Monday, September 27, 2010
Malkin Critcizes Muslim President For Being Christian
Its funny looking back at this blog post from '08 when Michele Malkin was playing the Rev Wright card. Fast Forward to today when she is attacking President Obama for being a Muslim. They really don't care what they are saying so long as it stirs up fear.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
It's 1950 in White America - Thank God!
I don't know why anyone is surprised that Pat Buchanan is such a racist. However, I will admit that it is stunning when he spells it out as clearly as he did in his recent blog posting "PJB: A Brief For Whitey"
I wonder what Pat's approach to the race issue might be. Given that he maintains that America (White America that is) bears no responsibility for the condition of the black community - on the contrary, has taken heroic measures to lift them up - how then should America (oops, again White America) cope with what is clearly an ongoing crisis that affects everyone? Lock them all up? Deportation back to Africa? What, Pat, What?
I wonder what Pat's approach to the race issue might be. Given that he maintains that America (White America that is) bears no responsibility for the condition of the black community - on the contrary, has taken heroic measures to lift them up - how then should America (oops, again White America) cope with what is clearly an ongoing crisis that affects everyone? Lock them all up? Deportation back to Africa? What, Pat, What?
Friday, March 21, 2008
Barrack Obama's Speech Slammed By Malkin
Like all of our freedoms, freedom of speech is a right that comes with responsibilities. It's true that some sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright ignored those responsibilities in inciting hatred of America and people of other religions and ethnicities. But, Michele Malkin's contest with Ann Coulter to see who can create the most division and damage within American society is the least responsible expression of free speech since the neo-nazis marched in Skokie, Illinios (defended, of course, by the ACLU). Her column regarding Obama's speech on race is a perfect case in point. She distorts his words and simply ignores passages which disprove her point in order to sow the seeds of fear and hatred just when acceptance and reconciliation seem so tantalizingly possible.
"The clever Sen. Obama has attempted to erect a firewall of protection from probing questions about which remarks he heard and tolerated and failed to object to while sitting in the pews. Dwelling on what he knew and where and when, he argued yesterday, would be "to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality."
But it is Obama's pastor ("former" pastor, he is so quick to point out now, though he is a two-decade-long mentor) who holds a warped view of reality. And it is Obama who distorts the truth by likening this Ward Churchill of the United Church of Christ to an avuncular, yet lovable, family member who cannot easily be renounced:"
Of course Obama very clearly said, in his speech, that Wright's sermons descibe a distorted view of reality.
""These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love," Obama declared rather stiffly as he stood self-consciously in front of more American flags that he has ever been placed in front of this campaign season.
Well, you can't pick your grandma, but you can pick your pastor. And Obama picked the wrong one if he aspires to be the president of all America — an America that includes citizens of all colors who cringe at self-serving racial rationalizations masquerading as moral salvation. "
I wonder who else may have "picked the wrong one" if they aspire to be president. Religious tests and guilt by association cannot disqualify someone for elected office in this country, Michele. Obviously she would prefer to continue with race relations as they are than have a real dialog and possible improvement.
"The clever Sen. Obama has attempted to erect a firewall of protection from probing questions about which remarks he heard and tolerated and failed to object to while sitting in the pews. Dwelling on what he knew and where and when, he argued yesterday, would be "to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality."
But it is Obama's pastor ("former" pastor, he is so quick to point out now, though he is a two-decade-long mentor) who holds a warped view of reality. And it is Obama who distorts the truth by likening this Ward Churchill of the United Church of Christ to an avuncular, yet lovable, family member who cannot easily be renounced:"
Of course Obama very clearly said, in his speech, that Wright's sermons descibe a distorted view of reality.
""These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love," Obama declared rather stiffly as he stood self-consciously in front of more American flags that he has ever been placed in front of this campaign season.
Well, you can't pick your grandma, but you can pick your pastor. And Obama picked the wrong one if he aspires to be the president of all America — an America that includes citizens of all colors who cringe at self-serving racial rationalizations masquerading as moral salvation. "
I wonder who else may have "picked the wrong one" if they aspire to be president. Religious tests and guilt by association cannot disqualify someone for elected office in this country, Michele. Obviously she would prefer to continue with race relations as they are than have a real dialog and possible improvement.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The James Gang Provides "Security" For Northfield Minnesota
By KATARINA KRATOVAC, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - An Iraqi official conceded Sunday that Blackwater USA's exit would create a "security vacuum" in Baghdad and said the U.S. and Iraq were instead working on revamping regulations governing private security companies after a deadly shooting of civilians.
It is interesting to consider the definition of security implied in this statement. When getting rid of a heavily armed, private militia which operates under no known laws or regulations and is responsible for the "deadly shooting of civilians" is considered a "security vacuum", there is definitely something strange going on. Do they expect us to believe that convoys of SUVs hurtling through city streets at ninety to one-hundred miles an hour and firing on anyone or anything that gets close enough with automatic weapons represents a security benefit?
Or is it that absent Blackwater the US military would have to assume it's traditional responsibility of protecting embassy and state department officials, leaving them stretched even thinner and leaving even more holes in the already inadequate Baghdad security plan? A few days ago, Tucker Carlson said the problem with the war is that its a big government response to a foreign policy problem. What the Blackwater problem underscores is that the Bush administration tried to do this war on the cheap and that private companies were contracted to do much of the work. Even if it were possible, we never, and to this day still do not, have enough military on the ground
to secure Iraq. This is a war which has been prosecuted under the ideology of small government and privatization.
The bizzare idea that Blackwater is a positive influence on Baghdad security is a direct result of the philosophy that profit is a good motive for making war.
BAGHDAD - An Iraqi official conceded Sunday that Blackwater USA's exit would create a "security vacuum" in Baghdad and said the U.S. and Iraq were instead working on revamping regulations governing private security companies after a deadly shooting of civilians.
It is interesting to consider the definition of security implied in this statement. When getting rid of a heavily armed, private militia which operates under no known laws or regulations and is responsible for the "deadly shooting of civilians" is considered a "security vacuum", there is definitely something strange going on. Do they expect us to believe that convoys of SUVs hurtling through city streets at ninety to one-hundred miles an hour and firing on anyone or anything that gets close enough with automatic weapons represents a security benefit?
Or is it that absent Blackwater the US military would have to assume it's traditional responsibility of protecting embassy and state department officials, leaving them stretched even thinner and leaving even more holes in the already inadequate Baghdad security plan? A few days ago, Tucker Carlson said the problem with the war is that its a big government response to a foreign policy problem. What the Blackwater problem underscores is that the Bush administration tried to do this war on the cheap and that private companies were contracted to do much of the work. Even if it were possible, we never, and to this day still do not, have enough military on the ground
to secure Iraq. This is a war which has been prosecuted under the ideology of small government and privatization.
The bizzare idea that Blackwater is a positive influence on Baghdad security is a direct result of the philosophy that profit is a good motive for making war.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Postings Recently Left On Gathering Of Eagles Web Site
# scraping liberal off the wheel Said:
September 20th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
The greatest thing about GOE is their courage. Despite suffering the oppression - yes oppression, ridicule and mockery - of the majority of Americans, they have the (pardon me ladies) balls to stand up and call that majority moonbats and freaks!
# scraping liberal off the wheel Said:
September 20th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
No. The Greatest thing about the GOE is their faith! They know in their guts that God gave freedom to Humanity and created America to enforce it for everyone. Furthermore they are cognizant of the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the voice of our Commander in Chief IS the voice of God. He points the way toward peace. He points the way toward freedom! He points the way toward security.
# scraping liberal off the wheel Said:
September 20th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
No, No, No. I know what the greatest thing about the GOE is. The greatest thing about the GOE is their loyalty. They support the troops who support the mission to the very last ounce of their strength. They would defend a pro-war veteran with life and limb against commie, liberal, traitor, scum like Murtha and Webb. They know that all Vets who do not support the mission (to say nothing of the majority of active duty who are at this moment contributing to the democrat party) are the enemy and must be regarded as such. The soldier loyal to the Sargent, loyal to the CO, loyal to the general and so on up to the CIC. Any break in that chain is an opportunity for Osama Bin-Laden. The GOE holds loyalty up as the bedrock of civilization.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
The greatest thing about GOE is their courage. Despite suffering the oppression - yes oppression, ridicule and mockery - of the majority of Americans, they have the (pardon me ladies) balls to stand up and call that majority moonbats and freaks!
# scraping liberal off the wheel Said:
September 20th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
No. The Greatest thing about the GOE is their faith! They know in their guts that God gave freedom to Humanity and created America to enforce it for everyone. Furthermore they are cognizant of the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the voice of our Commander in Chief IS the voice of God. He points the way toward peace. He points the way toward freedom! He points the way toward security.
# scraping liberal off the wheel Said:
September 20th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
No, No, No. I know what the greatest thing about the GOE is. The greatest thing about the GOE is their loyalty. They support the troops who support the mission to the very last ounce of their strength. They would defend a pro-war veteran with life and limb against commie, liberal, traitor, scum like Murtha and Webb. They know that all Vets who do not support the mission (to say nothing of the majority of active duty who are at this moment contributing to the democrat party) are the enemy and must be regarded as such. The soldier loyal to the Sargent, loyal to the CO, loyal to the general and so on up to the CIC. Any break in that chain is an opportunity for Osama Bin-Laden. The GOE holds loyalty up as the bedrock of civilization.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
More Faith Based Public Policy
In Reference to Mary Peters, Minnesota's Transportation Secretary's, op-ed in the WaPo rejecting the call for a five cent a gallon gas tax to address infrastructure problems in our state;
It is incredible the extremes to which these people will reach in order to argue their ideology. Hold the line. No new Taxes. Starve the beast. Does this sound like good public policy? Is this a good way to deliver much needed services to the citizens of a state? It doesn't even matter that she says we are striving to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - particularly imports. Wouldn't a gas tax slow the rate of increase in the demand for gas and lessen the impact of increasing use of roads by actually reducing congestion? Her solution of charging people directly for the use of roads would have zero impact on the demand for and dependence on fossil fuels. It would allow people to drive larger vehicles using more gas and causing more damage to roads for the same price as more efficient ones. This is idiotic and the time for simple minded, ideologically driven solutions is long over.
It is incredible the extremes to which these people will reach in order to argue their ideology. Hold the line. No new Taxes. Starve the beast. Does this sound like good public policy? Is this a good way to deliver much needed services to the citizens of a state? It doesn't even matter that she says we are striving to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - particularly imports. Wouldn't a gas tax slow the rate of increase in the demand for gas and lessen the impact of increasing use of roads by actually reducing congestion? Her solution of charging people directly for the use of roads would have zero impact on the demand for and dependence on fossil fuels. It would allow people to drive larger vehicles using more gas and causing more damage to roads for the same price as more efficient ones. This is idiotic and the time for simple minded, ideologically driven solutions is long over.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Newsweek Poll Gives Repubs 28 point advantage on Supporting a Strong Military
It is astounding that after extended deployments in Iraq, scandal at Walter Reed, Bush's threat to veto the military pay increase passed by the democrats, the Pat Tillman fiasco and endless other attacks by republicans on our armed forces, Americans still give them a twenty-eight point advantage on promoting a strong military! Is this country completely insane or do we just watch too much Fox News Channel?
Friday, July 13, 2007
The spawning of a new metaphor - the Typhoon
Regardless of the size of the storm, what choice does the raindrop have but to fall?
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Hoagland's Learning Disability
Jim Hoagland's column, "The Next Battle In Iraq" in the WP contained the following remarkable statement:
"American failure in transforming Iraq has many causes. None is more important than Bush's inability to set clear, achievable priorities and to stick to them when they collide with the vested interests of Iraq's neighbors and of significant parts of the U.S. bureaucracy."
Really, you don't see the doctrine of preemption as being a failure? What about Congress' abdication of its constitutional role in declaring and funding wars? Does the Judiciaries refusal to rule in favor of the constitution rather than Vice President or his Bush puppet on everything from detainees to wiretapping strike you as particularly successful?
The lessons of Vietnam were not 'Establish clear, attainable goals, use any means to achieve them and never give up.' The lessons of Vietnam were 'Don't go to war under false pretenses, don't try to occupy a foreign country about which you know nothing and Do, for God's Sake, have an exit strategy!' Mr Hoagland seems determined to remain forever ignorant.
"American failure in transforming Iraq has many causes. None is more important than Bush's inability to set clear, achievable priorities and to stick to them when they collide with the vested interests of Iraq's neighbors and of significant parts of the U.S. bureaucracy."
Really, you don't see the doctrine of preemption as being a failure? What about Congress' abdication of its constitutional role in declaring and funding wars? Does the Judiciaries refusal to rule in favor of the constitution rather than Vice President or his Bush puppet on everything from detainees to wiretapping strike you as particularly successful?
The lessons of Vietnam were not 'Establish clear, attainable goals, use any means to achieve them and never give up.' The lessons of Vietnam were 'Don't go to war under false pretenses, don't try to occupy a foreign country about which you know nothing and Do, for God's Sake, have an exit strategy!' Mr Hoagland seems determined to remain forever ignorant.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Murtha Wont Be Stopped
On Monday, 2/19/07, a posting on this blog carried the title "Cowards Bad Mouth Murtha". Today, 2/25/07, the WaPo sums up the results of a weeks worth of decorated war hero bashing by the pro-war right with the headline "Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs".
Where have the democrats been these last six days? Why have they refused to defend Murtha if not his plan? OK, so maybe it isn't the best plan on the table. But, it's one with realistic goals and a concrete means of achieving them. Is that what they don't like about it? And even if the democrats are not serious about ending this pointless war, they should leap to the defense of a colleague who has personally supported the troops and the military more than just about anyone else in the country. The fact that they have left one of their own to the wolves should be yet another cause for their shame.
As I understand it, Murtha's plan takes the military's own current standards of readiness regarding rest, training and equipment, and writes them into the budget so that funding to send troops into combat is only available if those troops are rested, trained and equipped properly. Maybe that doesn't solve all the Iraq problems by itself. But, what the hell is wrong with saying we wont send troops who, by the military's own standards, are not ready to go?
Love him or hate him, one thing is certain; he's not giving up. Murtha joined the marines in 1952, volunteered for Vietnam in '66 and retired with the navy distinguished service medal. He has worked tirelessly for the military and veterans throughout his career in Congress (Novak said he was best known as a purveyor of pork). And, he has been calling for de-escalation of the war and re-deployment of the troops since early 2005. When it comes to protecting the troops and America, this guy is a pit bull. Chicken Hawks from both sides of the aisle beware, while he still breathes, he wont let go and he wont cut and run and he wont give up.
Where have the democrats been these last six days? Why have they refused to defend Murtha if not his plan? OK, so maybe it isn't the best plan on the table. But, it's one with realistic goals and a concrete means of achieving them. Is that what they don't like about it? And even if the democrats are not serious about ending this pointless war, they should leap to the defense of a colleague who has personally supported the troops and the military more than just about anyone else in the country. The fact that they have left one of their own to the wolves should be yet another cause for their shame.
As I understand it, Murtha's plan takes the military's own current standards of readiness regarding rest, training and equipment, and writes them into the budget so that funding to send troops into combat is only available if those troops are rested, trained and equipped properly. Maybe that doesn't solve all the Iraq problems by itself. But, what the hell is wrong with saying we wont send troops who, by the military's own standards, are not ready to go?
Love him or hate him, one thing is certain; he's not giving up. Murtha joined the marines in 1952, volunteered for Vietnam in '66 and retired with the navy distinguished service medal. He has worked tirelessly for the military and veterans throughout his career in Congress (Novak said he was best known as a purveyor of pork). And, he has been calling for de-escalation of the war and re-deployment of the troops since early 2005. When it comes to protecting the troops and America, this guy is a pit bull. Chicken Hawks from both sides of the aisle beware, while he still breathes, he wont let go and he wont cut and run and he wont give up.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Who Cares About Capturing Bin Laden
FORT WORTH, Feb. 23 -- The Army's highest-ranking officer said Friday that he was unsure whether the U.S. military would capture or kill Osama bin Laden, adding, "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."
There you go, America. Everything they've told you is a lie. If you want justice for 9/11 rather than the slow bleed of our military in Iraq, then you are un-patriotic and don't support the troops. Welcome to the New American Century - Reichstag = 9/11.
There you go, America. Everything they've told you is a lie. If you want justice for 9/11 rather than the slow bleed of our military in Iraq, then you are un-patriotic and don't support the troops. Welcome to the New American Century - Reichstag = 9/11.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Be Careful, Nancy!
Vice President Cheney today continued his all out war on the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Cheney said, in part:
"If you are going to advocate a course of action that basically is withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, then you don't get to just do the fun part of that, that says, well we're going to get out and appeal to your constituents on that basis. You have to be accountable for the results. . . .
"The point I made and I'll make it again is that al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. . . . That if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home. . . . If we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it and I meant it."
I feel like there are two main items here to note. First of all, for Cheney to say anyone other than himself and the President needs to be held accountable for the results of their policy is absolutely ludicrous. This is Bush and Cheney's war and just in case anybody forgets that, the Democrats need to be loud and clear and tireless in bringing it up. Do not let them re-frame this.
Secondly, it is obvious that Cheney is going for broke now. He has nothing left to lose. He has no political future. His daughter is gay and the religious right is finally holding him accountable for that. And, I'm sure he's aware that he wont live forever. This is truly a battle to the death for him. That makes him more dangerous than ever.
"If you are going to advocate a course of action that basically is withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, then you don't get to just do the fun part of that, that says, well we're going to get out and appeal to your constituents on that basis. You have to be accountable for the results. . . .
"The point I made and I'll make it again is that al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. . . . That if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home. . . . If we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it and I meant it."
I feel like there are two main items here to note. First of all, for Cheney to say anyone other than himself and the President needs to be held accountable for the results of their policy is absolutely ludicrous. This is Bush and Cheney's war and just in case anybody forgets that, the Democrats need to be loud and clear and tireless in bringing it up. Do not let them re-frame this.
Secondly, it is obvious that Cheney is going for broke now. He has nothing left to lose. He has no political future. His daughter is gay and the religious right is finally holding him accountable for that. And, I'm sure he's aware that he wont live forever. This is truly a battle to the death for him. That makes him more dangerous than ever.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Brits Validate Al Qaeda Strategy
I don't know why everyone is acting all shocked about the recent announcement that the British will be withdrawing 2100 of their 7000 troops in Iraq this summer despite the US needing 21,500 more to secure Baghdad and Al Anbar. We all knew those tea sipping, crumpet munching, cross-dressing, limey nitwits with their socialism-lite and their little Queen would go all wobbly in the knees at the first sign of trouble. They will be redeploying the remainder of the troops in Iraq to non-combat roles such as training Iraqi forces and patrolling the border. This is said to be a success as the territory in the south which they controlled is now in the hands of Iraqi Police and Military. Unfortunately the Police are entirely under control of the militias and the British have made many unsuccessful attempts to root them out. They recently assaulted and leveled a police station in Basra. That move, not particularly popular with the locals, and the reaction to it gave those snooty Brits the perfect excuse to declare victory and get out. Except they forgot about the Terrorists. They proved they don't have the stomach to finish the fight and somebody might be following them home!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
