see an appropriations bill. I guess this is why Nancy Pelosi gets her thong in a wad, saying that the Senate moves too slowly. (Don't worry ... I'm sure they'll find another Muslim holiday to commemorate soon.)

The Internet tax moratorium expires in one week, and Congress has yet to address the alternate minimum tax. These are issues that affect legal, taxpaying Americans – rather than wasting time Hispandering.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007


Well, you knew this just had to happen. Fires are devastating California from North of Los Angeles down to San Diego. Hundreds of thousands of people have had to flee their homes. Disaster is an understatement. So along comes MoveOn Moonbat Senator Barbara Boxer to announce who is to blame. And who would that be? Why none other than George Bush. It would seem that President Bush has taken the time off from killing children and becoming amused as our servicemen are killed in Iraq to plot these fire strategies for California. And just how is this all Bush's fault? Why, he sent all of those California National Guardsmen to Iraq .... For his amusement, of course.

It must be really strange to have such a bizarre woman representing you in the U.S. Senate.

This will just be the beginning. Look for more and more Democrats to lay the blame for the California fires .. and the failure to contain them .. on Bush. Hey .. it's what Democrats do.

But the Harry Reid isn't much better. You knew that this had to happen sooner or later also. Reid is blaming the fires on global warming. There is, of course, no scientific proof whatsoever of this ... nor is there any evidence ... but as long as you have a natural disaster on your hands, you might as well find a way to use it to push your agenda. So ... global warming it is!

The truth is that these fires .. well, not the fires themselves, but the severity of the fires .. can be blamed on whacko environmentalists. Every time someone in California suggests thinning out the brush that fuels these fires you have some environmentalist screaming about kangaroo rats or field mice or some such nonsense. I can remember many years ago there was a community outside of Los Angeles that wanted to clear the brush that abutted their homes. The environmental moonbats said no .. they went to court and managed to prevent the creation of a fire break. One homeowner told the eco-radicals to take a hike, and created his firebreak anyway. While the tree huggers were fuming, along came the fire. Can you guess which was the only home in the neighborhood that didn't burn down?

Now ... I know I'm not the first person to have thought of this. Do you remember about four years ago ... there was a report that some Al Qaeda detainees had said something about starting fires in a Western state? Here's the story from USA Today, dated July 11, 2003. Well ... doesn't it seam just the least bit curious that all of these fires from north of Los Angeles to San Diego erupted at pretty much the same time? No, I'm not saying they were started by terrorists. I am saying that if terrorists had decided to set the fires it would have been a pretty easy task ... and there is some history here.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007


Shamnesty alert: Dems prepare to ram DREAM Act through with cloture vote; Update: Where do your Senators stand?

By Michelle Malkin • October 23, 2007

amnesty zombie Update 7:30pm Eastern. I’m bumping this post to the Lead Story slot and will keep it here through tomorrow’s cloture vote. Where do your Senators stand? Let me know what responses you get. If Republicans had brains, they would put attrition through enforcement first and Just Say No to any new illegal alien magnets.

Noam Askew
has a list of possible fence-sitters. You’ll notice a lot of open-borders Republicans on that list.

Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas) sent his statement this evening. Kind of wishy-washy, but at least he comes down on the right side:

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement this evening regarding his intention to vote tomorrow against the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act (S. 2205), which was introduced by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

“As I have long said, I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of children who have no moral culpability for being in this country illegally. Congress should continue seeking reasonable and responsible ways they can complete their education and achieve opportunity.

“Unfortunately, the Durbin bill contains a number of gaping loopholes, while failing to address the much larger need for comprehensive immigration reform and the immediate crisis at our borders. For example, it contains no firm requirement for the illegal immigrant to graduate with a degree from an accredited U.S. institution of Higher Education (either a two or four-year institution), it grants them broad access to federal student loans at a time when we are struggling to meet loan needs for our own citizens, and it extends the benefits to adults, rather than focusing on children. Moreover, from a law enforcement perspective, his bill does nothing to prevent fraud, allows certain criminal aliens to qualify for legal status, and ties the hands of law enforcement by severely limiting their access to application information.

“If my colleagues who support this measure are committed to solving America’s immigration crisis and the plight of illegal immigrants, then the focus of this Congress should be on passing a comprehensive reform bill that addresses all of our pressing immigration matters, including securing our broken borders and the needs of American businesses for more workers.”

Here are the others targeted by the DREAM-pushers:

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922
Thad Cochran (202) 224- 5054
Norm Coleman(202) 224-5641
John Sununu (202) 224-2841
Olympia Snowe (202) 224-5344
Jon Tester (202) 224-2644
Richard Burr (202) 224-3154
John Warner (202) 224-2023
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954
Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
Max Baucus (202) 224-2651
Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
George Voinovich (202) 224-3353
Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665
Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Benjamin Nelson (202) 224-6551
John Barrasso (202) - 224-6441
Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Crapo (202) 224-6142
Bennet (202) 224-5444
Martinez (202) 224-3041
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - (202) 224-6521
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - (202) 224-5824
Sen Ensign (202) 224-6244


I’ve been keeping you up to date with the latest on the Dems’ attempt (with help from open borders Republicans) to ram the DREAM Act through the Senate. It now looks like a cloture vote is set for tomorrow. Numbers USA reports: “Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed to invoke cloture on S. 2205, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty bill. The cloture vote, for which 60 YES votes are necessary to prevent a filibuster on the measure, is set for Wednesday, October 24. Reid is attempting to bring this nightmarish amnesty bill to the floor under Senate Rule XIV without it ever having been debated in committee.”

This morning, I received the following e-mail circulated today by Sen. Durbin’s Judiciary staff:

From: Dodin, Reema (Judiciary-Dem)
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:36 AM
To: All Judiciary Users
Subject: Briefing on the DREAM Act: TODAY at 3pm in SC-6

Durbin-Hagel-Lugar DREAM Act Briefing: Tuesday, October 23rd at 3PM in SC-6

Senators Durbin, Hagel and Lugar invite you to a staff briefing on S. 2205, the DREAM Act. A cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act will take place this Wednesday morning (tomorrow). The briefing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 23, in SC-6 of the U.S. Capitol.

The DREAM Act would make it possible for certain long-term undocumented immigrant children to go to college or join the military if they meet stringent requirements. It does not address the status of their parents, but simply allows children-who had no choice in the decision to come here-the opportunity to continue their education and give back to the country that they call home.

This bipartisan legislation has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee three times in various forms, and was approved by the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration bill, S. 2611.

The briefing will feature presentations by:

Several students who would benefit from the DREAM Act; Angela Kelley, Director, Immigration Policy Center; Melissa Lazarin, Director of Education Policy, First Focus; Alfred Campos, Federal Lobbyist, National Education Association; Stephanie Grosser, Outreach & Program Coordinator, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; and Kevin Appleby, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This event is for Congressional staff only (no press). For more information, please contact Reema in Sen. Durbin’s office at 4-1158.

For more on the DREAM Act, please see the new report from the Immigration Policy Center.

Hope to see you there!

They’ve moved from health care kiddie human shields to illegal alien youth human shields.

The Democrat Party: It’s the Party That Won’t Grow Up.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Won't You Take Me to Chinatown?

By Michelle Malkin

hillary clinton china

The Los Angeles Times digs into Hillary’s finances and uncovers more mysterious Chinatown donors with dilapidated addresses in NYC and jobs unlikely to put them in the position of maxing out campaign contributions. They include dishwashers, waiters, contributors who deny making contributions, and another who “admitted to lacking the legal-resident status required for giving campaign money.” And more:

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown…

…Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

Will Hillary accuse the Times reporters of “stalking” now?

I like the use of the adjective “ephemeral:”

Like many who traveled this path, most of the Chinese reported as contributing to Clinton’s campaign have never voted. Many speak little or no English. Some seem to lead such ephemeral lives that neighbors say they’ve never heard of them.

Predictions: Hillary will come out swinging at the Times, her Asian-American acolytes will accuse the paper of racism and ethnic bigotry, and those “ephemeral” donors will never be found.


Hey, I just remembered something. Remember the story I blogged this summer about Chinese-language ballots in Boston? One Chinese translation of Hillary Clinton’s name:

“Upset Stomach.”

Most fitting today, I imagine.


Allah dubs it “Hsu II.”

And once again, the question looms:

Where is the money coming from?


Flip Pidot takes note of the rise of the bundler and takes a close look at Hill’s 3Q refunds. Methinks more of those will be on the way.


Did you hear what this august member of the MoveOn Democrat Party had to say on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday? His name is Fortney "Pete" Stark, and he's the congressman representing (this time) California's 13th district.

First ... maybe a little review. Pete Stark seems to have a history of saying outrageous things about other public figures.

  • He called Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan a "disgrace to his race."
  • He called a fellow congressman a "little wimp" and a "fruitcake."
  • He once made a reference to Congressman J.C. Watts as being "born out of wedlock."
  • He called former Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, a Republican, a "whore for the insurance industry," saying that here knowledge of health care came from "pillow talk."
  • Called the director of the California state welfare program a "baby killer."

According to Wikipedia (link above) The San Francisco Chronicle once editorialized: "Only a politician who assumes he has a job for life could behave so badly on a semi-regular basis by spewing personalized invective that might get him punched in certain East Bay taverns ... Surely there must be someone along the shoreline between Alameda and Fremont who could represent the good citizens of the district with class and dignity. It's not the case now."

So .. now that you have a little background, here's what Stark had to say about George Bush yesterday. The comment was made in reference to Bush's veto of the MoveOn Democrat's attempt to vastly expand the S-CHIP program for children's health care:

"Republicans sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."

Click here to catch Stark's little tantrum. Republicans are spinning around on their eyebrows demanding an apology from Stark. They should save their breath. Wrong tactic. Enough of this apology nonsense. Just let Stark's statement stand on its own ... and use it to show the deep, seething hatred that so many Democrats have toward George Bush ... a hatred so intense that they're willing to sabotage the efforts or our men and women fighting the Islamic radical menace.

Monday, October 15, 2007


The new secretary general of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon told 80 heads of state that global warming threatens our goals of eliminating widespread global poverty.

Global warming is going to add stress to the poorest regions of the world and will make it difficult for these societies to pursue sustainable livelihoods, according to Ban Ki-moon. The agricultural production in places like Africa is going to be severely compromised.

But of course, the rich nations of the US should provide "humanitarian assistance across the globe." He says that "increased resources" will be necessary to adapt the world for climate change ... basically, he wants more money. Rather than providing emergency assistance when catastrophes occur, we should be providing solutions (and money) now, in order to save poor nations from the perils of climate change!

The cost is "very modest" according to the climate change panel. If we do not implement these measures, then – brace yourself – "the income and wealth disparities between nations will increase." And the existence of poverty, which should be "ethically unacceptable," could pose a threat to global security.

Horse squeeze.

First of all .. any measurable warming of the earth stopped about ten years ago. And even then we're only talking about one degree over the last century. OwlGore has his Peace Prize ... so enough already. It's time to get off this phony global warming crap and put some real science into the picture. I'm so sick and tired of hearing these cultists yammer about "2600 scientists" who have bought into this fad, then to realize that a good portion of these scientists are podiatrists, electrical engineers and experts on macro economics.

Can anyone out there tell me what the ideal temperature for the earth would be? Come on! I'm waiting.

Consider this scenario: The earth heats up. As the earth heats up more water evaporates from the surfaces of the earth's lakes and oceans. The atmosphere thus becomes even more saturated with water and rainfall increases. As rainfall increases the arid portions of the earth that were not suitable for farming suddenly become rich with crops. Not only that, but areas that were once frozen throughout the summer can now be planted in crops for a short growing season. Result? More food. OK, now tell me why this wouldn't be the real scenario ... if, that is, we actually experienced this global warming.

Bottom line .. global warming is being touted as an excuse by Bang My Gong, or whatever his name is, for a program of worldwide wealth redistribution. I'm not really in love with the idea.

Thursday, October 11, 2007


Another story from San Francisco. A federal judge has given in to labor and civil liberties organizations. The judge is temporarily blocking the U.S. government from cracking down on businesses employing illegal immigrants.

The Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security had a plan to send joint letter to businesses that have workers with Social Security numbers that don't match their names. The businesses would face penalties if it was shown that they were hiring illegal aliens.

These "No Match" letters were supposed to be sent starting in September until labor groups and immigrant activists filed a lawsuit. They claim that this policy puts a burden on employers and may cause "authorized immigrants" and U.S. citizens to lose their jobs over simple mistakes on their paper work. Activists say that this would be a violation of their rights!

I'm sorry but that is BS. That is NOT why these people are opposing this plan. "The legal citizens may lose their jobs if they incorrectly filled out their paperwork." If they made a mistake ... if they transposed a digit in their Social Security number ... they get every opportunity to correct it. . But these activists are hiding behind this pitiful argument in order to ensure that their fellow illegals don't lose their jobs. Or in this case, aren't even questioned. As for the unions ... you can figure that one out for yourself. They're looking for new members. Especially since more and more American workers are figuring out that unions do more harm than good.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007


Yesterday we broke the news to you that Hillary had placed a nifty new advisor on her campaign staffer. None other than Sandy Berger. Berger was Hillary's "husband's" National Security Advisor. Before the 9-11 Commission started conducting hearings Berger marched his loyal self over to the National Archives and proceeded to steal classified documents relating to Clinton's treatment of Osama bin Laden and Islamic terrorism during his eight years in the White House. To this day nobody really knows the totality of what Berger stole. We can only assume that the material was damaging to Clinton.

There's another element here I haven't yet explored .. and that is the WHY? Was Berger acting to protect himself, or someone else. Did someone ask, beg or instruct him to retrieve those documents? If so, whom? Someone with an eye to future power? Someone with a promise of a future position of power?

Well, as of late yesterday afternoon – that's more 12 hours after the news broke – where was the mainstream media coverage of Sandy Berger advising Hillary Clinton? New York Times. Nothing. Washington Times. Nothing. CNN. Nothing. LATimes. Nothing. Ditto for the Washington Post. Now, to be fair, I haven't had the time to go through all of these newspaper websites ... but durned if I don't think this is actual news!

FOXNews covered the story. But the only paper to actually run a story was USAToday, after an interview with Hillary. Of course, now she is claiming that Sandy Berger "is an unofficial adviser."

And while we are the subject of Hillary, let's talk about another story that the MSM won't cover either ... Hillary's pork-barrel spending. She, by the way, is one of the only candidates who refuses to identify her earmarks ... or "congressionally allocated funds."

Well let's take a look at why.

Between 2002 and 2006, Hillary earmarked more than $2.2 billion in spending bills.

In the 2008 defense spending bill, Hillary managed to attach 26 earmarks worth more than $148 million. This was more than any other Senator except her Democratic compadre Carl Levin ... who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

How about a few local projects including $250,000 to the Seneca Knitting Mill, and $200,000 to the Buffalo Urban Arts Center. And I'm sure that is just the beginning.

Monday, October 08, 2007


Ann Coulter

The only "crisis" in health care in this country is that doctors are paid too little. (Also, they've come up with nothing to help that poor Dennis Kucinich.)

But the Democratic Party treats doctors like they're Klan members. They wail about how much doctors are paid and celebrate the trial lawyers who do absolutely nothing to make society better, but swoop in and steal from the most valuable members of society.

Maybe doctors could get the Democrats to like them if they started suing their patients.

It's only a matter of time before the best and brightest students forget about medical school and go to law school instead. How long can a society based on suing the productive last?

You can make 30 times as much money as doctors by becoming a trial lawyer suing doctors. You need no skills, no superior board scores, no decade of training and no sleepless residency. But you must have the morals of a drug dealer. (And the bank wire transfer number to the Democratic National Committee.)

The editors of The New York Times have been engaging in a spirited debate with their readers over whether doctors are wildly overpaid or just hugely overpaid. The results of this debate are available on TimeSelect, for just $49.95.

"Many health care economists," the Times editorialized, say the partisan wrangling over health care masks a bigger problem: "the relatively high salaries paid to American doctors."

Citing the Rand Corp., the Times noted that doctors in the
U.S. "earn two to three times as much as they do in other industrialized countries." American doctors earn about $200,000 to $300,000 a year, while European doctors make $60,000 to $120,000. Why, that's barely enough for Muslim doctors in Britain to buy plastic explosives to blow up airplanes!

How much does Pinch Sulzberger make for driving The New York Times stock to an all-time low? Probably a lot more than your podiatrist.

In college, my roommate was in the chemistry lab Friday and Saturday nights while I was dancing on tables at the Chapter House. A few years later, she was working 20-hour days as a resident at
Mount Sinai doing liver transplants while I was frequenting popular Upper East Side drinking establishments. She was going to Johns Hopkins for yet more medical training while I was skiing and following the Grateful Dead. Now she vacations in places like Rwanda and Darfur with Doctors Without Borders while I'm going to Paris.

Has anyone else noticed the nonexistence of a charitable organization known as "Lawyers Without Borders"?

She makes $380 for an emergency appendectomy, or one-ten-thousandth of what John Edwards made suing doctors like her, and one-fourth of what John Edwards' hairdresser makes for a single shag cut.

Edwards made $30 million bringing nonsense lawsuits based on junk science against doctors. To defend themselves from parasites like Edwards, doctors now pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical malpractice insurance every year.

But as the Times would note, doctors in
Burkina Faso only get $25 and one goat per year.

As long as we're studying the health care systems of various socialist countries, are we allowed to notice that doctors in these other countries aren't constantly being sued by bottom-feeding trial lawyers stealing one-third of the income of people performing useful work like saving lives?

But the Democrats (and Fred Thompson) refuse to enact tort reform legislation to rein in these charlatans. After teachers and welfare recipients, the Democrats' most prized constituency is trial lawyers. The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor.

Doctors graduate at the top of their classes at college and then spend nearly a decade in grueling work at medical schools. Most doctors don't make a dime until they're in their early 30s, just in time to start paying off their six-figure student loans by saving people's lives. They have 10 times the IQ of trial lawyers and 1,000 times the character.

Yeah, let's go after those guys. On to nuns next!

But Times' readers responded to the editorial about doctors being overpaid with a slew of indignant letters -- not at the Times for making such an idiotic argument, but at doctors who earn an average of $200,000 per year. Letter writers praised the free medical care in places like
Spain. ("Nightmare" in the Ann Coulter dictionary is defined as "having a medical emergency in Spain.")

One letter-writer proposed helping doctors by having the government take over another aspect of the economy -- the cost of medical education:

"If we are to restructure the system by which we pay doctors to match
Europe, which seems prudent as well as inevitable, we must also finance education as Europeans do, by using state dollars to finance the full or majority cost of higher education, including professional school."

And then to reduce the cost of medical school, the government could finance "the full or majority cost" of construction costs of medical schools, and "the full or majority cost" of the trucks that bring the cement to the construction site and the "the full or majority cost" of coffee that the truck drivers drink while hauling the cement and ... it makes my head hurt.

I may have to see a doctor about this. I should probably get on the waiting list now in case Hillary gets elected.

That's how liberals think: To fix an industry bedeviled by government controls, we'll spread the coercion to yet more industries! (TDC; The Liberal Democrat way of dealing with failed policy is to do the same thing over again and hope for a different result! They raised income taxes and revenues went down so they want to cancel out Bush’s tax cuts which raised revenues hugely and raise taxes again. Get it?)

The only sane letter on the matter, I'm happy to report, came from the charming town of
New Canaan, Conn., which means that I am not the only normal person who still reads the Times. Ray Groves wrote:

"Last week, I had the annual checkup for my 2000 Taurus. I paid $95 per hour for much needed body work. Next month, when I have my own annual physical, I expect and hope to pay a much higher rate to my primary care internist, who has spent a significant portion of his life training to achieve his position of responsibility."

There is nothing more to say.


By Doug Patton
October 8, 2007


Recently, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was attacked by Democrats on the floor of the United States Senate. Why? Their claim was that Limbaugh had referred to military personnel who disagree with our country's policies in Iraq as "phony soldiers." The statement, put forth by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is a lie designed to lay the groundwork for reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

Limbaugh was referring to soldiers who have been lionized by the Left as heroes for claiming to have witnessed atrocities in Iraq, only to later be discredited as liars. One individual, who claimed to have been an Army Ranger in Iraq, was exposed as a washout after 44 days in boot camp. ABC news had done a story on this man and others like him just days before Limbaugh made his statements on the radio.

But it really doesn't matter, because liberals will commit whatever perfidy necessary to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

Repealed in the 1980s, the Fairness Doctrine was a federal communications law on the books for the better part of forty years. In essence, it forced radio stations to "balance" their programming in such a way as to present opposing political points of view. It is debatable whether it was ever necessary, even in the 1940s. In the diverse 21st Century communications marketplace, it is as redundant as the phrase "liberal Democrats." Yet there are those in Congress who want to bring it back.

When anyone expresses a point of view contrary to theirs, liberals want to silence that person. In this case, it is Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Michael Reagan, Neal Boortz, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallager and a host of lesser known radio talk show hosts who have flourished in the marketplace of ideas over the last twenty years since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.

Democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle (and most other big-city newspapers), the faculties of most universities and the left-wing blogosphere.

Balancing all this, Republicans have Rush Limbaugh and those who have followed in his footsteps down the trail he has blazed on AM radio over the last twenty years. It can also be argued that without Limbaugh, conservative Internet bloggers and the balanced format of Fox News might never have come to prominence.

Today's Dems cannot abide the popularity of conservative talk radio. They are reminiscent of similar authoritarians who have gone before them. Those who fight their tactics and express opposing points of view must be silenced.

But where are the Republicans of the United States Senate? As Harry Reid and Tom Harkin were spewing erroneous talking points fed to them by left-wing web sites, I heard nothing from the GOP side of the aisle. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh was left to deal with Reid's and Harkin's prevarications on his daily radio show for two solid weeks. Others on radio and on cable television came to his defense, but did anyone hear a peep out of the Senate Republicans?

Rush Limbaugh has been one of America's staunchest defenders of our military for twenty years or more. He has also been the best friend Republicans in Congress have ever had. Where were the Senate Republicans when their friend was being viciously attacked? Where were they when Rush Limbaugh and others were pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats who demean our troops and their mission?

Democrats believe so fervently that they have next year's presidential and congressional elections wrapped up that they are pushing an agenda of censorship against their opponents in the only media not doing their bidding - talk radio. And why wouldn't they believe that? Their genteel "colleagues" on the right side of the aisle are so concerned about being liked by the mainstream media they have forgotten who their real friends are.


Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, and, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at

Friday, October 05, 2007


The US military says that American and Iraqi troops have arrested a financer for al Qaeda. The financer had received over $100 million from donors in order to fund insurgent operations in Iraq.

For a while the military has been saying that al Qaeda's expansion was due to its access to external financing. It is hard to tell the exact scale of the financing operation that they are facing.

The man in question distributed $50,000 a month to al Qaeda and employed up to 50 terrorists to plant roadside bombs ... and paid them $3,000 for each operation.

In 2006 there was an attack on the Golden Shrine in Samarra, which is a holy Shia site. This man's money was linked to purchase of explosives used in that attack, which severely escalated violence in the region.

Details of the man's nationality have yet to be released, but apparently he used a leather merchant business as a front, which allowed him to smuggle weapons and explosives. He had shops in Iraq's Falluja and in Syria and Jordan.

The sad part of this story was that he was arrested rather than just killed. But maybe we can get some information out of him that would lead us to some of the people funding Islamic radicalism. Torture him? To tell you the truth .. wouldn't upset me all that much.

Thursday, October 04, 2007


By Michelle Malkin •

This man has some nerve. Here he is, the insane man who threatened to, you know, spit on me, last night, complaining that the “extremes” on both sides of the political debate are guilty of “coarsening the debate.” Thanks to Allahpundit for clipping the unstomach-able clip:

“Coarsening the debate.”

Un. Freaking. Believable.

Geraldo Rivera: The Rosie O’Donnell of Fox News.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007


The Crush Rush Democrats’ agenda; Wesley Clark crusades to kick Rush off of Armed Forces Radio; Update: Daily Kos wants in on the action!

By Michelle Malkin

Update Midnight: Poor Daily Kos is feeling left out of the Rush-bashing action. Kos promotes diatribe to the front page.

Lonewacko has advice on how to fight back.

Another target.

Update 8:35pm Eastern. Backdoor restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, take two: Wesley Clark ramps up the nutroots’ campaign to kick Rush Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio:

It’s time to put real pressure on Rush Limbaugh. His show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and this time we are going to go straight to the lifeblood of Rush’s show — Congress. Congress has the power to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio, and it won’t be as easy for elected officials to ignore our call.

Clark’s PAC is leading the organizing campaign:

Today, I am asking you to join 13,793 other Americans and email Congress urging them to take Rush Limbaugh off Armed Forces Radio.

Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled American servicemembers who support an end to the war in Iraq “phony soldiers.”

We’re going directly to Congress to take him off the Armed Forces Radio airwaves. Elected officials in Congress have the power to prevent Limbaugh from using taxpayers’ money to disrespect and censure the voices of our soldiers.

Join us and hold Rush Limbaugh accountable for his offensive and outrageous comments — tell your member of Congress to Dump Rush From Armed Forces Radio today!

These people are fighting dirty. They are focused. They are unhinged.

Watch from the sidelines or get your head in the game.



Backdoor restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. That’s what I said the anti-Rush campaign is really about. The Hill underscores the point in a piece filed tonight:

House Republicans are threatening to launch a discharge petition on legislation that would ensure the future prosperity of conservative radio talk-show hosts but is expected to face opposition from Democratic leaders. On Monday evening, Republicans filed a rule with the House Rules Committee laying the groundwork for a petition that would force action on protecting radio from government regulation later this fall.

The move comes at a time when Democrats have launched a coordinated attack on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, accusing him of disparaging American troops critical of the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.”

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said broadcasters should be required to give listeners both sides of political issues so voters can make informed decisions.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so severely that radio executives would choose to scale back on conservative programming to avoid rising costs and interference from the government.

Republicans’ concern has grown as Democrats have waged a battle against Limbaugh in recent days. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications, Mark Mays, calling on him to denounce Limbaugh’s remarks.

The Baltimore Sun’s Swamp blog has the list of the 41 Crush Rush Democrats (also posted over at Dingy Harry’s website):

Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Max Baucus
Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Sherrod Brown
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Benjamin Cardin
Senator Tom Carper
Senator Bob Casey
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Daniel Inouye
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mary Landrieu
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Blanche Lincoln
Senator Bob Menendez
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Bill Nelson
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Jay Rockefeller
Senator Ken Salazar
Senator Bernie Sanders
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Jon Tester
Senator Jim Webb
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Ron Wyden

Allahpundit salutes the 10 Dems who refused to put their names on the letter.

The Swamp also has a copy of Clear Channel’s reply. A snippet:


I’ll believe Harry Reid cares about the First Amendment when he condemns for stomping on the free speech rights of the CafePress shop owners who stood up for Gen. Petraeus and satirized the MoveOn goons.




If you’d like to write to Clear Channel to share your fair and balanced view of Limbaugh, here’s the address:

Mr. Mark P. Mays
CEO, Clear Channel Communications Inc.
200 East Basse Road
San Antonio, TX 78209


Next on the counter-offensive to-do list:

“If anyone ever doubted that there is enmity between Democrats and American talk radio, they need look no further than the personal attacks leveled on Rush Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the sponsor of legislation shielding broadcasters from government interference. “I thought it astonishing that members of the U.S. Senate would engage in repeated and distorted personal attacks on a private citizen. It gives evidence of a level of frustration with conservative talk radio that is very troubling to anyone who cherishes the medium.”

Pence, a former professional talk radio host, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on Monday sent letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) demanding a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

Dan Riehl dares Harry Reid to ask the troops who they’d rather listen to:

Let them vote - a show by you, or Limbaugh’s program. It won’t be the first time you were humiliated when people had a say in the matter.


LA County has released figures which outline the actual cost of illegal immigrants. Remember that these figures are just for Los Angeles County and they are just for one month.

In the month of July, illegal immigrants and their families collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamps. $20 million in welfare and $15 million in food stamps.

The estimated annual cost of illegal immigrants in LA County -- $440 million.

But wait, that doesn't include the additional $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare. Where are we at now? The taxpayers of LA County are paying more than $1 billion per year because of illegal aliens.

One more thing ... that figure does not include the soaring cost of government education.

Then again .. remember that Mexican Magazine which ran a story with the headline "Los Angeles is Ours!" Fine ... let Mexico pay the bills.

..... and the invasion rolls on.