BROADSIDES

2008-12-07T10:13:00.000-05:00

Remembering Pearl Harbor Day
Aboard the USS Phoenix

On December 7, 1941, I was standing on the quarter deck of the USS Phoenix, a light cruiser. It was moored at Pearl Harbor, behind Battleship Row. Along with several other sailors, waiting for a motor launch to take us to the USS Arizona for a Protestant Church service. As we stood there, we noticed a huge number of planes coming in. Our first impression was that they were our own planes, on maneuvers. As they got closer, we could see the rising sun on the side of the planes, and knew it was the Japanese attacking us.

When we realized this, we started running towards our battle stations. At that time, the call came over the loudspeaker on the ship, telling us "all hands man your battle stations, this is no drill." My battle station was alternate gunner and boater on a 50 caliber machine gun, along with a gunner's mate, who had trained me, and he did all the firing during the attack.

We went through the attack without getting a scratch on our ship. As we were leaving the harbor after that attack, we passed right by the burning Arizona, and other battleships on our way out. Along with us were two other cruisers, our cruiser the USS Phoenix, the USS St. Louis, and the USS Detroit, along with about 5 destroyers. We went to the south, looking for the enemy, and they were actually up north. Perhaps we were lucky, because we wouldn't have been much of a match for the Japanese fleet.

My ship, the USS Phoenix, went through, in addition to Pearl Harbor, 25 major engagements, ending with the battles that almost put the Japanese navy out of the business. -- Charles F. May, United States Navy, USS Phoenix

2008-11-22T09:45:00.002-05:00

VI Day
It's Victory in Iraq Day!

Today, over 27 million Iraqis -- who heretofore have never known anything but oppression -- live in a free democratic republic. And the United States is a safer place for it.

All this made possible by the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen -- America's "secret weapon":

I have to tell you that nothing, and I mean nothing, has made me prouder the past, almost-4 years than the young people who are serving our country in uniform. By any measure, they're just the best. You know, someone back in World War II asked General George Marshall what was the secret of America's success, what was our secret weapon in that war. And General Marshall said, "The best damn kids in the world." -- Ronald Reagan, September 19, 1984

2008-11-19T16:52:00.009-05:00

Mission Accomplished: Victory In Iraq
The United States has won the war in Iraq.

And since the treasonous, America-hating press won't say it, patriotic bloggers will. Zombie has declared November 22, 2008 as Victory in Iraq Day. Zombie opines:

We won. The Iraq War is over. I declare November 22, 2008 to be "Victory in Iraq Day." (Hereafter known as "VI Day.")

By every measure, The United States and coalition forces have conclusively defeated all enemies in Iraq, pacified the country, deposed the previous regime, successfully helped to establish a new functioning democratic government, and suppressed any lingering insurgencies. The war has come to an end. And we won.

What more indication do you need? An announcement from the outgoing Bush administration? It's not gonna happen. An announcement from the incoming Obama administration? That's really not gonna happen. A declaration of victory by the media? Please. Don't make me laugh. A concession of surrender by what few remaining insurgents remain in hiding? Forget about it.

The moment has come to acknowledge the obvious. To overtly declare a fact that has already been true for quite some time now. Let me repeat: WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ

And since there will never be a ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue in New York for our troops, it's up to us, the people, to arrange a virtual ticker-tape parade. An online victory celebration.

Saturday, November 22, 2008 is the day of that celebration: Victory in Iraq Day.

So this Saturday, wish your family and friends a happy VI Day. Better yet, go to AnySoldier.com and send a note to a deployed member of the U.S. military acknowledging their historic victory in the ongoing fight for freedom.

2008-11-11T13:18:00.002-05:00

Veterans Day
The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country. -- George Washington

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. -- Sen. Zell Miller

2008-09-11T09:51:00.000-04:00

9/11/01
It must be on every soldier’s mind. It’s certainly on mine ... You’re wearing the American flag on your sleeve. You’re thinking this happened in my nation, and we can never allow it to happen in the United States again ... There’s no place in the world for terrorists, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in New York City, not in Washington, D.C.
-- Captain Jennifer Bowersox, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas; as quoted in the the Desert Dispatch

2008-09-11T09:46:00.002-04:00

Patriot Day, 2008
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

September 11, 2001, was etched into America's memory when 19 terrorists attacked us with barbarity unequaled in our history. On Patriot Day, we cherish the memory of the thousands of innocent victims lost, extend our thoughts and prayers to their families, and honor the heroic men and women who risked and sacrificed their lives so others might survive.

Since 9/11, we have recognized the threat posed by terrorists to the safety of the American people and worked to protect our homeland by fighting terrorists abroad. We are confronting terrorism by advancing freedom, liberty, and prosperity as an alternative to the ideologies of hatred and repression. Our Nation pays tribute to our courageous men and women in uniform serving around the world and the devoted members of our law enforcement, public safety, and intelligence communities at home who work night and day to protect us from harm and preserve the freedom of this great Nation.

Seven years ago, ordinary citizens rose to the challenge, united in prayer, and responded with extraordinary acts of courage, with some giving their lives for the country they loved. On Patriot Day, we remember all those who were taken from us in an instant and seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world. We must not allow our resolve to be weakened by the passage of time. We will meet the test that history has given us and continue to fight to rid the world of terrorism and promote liberty around the globe.

By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as "Patriot Day."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2008, as Patriot Day. I call upon the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half-staff on Patriot Day. I also call upon the people of the United States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and remembrance services, to display the flag at half-staff from their homes on that day, and to observe a moment of silence beginning at 8:46 a.m. eastern daylight time to honor the innocent Americans and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

2008-07-10T11:07:00.003-04:00

Democrats Castrating Democrats
Whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them ... -- Jesus Christ, from His Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:12

I wanna cut [Barack Obama's] nuts off. -- Rev. Jesse Jackson (Sorry to disappoint, Jesse, but Michelle Obama beat you to it.)

As an ordained minister of the Christian faith, Rev. Jesse Jackson presumably adheres to Jesus' Golden Rule. Accordingly, we must conclude that Jackson wants someone to cut his testicles off, too. (Come to think of it, that may not be a bad thing. It certainly would preempt any future new child support payments. The Lord works in mysterious ways!)

Jackson's comment wasn't really about nuts. It was about grapes -- sour grapes.

Race hustling grifters like Jackson are not happy that a black man has not only won the Democratic nomination for president but has a very real chance of winning in November. Why? Because when he's not committing adultery, siring children out of wedlock, pretending to be a Christian minister, referring to Jews as "hymies", blackmailing corporate America and threatening to castrate someone, Jesse Jackson and his spawn make millions promoting the false notion that Americans who are black are permanent victims of white racism and doomed to a life of want, misery and oppression. In other words, the election of a president who is black would destroy Jackson's multi-million dollar race scam.

2008-07-04T08:31:00.002-04:00

Independence Day
This Fourth of July, as in years past, Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence and our Nation's 211th birthday with parades down Main Street, ceremonies at town halls, worship at churches and synagogues, and patriotic moments at picnics and fireworks shows and baseball games. Americans overseas pause in thoughts of home and what our country means to them. All of us remember with wonder and gratitude that we celebrate a profound conception of freedom, one our countrymen have asserted and defended over and over.

That conception of freedom is expressed with eloquence and wisdom in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution whose bicentennial we observe this year. The Declaration affirms our belief that government exists to secure our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution provides for a system of limited government which secures these blessings of liberty, ensuring that We the People remain truly in charge.

On this Independence Day, let us recall our Founders' pledge to make any sacrifice as they fought for liberty and freedom. Let us remember that millions of Americans have struggled to pass on to us the precious gift of Independence -- that it is from them that the light of this great national anniversary is truly drawn, and that it is in their name today that we pledge ourselves anew to keep that light burning proud and strong.

To all my fellow Americans, Happy Fourth of July!
-- President Ronald Reagan, 1987

2008-06-12T10:46:00.004-04:00

Supreme Insult
According to five shysters on the Supreme Court, terrorists -- including the architect of the September 11 attacks -- who have been captured by the United States military in the course of prosecuting a congressionally declared war have a constitutional right to appeal their case in federal civilian courts.

This means that, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- a Kuwaiti -- now has the same constitutional due process rights as you, me and the thousands of Americans he murdered on September 11, 2001. In other words, the Supreme Ambulance Chasers sent this message to the rest of the world today: "If you want the same rights as an American citizen, simply murder American citizens."

With this ruling, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Kennedy trivialize the mass murder committed on September 11. They trivialize the heroic sacrifice of our military men and women and their families. They trivialize the successes of the War on Terror. And they trivialize the sacredness of American citizenship.

Until today, a foreigner seeking to destroy America had no constitutional right to American legal protections. So lawyers are now in charge of the War on Terror, and that all but guarantees defeat.

2008-05-26T07:17:00.005-04:00

Memorial Day
Today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray that no heroes will ever have to die for us again. It's a day of thanks for the valor of others, a day to remember the splendor of America and those of her children who rest in this cemetery and others. It's a day to be with the family and remember.

I was thinking this morning that across the country children and their parents will be going to the town parade and the young ones will sit on the sidewalks and wave their flags as the band goes by. Later, maybe, they'll have a cookout or a day at the beach. And that's good, because today is a day to be with the family and to remember.

Arlington, this place of so many memories, is a fitting place for some remembering ... It's hard not to think of the young in a place like this, for it's the young who do the fighting and dying when a peace fails and a war begins. Not far from here is the statue of the three servicemen -- the three fighting boys of Vietnam. It, too, has majesty and more. Perhaps you've seen it -- three rough boys walking together, looking ahead with a steady gaze. There's something wounded about them, a kind of resigned toughness. But there's an unexpected tenderness, too. At first you don't really notice, but then you see it. The three are touching each other, as if they're supporting each other, helping each other on.

I know that many veterans of Vietnam will gather today, some of them perhaps by the wall. And they're still helping each other on. They were quite a group, the boys of Vietnam -- boys who fought a terrible and vicious war without enough support from home, boys who were dodging bullets while we debated the efficacy of the battle. It was often our poor who fought in that war; it was the unpampered boys of the working class who picked up the rifles and went on the march. They learned not to rely on us; they learned to rely on each other. And they were special in another way: They chose to be faithful. They chose to reject the fashionable skepticism of their time. They chose to believe and answer the call of duty. They had the wild, wild courage of youth. They seized certainty from the heart of an ambivalent age; they stood for something.

And we owe them something, those boys. We owe them first a promise: That just as they did not forget their missing comrades, neither, ever, will we. And there are other promises. We must always remember that peace is a fragile thing that needs constant vigilance. We owe them a promise to look at the world with a steady gaze and, perhaps, a resigned toughness, knowing that we have adversaries in the world and challenges and the only way to meet them and maintain the peace is by staying strong.

That, of course, is the lesson of this century, a lesson learned in the Sudetenland, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Cambodia. If we really care about peace, we must stay strong. If we really care about peace, we must, through our strength, demonstrate our unwillingness to accept an ending of the peace. We must be strong enough to create peace where it does not exist and strong enough to protect it where it does. That's the lesson of this century and, I think, of this day. And that's all I wanted to say. The rest of my contribution is to leave this great place to its peace, a peace it has earned.

Thank all of you, and God bless you, and have a day full of memories.
-- President Ronald Reagan, Arlington National Cemetery, May 26, 1986

2008-02-18T08:09:00.000-05:00

George Washington Day
Note: This is a reprint of an item originally posted on February 17, 2003.

Today America pays tribute to its presidents. Unfortunately that group includes many lackluster chief executives, including the politically inept (James Buchanan, Ulysess Grant, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter) and the morally inept (John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton). These presidents are not worthy of a holiday-caliber commemoration.

Moreover, honoring all the presidents collectively on one day renders the holiday meaningless. That's why Congress should scrap Presidents Day and replace it with a holiday honoring the one person indispensable in the forging of the United States: George Washington.

As the Continental Army's commander-in-chief in the American Revolution, the most influential voice calling for a Constitutional Convention (over which he presided) and the first president of the United States, Washington occupies the center stage of American history. But more important than what Washington did is what he did not do. Though he would have had the military and popular support to do so, he firmly refused absolute power by explicitly dismissing suggestions that he make himself America's king.

In May of 1782 — less than a year after the British surrendered to Washington at Yorktown — the Continental Army had yet to be paid by the new (and largely powerless) Congress established under the Articles of Confederation. In an attempt to resolve the issue of compensation, Colonel Lewis Nicola wrote his commander-in-chief expressing the opinion of many in the Continental Army that Washington make himself king of the United States. Washington's indignant reply reveals not only his exemplary character but his steadfast commitment to limited republican government:

Sir: With a mixture of great surprise and astonishment I have read with attention the Sentiments you have submitted to my perusal. Be assured Sir, no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, and I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severety. For the present, the communication of them will rest in my own bosom, unless some further agitation of the matter, shall make a disclosure necessary.

I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no Man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like Nature. — May 22, 1782

As the nation's first president, Washington established presidential precedents and traditions to which most of his successors adhere. He defined the office. In doing so he was guided by one objective, which he explained in his Farewell Address of 1796:

With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Washington's policy triumphed. And today the United States has "the command of its own fortunes."

America should show its gratitude and respect by designating George Washington's birthday — February 22 — a national holiday.

2008-02-13T12:19:00.003-05:00

Classified Ad
'89 2-door Renault for sale. New red upholstery. Needs some work.

2008-02-13T10:18:00.003-05:00

Our Long National Nightmare Is Over
"Strike Over: Hollywood Back To Work!" -- headline, Deadline Hollywood Daily

2008-02-08T17:18:00.000-05:00

Unclean! Unclean!
Leprosy outbreak causes concerns in Northwest Arkansas -- KFSM, channel 5

In other words, don't shake hands with Huckabee.

2008-01-08T13:36:00.000-05:00

Did They Share A Cigarette Afterwards?
Drudge links to an acid reflux-inducing item on Media Bistro. NBC reporter Lee Cowan, who is covering Barack Obama's campaign, admitted to Brian Williams that "it's hard to stay objective covering this guy."

Cowan had an Obamasm! And here I always thought that was a microphone in his hand.

2008-01-08T12:34:00.000-05:00

America Held Hostage, Day 63
The madness continues. The Hollywood writers strike has claimed another victim -- the Golden Globe Awards ceremony.

Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!

(Disclaimer: I assume that William Shakespeare was not a member of the Writers Guild and use of his material here is permissible. If not, the Guild is more than welcome to picket next to my modem.)

2008-01-03T14:11:00.000-05:00

Presidential NO-dorsements
Happy New Year, Dear Readers.

Several emailers have asked about my preference for the Republican presidential nomination. Um, can we change the subject?

Let's talk about something else...

How about Ohio State's impending BCS Championship?

Or the weather?

Or Britney Spears' slutty sister?

Or how about the candidates whom I would never support for the GOP presidential nomination nor vote for even if they were the nominee? Let's go with this topic. (And for those who wanted to discuss Britney's knocked-up sibling, well, you're creepy.)

Among the gaggle of GOP presidential candidates, there are a few who are an anathema to me because their political record runs contrary to the very essence of Republicanism -- which is, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, achieving and protecting "the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society." What follows is a list of those phony Republicans; these are my Republican presidential NO-dorsements:

John McCain
If I told you about a presidential candidate who ...

... opposed the Bush tax cuts;
... led the charge to stop the Republican Senate leadership from requiring the Senate to obey the Constitution by confirming the president's judicial nominations with a simple majority vote;
... routinely attacked Don Rumsfeld and demanded the former defense secretary's resignation;
... called on the president to close the terrorist detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, thus falsely implying that American military personnel were mistreating terrorist detainees there;
... strongly supported Ted Kennedy's amnesty plan for illegal aliens; and
... sought to defend terrorist detainees against America's use of the very effective (and harmless) waterboarding technique ...

... you would assume, understandably, that I was describing a Democrat. But that's all John McCain. And if that isn't enough reason to oppose this counterfeit Republican, there is McCain's infamous full frontal assault on the First Amendment -- the McCain-Feingold Act. And as for McCain's ethics, I have one two words: Keating Five.

On a personal level, I can tell you that John McCain is among the most monstrously arrogant people in American politics. (Compared to McCain, that pompous ass Jack Kemp looks modest.) Maybe that's why Arizona's liberal senator has been a presidential candidate for about as long as Harold Stassen.

Ron Paul
A Republican (allegedly) congressman from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul is the darling of the traitorous MoveOn.org left. Since entering the Republican presidential race, Paul has repeated his warped view that the September 11 terrorist attacks were America's fault and that the war on terrorism is wrong and should end. Paul's Blame-America-First views have motivated kook leftists to donate major money to his campaign. And if you don't believe that, ask yourself why Paul trails badly in most Republican polls despite record-setting campaign fundraisers. Don't be surprised if someday it comes out that limousine-leftists like crazed billionaire and international fugitive George Soros were connected to Paul's fundraising success.

On domestic issues, Paul fancies himself a libertarian. That's fine. But what's the point of having a president who promotes liberty throughout the land if he is unwilling to shield that liberty from enemy attack? What use is there to replacing the income tax with a sales tax, as Paul has proposed, if a mushroom cloud is hanging over New York City or Washington or Chicago or Los Angeles? I doubt Ron Paul will honestly answer those questions because, to do so, would mean losing all that leftist cash.

Mike Huckabee
The former governor of Arkansas gives me the willies. (Hey, I just a made a funny there!)

Anyone from Ohio will know what I mean when I say Mike Huckabee is a Voinovich Republican. A Voinovich Republican is a Democrat who opposes abortion. On most other issues, especially on tax increases, a Voinovich Republican stands proudly with the Democrats.

As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee presided over massive tax increases. One stat that I heard is that taxes during the Huckabee administration rose by 43%. Amazingly, Huckabee smothered Arkansans with more taxes than Bill Clinton.

The centerpiece of Huckabee's domestic proposals is a flat income tax. Not surprisingly, he has made no promise to oppose tax hikes. (Making the income tax flat doesn't mean much if the flat tax percentage continually rises.) And then there's Huckabee's unconstitutional proposal for a national smoking ban. He's in favor of this, he said, because his wife survived cancer. This is the kind of dangerous, egomaniacal thinking common amongst populist candidates. Just because of a personal experience with his wife's health, Huckabee believes that as president, he is entitled to ignore the Tenth Amendment and impose a national smoking ban. In Mike Huckabee's wacky world of high taxes, bans and prohibitions, there's no such thing as freedom, liberty and constitutionally-limited government.

On foreign policy matters, Huckabee gives every indication of being an utter fool. Since announcing his presidential candidacy, he has repeatedly attacked the president and the war on terrorism. His talking points on the subject sound as if they were lifted directly from John Kerry's campaign handbook. Most recently, he accused the president of having "a bunker mentality" and chided him for not having more international support for the fight against terrorism. When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate, as a matter of campaign strategy, attack an incumbent president from his own party? (Let alone an incumbent wartime president from his own party.)

Finally, there's something just downright eerie about Mike Huckabee. Maybe it's just me, but he gives off a Jim Jones-like vibe. It's as if one minute he could be asking for your vote, and then the next minute he could be laughing madly while ladling tainted Kool-Aid down your throat. (That's assuming Huck doesn't ban sugary drinks, too.)

Besides -- do we really want another Arkansas governor for president?

There you have my NO-dorsements. Under no circumstances will I ever vote for McCain, Paul or Huckabee for anything. Not even if I were waterboarded!

2007-12-08T09:59:00.000-05:00

America Held Hostage, Day 33
The Writers Guild strike enters its fifth week with no end in sight.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a generator and stocking up on water and food.

2007-12-07T09:50:00.000-05:00

George Phraner Aboard The Arizona
For the crew of the USS Arizona, December 7, 1941 started like most mornings in Pearl Harbor -- warm and breezy. But that was about to change.

Thanks to the Pearl Harbor Survivor Project, Seaman First Class George D. Phraner, USN, -- one of the few Arizona crew members who survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor -- shares his memories of that day of infamy:

As usual, there was a warm breeze that Sunday morning. We had just finished breakfast and drifted out of the compartment to get a little air. This was our normal routine on weekends as we had no work station to report to. It was fortunate for us that we were able to sleep in until 6:30 as many of us had been out the night before. Just as we left the mess area we heard this noise. We went outside to take a look because it's usually very quiet. When we arrived we could hear and see there were airplanes. I looked across the bow of the ship and could see large plumes of smoke coming up from Ford Island. At first, we didn't realize it was a bombing. It didn't mean anything to us until a large group of planes came near the ship and we could see for the first time the rising sun emblem on the plane wings. The bombing was becoming heavier all around us and we knew this was REALLY IT!

At first there was a rush of fear, the blood started to flow real fast. It was then that general quarters sounded over the speaker and everything became automatic. My battle station was on a forward 5 inch gun and it was standard practice to keep only a limited amount of ammunition at the guns. There was only one ready gun crew on each side and mine wasn't one of them. There we were, the Japanese dropping bombs over us and we had no ammo. All the training and practicing for a year and when the real thing came we had no ammunition where we needed it. As unfortunate as this was, that simple fact was to save my life. Somehow the gun captain pointed at me and said, "you go aft and start bringing up the ammunition out of the magazines". The aft magazines were five decks below.

A few moments later I found myself deep below the water line in a part of the ship I normally would never be in. I remember getting these cases of ammo powder and shells weighing about 90 pounds each. I had begun lifting shells into the hoist when a deafening roar filled the room and the entire ship shuttered. It was the forward magazine. One and half million pounds of gun powder exploding in a massive fireball disintegrating the whole forward part of the ship. Only moments before I stood with my gun crew just a few feet from the center of the explosion. Admiral Kidd, Captain. Van Velkenburg, my whole gun crew was killed. Everyone on top.

Seconds after the explosion the lights went out and it was pitch black. Almost immediately a thick acrid smoke filled the magazine locker and the metal walls began to get hot. In the dark and not being able to breath, we made our way to the door hatch, only to find it shut and locked. Somehow we were able to open the hatch and start to make our way up the ladder. I was nauseated by the smell of burning flesh, which turned out to be my own as I climbed up the hot ladder. A quick glance around revealed nothing in the darkness, but the moaning and sounds of falling bodies told me that some of my shipmates had succumbed to defeat and had died in their attempt to survive.

Getting through that choking kind of smoke was a real ordeal, the kind of smoke that really hurt your lungs. After awhile I began to get weak and lightheaded. I could feel myself losing the battle to save my own life. I hung to the ladder, feeling good. I felt that it was all right for me to let go. At that moment I looked up and could see a small point of light thru the smoke. It gave me the strength to go on. After what seemed to me like an eternity, I reached the deck gasping and choking. I laid down for a few moments. The warm Hawaiian air filled my lungs and cleared my head. I glanced over to the forward end of the ship to see nothing but a giant wall of flame and smoke.

Behind me, a marine lay dead on the deck, his body split in two. I began to realize there were dead men all around me. Some men were burning, wandering aimlessly. The sound of someone shouting "put out the fire" cut through the sound of the battle, but it was obvious the ship was doomed. I made my way to the side of the ship, which by this time was sinking fast and jumped off the fantail. The shoreline of Ford Island was only a short distance. There was burning oil all around the ship, but the aft was clear. After swimming to shore, I was taken to the naval air station. Every table in th mess hall had a man on it. After the attack was over, many of the battleship sailors, myself included, were taken to the USS TENNESSEE. I was there for one week and then transferred to the USS LEXINGTON and an appointment with a place called the Coral Sea.

2007-11-11T07:07:00.000-05:00

Veterans Day: "Eternal Gratitude"

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The men and women of my generation heard their grandparents talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had exhausted in the most absurd and bloodiest of wars.

The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.

Fathers took their sons to see the vast cemeteries where, under thousands of white crosses so far from home, thousands of young American soldiers lay who had fallen not to defend their own freedom but the freedom of all others, not to defend their own families, their own homeland, but to defend humanity as a whole.

Fathers took their sons to the beaches where the young men of America had so heroically landed. They read them the admirable letters of farewell that those 20-year-old soldiers had written to their families before the battle to tell them: "We don't consider ourselves heroes. We want this war to be over. But however much dread we may feel, you can count on us." Before they landed, Eisenhower told them: "The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."

And as they listened to their fathers, watched movies, read history books and the letters of soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy and Provence, as they visited the cemeteries where the star-spangled banner flies, the children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.

To those 20-year-old heroes who gave us everything, to the families of those who never returned, to the children who mourned fathers they barely got a chance to know, I want to express France's eternal gratitude.

On behalf of my generation, which did not experience war but knows how much it owes to their courage and their sacrifice; on behalf of our children, who must never forget; to all the veterans who are here today and, notably the seven I had the honor to decorate yesterday evening, one of whom, Senator Inouye, belongs to your Congress, I want to express the deep, sincere gratitude of the French people. I want to tell you that whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad to lose a member of one's family.
-- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, from an address to a joint session of Congress, Nov. 7, 2007

2007-10-30T10:48:00.000-04:00

Thanks For Proving My Point, Dave
To leftist Democrats like Stark, children who manage to escape the abortionist are nothing more than stage props in their party's twisted campaign to peddle socialist snake oil. -- B. Sides, October 24, 2007

Our message sounds like an audit report on defense logistics ... Why are we defending the State Children’s Health Insurance Program instead of advocating a "Healthy Kids" plan? -- House Democrat staffer Dave Helfert, from an internal memo criticizing the House Democrats' salesmanship, as reported in The Hill, October 26, 2007

2007-10-24T18:48:00.000-04:00

Stark Treason
When Democrat Congressman Pete Stark took to the House floor on October 18 to support overriding the president's veto of Congress' attempt to massively expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, he just couldn't help proving what's been obvious for a long time -- that he's a modern day Benedict Arnold.

Addressing the Republican side of the House chamber, Stark slobbered and bellowed:

You don't have money to fund the war or children! But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we 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!

Think about that; a high priest of the pro-abortion party is worried about kids having a chance to grow old enough to do something. Stark certainly has no problem with kids having their heads torn off when they're in the womb. Such glaring hypocrisy should be kept in mind whenever you hear the Democrats' endless phony schmaltz about their concern for "the children". To leftist Democrats like Stark, children who manage to escape the abortionist are nothing more than stage props in their party's twisted campaign to peddle socialist snake oil.

As for Stark's slur that our military men and women are killed in Iraq for the president's amusement, is anyone really surprised that he made such a thoroughly treasonous accusation? (Check out the video of Stark's tantrum and note the reaction of the man -- whom, it's safe to assume, is either another Democrat congressman or a Democrat staffer -- seated directly behind Stark. The guy didn't bat an eye at Stark's comments.) After all, since 9/11 Stark has made a career out of openly aiding and abetting America's terrorist enemies. In 2003, shortly before the United States liberated Iraq, I noted this excerpt from a San Francisco Chronicle article:

In one of the most brutal critiques of the administration's policy toward Iraq by a member of Congress, East Bay Rep. Pete Stark said President Bush would be responsible for "an act of terror" by launching a massive bombing campaign to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "I think unleashing 3,000 smart bombs against the city of Baghdad in the first several days of the war ... to me, if those were unleashed against the San Francisco Bay Area, I would call that an act of extreme terrorism," said Stark ...

When Pete Stark says that President Bush is amused by the deaths of American soldiers and that preemptive strikes against terrorists is an American "act of terror," he means it. That's why his crybaby apology yesterday (which he only made after narrowly escaping being censured by the House) is laughably transparent.

I'll give Stark credit for one thing, though. At least he doesn't claim to be a patriot while busily striving to ensure America's defeat -- unlike most of his fellow subversive Democrats. That's right, Stark proudly doesn't support our troops; and he even said so with this vote.

2007-10-12T18:21:00.000-04:00

A Real Hero
Much of the press today is giddy about a gaggle of European socialists giving a Nobel Peace Prize to an environmental charlatan. And yet, there's been scant mention that an authentic American hero who lost his life fighting for peace -- Lt. Michael P. Murphy, USN -- was posthumously awarded the nation's highest military decoration, the Medal of Honor.

Michael Murphy grew up in Patchogue, NY and was a gifted student and athlete. Though accepted at three law schools after his graduation from Penn State, Murphy opted for the Navy and was determined to become a SEAL. He was commissioned an ensign in 2000, qualified as a SEAL in 2002 and deployed to Afghanistan in 2005. The following is an excerpt of the Navy's tribute to Lt. Murphy:

On June 28, 2005, Lt. Murphy was the officer-in-charge of a four-man SEAL element in support of Operation Red Wing tasked with finding key anti-coalition militia commander near Asadabad, Afghanistan. Shortly after inserting into the objective area, the SEALs were spotted by three goat herders who were initially detained and then released. It is believed the goat herders immediately reported the SEALs’ presence to Taliban fighters.

A fierce gun battle ensued on the steep face of the mountain between the SEALs and a much larger enemy force. Despite the intensity of the firefight and suffering grave gunshot wounds himself, Murphy is credited with risking his own life to save the lives of his teammates. Murphy, intent on making contact with headquarters, but realizing this would be impossible in the extreme terrain where they were fighting, unhesitatingly and with complete disregard for his own life moved into the open, where he could gain a better position to transmit a call to get help for his men.

Moving away from the protective mountain rocks, he knowingly exposed himself to increased enemy gunfire. This deliberate and heroic act deprived him of cover and made him a target for the enemy. While continuing to be fired upon, Murphy made contact with the SOF Quick Reaction Force at Bagram Air Base and requested assistance. He calmly provided his unit’s location and the size of the enemy force while requesting immediate support for his team. At one point, he was shot in the back causing him to drop the transmitter. Murphy picked it back up, completed the call and continued firing at the enemy who was closing in. Severely wounded, Lt. Murphy returned to his cover position with his men and continued the battle.

As a result of Murphy’s call, an MH-47 Chinook helicopter, with eight additional SEALs and eight Army Night Stalkers aboard, was sent in as part of the QRF to extract the four embattled SEALs. As the Chinook drew nearer to the fight, a rocket-propelled grenade hit the helicopter, causing it to crash and killing all 16 men aboard.

On the ground and nearly out of ammunition, the four SEALs, continued to fight. By the end of a two-hour gunfight that careened through the hills and over cliffs, Murphy, Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class (SEAL) Danny Dietz and Sonar Technician 2nd Class (SEAL) Matthew Axelson had fallen. An estimated 35 Taliban were also dead. The fourth SEAL, Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class (SEAL) Marcus Luttrell, was blasted over a ridge by a rocket-propelled grenade and knocked unconscious. Though severely wounded, the fourth SEAL and sole survivor, Luttrell, was able to evade the enemy for nearly a day; after which local nationals came to his aide, carrying him to a nearby village where they kept him for three more days. Luttrell was rescued by U.S. Forces on July 2, 2005.

By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit and inspirational devotion to his men in the face of certain death, Lt. Murphy was able to relay the position of his unit, an act that ultimately led to the rescue of Luttrell and the recovery of the remains of the three who were killed in the battle.

Lt. Murphy was buried at Calverton National Cemetery less than 20 miles from his childhood home.

On October 22 at the White House, Daniel Murphy will accept the Medal of Honor on his son's behalf from President Bush.

2007-09-23T19:57:00.000-04:00

Marcel Marceau Dead At 84
I assume he had no last words.

2007-09-11T08:28:00.000-04:00

"This Wound To Our Country"
Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end.

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. -- George W. Bush, September 20, 2001, at a joint session of Congress

2007-09-06T11:47:00.001-04:00

Memo To Larry Craig: Beat It!
Let me rephrase that ...

Sen. Craig, get out of Dodge. The time to fight for your career is not after you've announced your resignation from the Senate. The time to fight for your career was before you plead guilty last June to what I suspect was a highly questionable charge of disorderly conduct. (How do I know my advice is right? Because, quite simply, it's the opposite of what the nearly-always-wrong Senator Arlen Specter is telling you.)

So show some class, Larry, and make a dignified exit.

And for your information, Senator: you could've avoided this mess on your way home from the Senate in June had you a basic knowledge of the Constitution:

Article I, Section. 6:
[The Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

But that's all academic now.

You've plead guilty and announced your resignation; it's time to go.

2007-09-06T11:12:00.000-04:00

The Stage Is Now Closed For Repairs
Sen. Ted Kennedy Jumps On Stage To Sing 'We Are The World'... -- Drudge Report headline, 09/06/07

2007-07-04T10:01:00.000-04:00

The Highest Honors of a Free Country
The Hon. Continental Congress, impelled by the dictates of duty, policy and necessity, having been pleased to dissolve the Connection which subsisted between this Country, and Great Britain, and to declare the United Colonies of North America, free and independent States: The several brigades are to be drawn up this evening on their respective Parades, at Six OClock, when the declaration of Congress, shewing the grounds and reasons of this measure, is to be read with an audible voice.

The General hopes this important Event will serve as a fresh incentive to every officer, and soldier, to act with Fidelity and Courage, as knowing that now the peace and safety of his Country depends (under God) solely on the success of our arms: And that he is now in the service of a State, possessed of sufficient power to reward his merit, and advance him to the highest Honors of a free Country. -- General George Washington, excerpt of General Orders for July 9, 1776

2007-07-04T09:34:00.001-04:00

Ravishing Light & Glory
I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth all the means. This is our day of deliverance.
-- John Adams, from a letter to his wife dated July 3, 1776

2007-06-20T08:53:00.000-04:00

Bloomberg Quits GOP, No One Cares
The mayor of New York City announced yesterday that he's quitting the Republican Party ...

... and judging from the chorus of cricket chirps, no one really gives a damn. That's probably because in order for one to quit the Republican Party, one must first be a Republican.

The fact is, Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat, became a Republican-in-name-only so he could cut in line ahead of several New York Democratic mayors-in-waiting. So it's hardly a surprise that there's nearly no issue on which Bloomberg is in line with the Republican Party -- as his mayoralty vividly demonstrates.

Republicans who applauded this punk's switch to the GOP now know the two lessons New York Democrats learned in 2001. To Mike Bloomberg, loyalty is a one-way street. And to Mike Bloomberg, a political party and its supporters are nothing more than a disposable vehicle for achieving ego-feeding goals.

Of course, the mayor's latest party divorce is presidential politics. He wants to be president and knows that he hasn't a prayer of getting the GOP nomination. I remember reading rumors recently that Bloomberg was willing to spend $1,000,000,000 of his own money on an independent presidential bid. (According to estimates, that's about 1/5 of his net worth. Ego gratification can be pricey!)

I hope Bloomberg makes the presidential plunge; in terms of impact, he'd be the Democratic Party's Ross Perot.

2007-06-06T20:11:00.000-04:00

The Vivid Air Signed With Honor
We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue.

Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs ...

... Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life ... and left the vivid air signed with your honor."

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
— President Ronald Reagan, commemorating the 40th Anniversay of D-Day at the U.S. Ranger Monument in Pointe du Hoc, France, June 6, 1984

2007-06-03T10:05:00.000-04:00

Blowing Up
The Drudge Report headline this morning reads "PLOT TO BLOW UP KENNEDY". Judging from this photo, the plot succeeded.

2007-05-28T09:01:00.000-04:00

The Gift of Service
The greatest gift one can give to another is the gift of service. I do not know who said this but I've heard this saying before. The following is my gift to you; may I honor you and our fellow countrymen and women. I will earn the privilege to wear Eagle, Globe and Anchor for all those that cannot. With all the strength of my fellow Marines, we shall always provide you with the comforting feeling of safety that you have each day. -- Marine LCpl David Fribley, from a letter to his friends and family shortly after he joined the Marines in the wake of the September 11 attacks. LCpl Fribley and eight of his fellow Marines were killed in action on March 23, 2003 in the battle of An Nasiriyah, Iraq.

2007-05-28T07:33:00.000-04:00

Memorial Day, 2007
Shortly after the Battle of Gettysburg in the summer of 1863, the governor of Pennsylvania appointed Judge David Willis to organize efforts to clear the battlefield and bury the dead.

As the many burials neared completion in September, Judge Willis prepared for the cemetery's dedication ceremony scheduled for November. Given the massive scale of destruction wrought at Gettysburg (over 51,000 killed or injured in three days) and the herculean effort to inter the dead in a timely fashion, the judge felt that the ceremony should be commensurate. He decided that on November 19, the new cemetery at Gettysburg would be consecrated with an elaborate speech delivered by America's most renowned orator -- Edward Everett.

Over the next six weeks, Everett set about composing one of his trademark two-hour speeches. As public orations were the rock concerts of the day, people would no doubt flock to Gettysburg to listen to the eloquence of the most famous orator of all.

Only 17 days before the big event, Judge Willis may have thought it was a bit tacky not to invite the president of the United States to attend the ceremony and, if he chose, to briefly address the crowd after Everett's performance. In his November 2 invitation to Lincoln, the judge wrote:

These Grounds will be Consecrated and set apart to this Sacred purpose, by appropriate Ceremonies, on Thursday, the 19th instant. Hon Edward Everett will deliver the Oration.

I am authorized by the Governors of the different States to invite you to be present, and participate in these Ceremonies, which will doubtless be very imposing and solemnly impressive.

It is the desire that, after the Oration, you, as Chief Executive of the Nation, formally set apart these grounds to their Sacred use by a few appropriate remarks.

Translation: "If you're going to speak, Mr. President, keep it short."

It's doubtful Lincoln viewed this last-minute invitation as a slight because he accepted it.

On November 19, over 15,000 people assembled at Gettysburg to hear Edward Everett's grand oration; he didn't disappoint. Everett's two-hour performance left the audience mesmerized. Lincoln then rose to deliver his speech. Consisting of just three paragraphs, the president's "remarks" were "few" indeed. When he finished, the audience gave little, if any, response.

Legend has it that the president regarded the crowd's silence as an indication that his speech flopped. I doubt that. Lincoln was a shrewd political operative and was no stranger to the soapbox. I suspect that he knew Everett would drone on for an hour or two, and that his speech would, by its brevity, stand in stark contrast and command much more attention. So, most likely, the audience's muted reaction was really stunned silence. And in days after the dedication ceremony, Lincoln wrote several copies of what would become known to history as The Gettysburg Address; if the president truly believed his speech was a failure, he would not have taken the time and effort to make handwritten copies for posterity.

In his speech that day, Lincoln not only pays tribute to those Americans who lost their lives defending their fellow citizens' liberty, he also charges us -- the citizens who survive -- to honor our war dead by pressing on to victory in the cause for which they died. The genius of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is that its message transcends time.

On this Memorial Day, as the United States fights another protracted war to preserve freedom, Abraham Lincoln speaks to us again and his "few appropriate remarks" of 144 years ago ring anew:

. . . in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

2007-05-21T10:01:00.000-04:00

Reforming The Reform
A few days ago, the county animal-control authority said it was considering going door-to-door to find "undocumented dogs". In other words, the county government is going to track down people who own unlicensed dogs.

It should make for some interesting moments. Canine versions of Sophie's Choice come to mind -- "Take the female dog! She's a bitch!"

Or jackbooted dogcatchers storming a house to seize Elian the unlicensed chihuahua from his owner.

So the county dogcatcher has the means and methods to track down god-knows-how-many people with illegal pooches ...

... but, we're told, the omnipotent and omniscient federal government can't possibly round up and deport 12 million illegal aliens.

The Feds claim that deporting 12 million illegal aliens isn't an option because it wouldn't be practical or humane. But let 12 million American citizens openly organize to simultaneously break a federal law and watch those concerns about practicality and humane treatment disappear faster than the Branch Davidians.

That pithy point leads us to the only immigration "reform" we need: enforce the current immigration laws. That means secure our borders and deport illegal aliens.

It's no secret that immigration law enforcement has been, at best, spotty. At worst, it's been lethally incompetent -- just ask families and friends of the nearly 3,000 people murdered on one particular day.

There have been a few recent high profile raids of businesses employing large number of illegal aliens, but those cases are all show and are exceptions to the rule. Far more common is what happened recently when a local employer discovered that an employee, an alien from Mexico, was using his phone number as a Social Security number. The company dropped a dime on the criminal employee and federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents took him away -- only to release him shortly thereafter. The illegal alien quickly landed another job.

The sheriff in Ohio County, West Virginia has busted 98 illegal aliens in the last two years; in each case, the alien was turned over to the ICE field office in Pittsburgh. The Charleston Daily Mail reports:

In each of the 98 cases in Ohio County, representatives of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ... office in Pittsburgh have identified each individual as illegal, set a court date, and then released them. "And what do you think the odds of them showing up for that court hearing, especially since most of them are set two years down the road?" [Ohio County Sheriff] Burgoyne said. "One time we arrested four illegal immigrants, and they were sent to ICE in Pittsburgh. After their hearing with ICE, they were set free so they took a taxi back to Wheeling so they could look for their car. They even came to my house after asking around, 'Where does the sheriff live?' But when I asked them if they would be back in this area for their court date, they just all smiled real big and said, 'Si, senor,'" he said.

And what is ICE's response to this catch-and-release program? Get a load of this:

Ernestina Fobbs, a public affairs officer at ICE headquarters in Washington, said the agency is trying to its best. "We stopped the catch and release practice, and we are enforcing the laws, but it is an evolving process," she said. "We make the necessary changes so we can do our job better, but it's a process.

I guess "an evolving process" entails denying catch-and-release even as you continue to do it.

Just what stops ICE from giving these illegals an immediate one-way ticket to Mexico or, at the very least, making sure they show up for their court date? Bureaucratic laziness? Fear of PC blowback? Incompetence? Perhaps.

But I suspect that ICE takes it's cue from the top -- the president of the United States. The president has made no secret that he's soft when it comes to securing the borders and enforcing immigration laws. If the nation's chief law enforcer doesn't give a damn, why should any of his subordinates give a damn? For some reason, President Bush finds it politically expedient to laxly enforce immigration and border laws; so it only stands to reason that ICE bureaucrats will follow suit.

That's why it's hard to to take seriously claims by the White House and Senate leaders that their drawn-up-in-secret non-amnesty amnesty bill would seriously address border control and illegal immigration issues. The current immigration and border laws aren't being enforced to any meaningful degree, so why would things be any different with a so-called reform of those current laws?

The problem isn't current law. The problem is a president who won't enforce it.

By the way -- whenever Republican and Democrats work together in secret on legislation, and jointly unveil it as a cure-all, hold on tight to your wallet and your freedom.

2007-05-20T09:06:00.000-04:00

Pop Quiz
Which Democrat said the following on May 19, 2007?
We believe that sooner or later they have to decide to withdraw their troops from Iraq because that is the cause for the continuation of terrorist activities.

A) Harry Reid
B) Nancy Pelosi
C) John Murtha
D) Barack Obama

The comment was made by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki at the World Economic Forum yesterday.

Trick question, you say? Not really.

A, B, C and D (and most other D's) have all expressed the same position as our Death-to-America Iranian enemies, so those choices are acceptable answers, too.

2007-05-19T12:45:00.000-04:00

He's Alive!!
I thought Orson Welles was dead. Guess not.

2007-04-27T13:38:00.000-04:00

The Enemy At Home & Abroad
Now I believe myself...that this war is lost. (April 19, 2007) If the President refuses to change direction, America risks being bogged down in Iraq for years, not months. For a President that took the country to war under false pretenses, he now needs the courage to admit his policies have failed and work with us to bring the war to a responsible end. (April 26, 2007) -- Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid

The only solution to end the dilemma in Iraq was to withdraw the United States forces from Iraq and leave all state affairs to the Iraqi government, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday. Ahmadinejad told visiting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari that "end of occupation" was the only way to return security and stability to Iraq. "Continuation of killing of innocent people indicates the weakness of the occupiers in establishing security in Iraq; the occupiers are currently in their weakest phase following the invasion of Iraq," Ahmadinejad was quoted by ISNA news agency as saying. -- Earth Times, August 26, 2007

2007-04-27T12:19:00.000-04:00

Al-Qaeda's Just Wild About Harry!
I'm just wild about Harry
And Harry's wild about me
The heavenly blisses of his kisses
Fill me with ecstasy
He's sweet just like chocolate candy
And just like honey from the bee
Oh I'm just wild about Harry
And he's just wild about, cannot do without
He's just wild about me!

When Eubie Blake and Noble Sissle wrote that song in 1921, they had no way of knowing that 86 years later their jaunty tune would reflect the warm-and-fuzzy, symbiotic relationship between the once-great Democratic Party and America's wartime Islamist enemies.

Just days after he declared that America's war on terrorists in Iraq "is lost," Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid lined up 51 votes to pass a bill which would force the president to begin surrendering to Islamists terrorists in October. The bill was approved earlier by the Democrat-controlled House and is disguised as a war appropriation measure. In reality, the bill is an instrument of surrender; it's loaded with pork, providing billions in domestic handouts to spinach farmers and other special interests and, by the way, requiring President Bush to begin withdrawing all American troops from Iraq this fall.

This is how Democrats fight a war: they tell the enemy when we're going to quit.

And the al-Qaeda jihadists in Iraq appreciate Harry Reid's courtesy! Little Green Footballs notes this message from the so-called "Islamic State in Iraq" posted on a pro-terrorist website:

It is apparent to every watchful eye that recent events over the past few days have exposed a huge crack in America’s administration. With weak declarations from their leaders about events on the ground in Iraq just two months after the so-called “Baghdad security plan” commenced and a growing dispute about funds spent on the Iraq and Afghan wars, the American command has now said “The current security plan is the last chance for the American army and the Maliki government”.

As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

Then came Bush’s stupid statement where he emphasized that his strategic goal in Iraq is more than a military victory but also to prevent the Mujahideen from benefiting from the fruits of the Jihad to ultimately achieve victory.

Terrorists are indeed just wild about Harry!

A question for those Americans who voted Democrats into the congressional majority: does it bother you that Islamist terrorists who are determined to kill you wholeheartedly agree with Harry Reid and the Democrats?

2007-04-16T13:26:00.000-04:00

Sitting Ducks
A murderer went on a shooting spree today on the "gun free zone" campus of Virginia Tech killing at least 32 people. The death toll is expected to rise.

This must come as a total shock to Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker who, in January 2006, had this to say in celebration of the Virginia legislature's refusal to grant gun rights to people on college campuses:

I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.

Hey, Larry, today's events on your campus tragically demonstrate that feeling safe and being safe are two very different things.

Though the murderer is solely responsible for the death of these victims, the Virginia General Assembly and Virginia Tech's gun-free zone policy rendered them sitting ducks.

2007-03-30T21:40:00.000-04:00

EU Threatens Iran (Insert Laugh Track Here)
The poodle-walkers at the European Union are playing for keeps with Iran.

The Guardian reports:

The EU threatened to act against Iran last night if it did not immediately and unconditionally release the 15 British sailors and marines it has been holding for more than a week. EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany, threatened "appropriate measures" if Tehran did not let the group go ...

In other words, if Iran doesn't release the hostages, the EU will raise tariffs on Persian rug imports.

2007-03-29T09:12:00.000-04:00

NATO, Call Your Office
An attack on one is an attack on all. This, in theory, is the guiding provision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

And, apparently, that's all it is -- theory.

When Islamist nations dispatched terrorist mercenaries to attack the United States on September 11, 2001, what did America's NATO allies do? Nothing. (There were, however, plenty of European candlelight memorial vigils. Gee, thanks! That's only helpful if one uses the candles to set the terrorists on fire.)

What was NATO's reaction when Islamist nations subsidized a suicide bombing attack on London's subway on July 7, 2005? Other than shock and outrage, nothing.

And last week when British naval forces attached to some half-ass U.N. mission were attacked in Iraqi waters by Iran, NATO, as usual, failed to regard it as "an attack on all." If Iran's attack on the British navy doesn't merit a NATO response, just what does?

"But," you may interrupt, "isn't NATO in charge of operations in Afghanistan today?" And I would answer, "Yes, but the only difference between Operation Enduring Freedom before NATO involvement and now is the name on the letterhead; it's still largely an American operation. Oh, and by the way, don't ever interrupt me."

Had member nations lived up to their NATO treaty obligations after the Islamist attacks on the Munich Olympics in 1972 and the U.S. Embassy in Teheren in 1979, there's little doubt that Islamist terrorism would be the threat that it is today. These and other NATO failures to cover each other's back in the face of Islamist attacks has led to thousands of American and European deaths. It didn't have to come to this.

The fact is, America and Europe united in commitment to NATO's principles would defeat Islamist terrorist nations as readily as they wore down the Soviet Union.

As it stands now, however, NATO is much like the United Nations -- a largely powerless relic which serves no purpose other than to drain the American taxpayer. Anyone who needs evidence of that need only look to last week when a third-world pigsty of a country defeated the legendary British navy without firing a shot.

2007-02-28T15:59:00.000-05:00

England's Nutrition Nazi
Britain's Prince of Wales never grows tired of demonstrating to the world the consequences of cousins marrying. Earlier this week, Prince Charles proclaimed that "getting" McDonald's "banned" was "the key" to promoting better nutrition among the unwashed masses.

This aimless teabag is such an advocate of good nutrition, he used his wholly unearned income to fund a business -- Duchy Originals -- which produces supposedly healthy organic foods. But today the London Evening Standard pointed out that some of the Duchy Originals products, such as the Cornish Pasty, are not only chock full of yummy buttery goodness but also contain more fat, salt and calories than McDonald's Big Mac. Oops, Your Highness!

Seriously, why would anyone ever consider Charles' opinion on this or any other topic? Think about it. This guy's only job experience is waiting for his mother to die. He's also an Islamist sympathizer who prattles around his castles wearing Islamic robes. Even more disturbing, Charles so actively worked against America's interests in the early stages of the War on Terror that President Bush canceled the prince's scheduled White House visit.

Most damning of all, this idiot cheated on his hot piece of ass wife with a woman who appears to be Mr. Ed's stunt double.

The moral of the story? Inbreeding impairs one's sight and judgment.

2007-02-28T13:33:00.000-05:00

Jihad at Kent State
The hard-earned money of Ohio taxpayers is paying the salary of an avowed, Death-to-America jihadist professor at Kent State University.

Townhall columnist Mike Adams treats us to the gory details:

Yesterday afternoon, I logged on to the "Global War" blog (global-war.bloghi.com) of Associate Professor Julio Pino – a Muslim convert who teaches at Kent State University. The heading for the site used to read "The Worldwide Web of Jihad: Daily News from the Most Dangerous Muslim in America." Now it reads "Are You Prepared for Jihad?" IN THE NAME OF OBL. 2007: THE YEAR OF ISLAMIC VICTORY!"

Adams said he was so shocked by what he read, he called Pino's office at Kent State. Pino, he was told, was only in his office two days a week. Cushy job, wouldn't you say? So, Adams rightly concluded, Pino "was drawing a paycheck from the people of the State of Ohio while trying to launch a Jihad against people like me. In fact, just five minutes before I called he posted an entry under the title "'Crusaders Can’t Take Anymore in Afghanistan!'"

I know, I know. It's hardly shocking that an American college professor hates the United States and loudly proclaims it. But Pino crosses the line from mere dissent into full blown treason. Get a load of Adams' next point:

... just in case you were curious about the purpose of this site, it is provided in the upper right corner: "We are a jihadist news service, and provide battle dispatches, training manuals, and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide. All we want is to get Allah’s pleasure. We will write ‘Jihad’ across our foreheads, and the stars. The angels will carry our message throughout the world."

There is also an "Oath of Freedom" in the upper right corner: "We were born free. We will live freely and when death comes to us, we will die freely. Jihad is changing all that can be changed; freeing ourselves through our own efforts; and the conviction that truth will prevail, inshallah."

Under the entry "Sister Detonates Herself to Eliminate Shia Traitors" there is a description of a female suicide bomber who recently killed 41 people. Just in case you wondered how the host of the site feels about the suicide bomber, the next line tells you: "Now she lies on the Golden Couch of Paradise."

Not only should Julio Pino lose his pretend job (which he won't), he should also be prosecuted for providing material support to America's enemies during wartime (which also won't happen).

Or better yet, let's just send the Ohio National Guard back to Kent State to finish the job they started in 1970.

2007-02-20T10:42:00.000-05:00

Happy Birthday, George!
A member of Congress has finally introduced a bill that, if enacted, would restore George Washington's birthday as a legal federal holiday. The bill also mandates that Lincoln's birthday would be observed separately with a presidential proclamation.

Cybercast News Service quotes the congressman, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, discussing his reasons for introducing the Washington-Lincoln Recognition Act of 2007:

Presidents' Day is a historical myth that is more damaging because it eliminates Washington's indispensable greatness from our conversations, news stories and school lessons about this federal holiday. H.R. 75 would help correct this ongoing historic mistake ...

Three cheers for Bartlett. What's strange is that no one in the congressional delegation from Washington's home state of Virginia spearheaded this initiative.

It's doubtful the House Democrats will allow this bill to come up for a vote but, if they do, most if them will vote against it. Perhaps the Democrats will counter Bartlett's bill with a proposal to make Benedict Arnold's birthday a federal holiday.

2007-02-19T10:38:00.001-05:00

George Washington Day
Note: This is a reprint of an item I originally posted on February 17, 2003.

Today America pays tribute to its presidents. Unfortunately that group includes many lackluster chief executives, including the politically inept (James Buchanan, Ulysess Grant, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter) and the morally inept (John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton). These presidents are not worthy of a holiday-caliber commemoration.

Moreover, honoring all the presidents collectively on one day renders the holiday meaningless. That's why Congress should scrap Presidents Day and replace it with a holiday honoring the one person indispensable in the forging of the United States: George Washington.

As the Continental Army's commander-in-chief in the American Revolution, the most influential voice calling for a Constitutional Convention (over which he presided) and the first president of the United States, Washington occupies the center stage of American history. But more important than what Washington did is what he did not do. Though he would have had the military and popular support to do so, he firmly refused absolute power by explicitly dismissing suggestions that he make himself America's king.

In May of 1782 — less than a year after the British surrendered to Washington at Yorktown — the Continental Army had yet to be paid by the new (and largely powerless) Congress established under the Articles of Confederation. In an attempt to resolve the issue of compensation, Colonel Lewis Nicola wrote his commander-in-chief expressing the opinion of many in the Continental Army that Washington make himself king of the United States. Washington's indignant reply reveals not only his exemplary character but his steadfast commitment to limited republican government:

Sir: With a mixture of great surprise and astonishment I have read with attention the Sentiments you have submitted to my perusal. Be assured Sir, no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, and I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severety. For the present, the communication of them will rest in my own bosom, unless some further agitation of the matter, shall make a disclosure necessary.

I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no Man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like Nature. — May 22, 1782

As the nation's first president, Washington established presidential precedents and traditions to which most of his successors adhere. He defined the office. In doing so he was guided by one objective, which he explained in his Farewell Address of 1796:

With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Washington's policy triumphed. And today the United States has "the command of its own fortunes."

America should show its gratitude and respect by designating George Washington's birthday — February 22 — a national holiday.

2007-02-06T17:02:00.000-05:00

The Gipper's 96th Birthday
We in government should learn to look at our country with the eyes of the entrepreneur, seeing possibilities where others see only problems. - Ronald Reagan, January 26, 1985

Man, I miss that guy.

2007-02-01T06:46:00.000-05:00

Biden Flies The Byrd At Barack
Is infamous plagiarist Sen. Joe Biden now stealing material from ex-KKK leader Sen. Robert Byrd? Judging from Biden's comments about Senator Barack Obama in the New York Observer, it appears so:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy ...

I guess that means that, according to Biden, previous black presidential candidates were poorly spoken, dimwitted, stinky and ugly. Surprisingly, Biden didn't speculate on Sen. Obama's swimming ability.

If Biden is indeed plagiarizing Byrd, perhaps he'll also borrow the senior senator's white hood. On the other hand, if these comments are any indication, the old Klansman may still be using it.

2007-01-29T12:13:00.000-05:00

America's Duke of Windsor
Disclaimer: I'm not questioning Sen. John Kerry's patriotism because he has none to question.

While presumably attending the World Economic Forum in Switzerland to promote his idea that marrying rich women is the answer to all economic woes, John Kerry sat on a panel with a former Iranian president and denounced Bush for not engaging Iran and labeled the United States as "a sort of international pariah."

Those of us who have followed this shameless golddigger's career aren't surprised to hear him inadvertently confirm the fact that he's a traitor. But for him to do so while seated with a leading Iranian Nazi is a new low for John Kerry.

By this act of treason, the Democrats' failed 2004 presidential candidate joins company with England's failed king, Edward VIII. After abdicating his throne in 1936, Edward was given the consolation prize of the newly created peerage title Duke of Windsor. Seeking to regain some of his former influence, the Duke not only befriended Adolf Hitler, he also actively opposed British efforts to stop the Fuhrer. In the midst of the British war against Germany, the Duke wrote a letter in 1941 to the editor of the American magazine Liberty in which he declared, "it would be a tragic thing if Hitler was overthrown."

So it's official. John Kerry, the American Duke of Windsor, is a traitor--just like his disgraced British role model. Even the photographic evidence confirms this: click here and here.

2007-01-17T10:37:00.000-05:00

Darth Castro Plans Trip To Hell
It appears that cancer is doing what the CIA never could--killing Fidel Castro.

Recent news accounts suggest that Castro's scheduled summit with Satan was moved up after Cuban doctors botched his surgery. That's hardly surprising considering that medical facilities on Gilligan's Island are more advanced than on Fidel's Island. (You suppose that the oxygen mask was half a coconut shell and the anesthesiologist supplied oxygen by pedaling a bamboo bicycle?) Ah, the fruits of socialism.

Look at the bright side, Fidel. At least in your afterlife, you'll never need a lighter for your cigar.

2007-01-17T10:08:00.000-05:00

Mistaken Identity
"Attorney Found Naked In Courthouse With 14-Year-Old" -- NBC10 headline, Philadelphia

This headline linked on Drudge shocked me because I always thought Bill Clinton lost his law license.

Turns out it wasn't Bill at all but a criminal defense attorney observing Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in a particularly heinous manner.

Wouldn't surprise me if this lowlife defends himself by quoting an old Cheech & Chong bit and pleading insanity because "I'm just crazy about that girl!"

Cheech & Chong fans will remember that the judge rejected that plea and ordered the bailiff to "whack his pee-pee!" That'd be a good first step for this vermin. Then lock him up and throw away the key.

2007-01-08T10:13:00.000-05:00

Dems Take A Holiday
Matt Drudge is hammering the House Democrats for breaking a campaign promise to work a 5-day week. (They've scheduled a business-as-usual 4-day work week.) Drudge also notes:

Hill sources claim The House is taking Monday 'off' this week, because of the championship football game between Ohio State and the University of Florida.

Sure enough, the House is not in session today. Actually that's a fortunate thing because, being Democrats, they'd probably pass a bill requiring tonight's game to end in a tie.

Go Buckeyes!

2007-01-01T13:48:00.000-05:00

The Broadsides Doctrine
A few suggestions for winning the war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorist nations ...

The president should do the opposite of what the Iraq Survey Group recommends. Rather than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by setting a withdrawal timetable and negotiating with Iran and Syria (as the ISG wants), he should hold those two regimes to account for each terrorist attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as Syria and Iran pay no price for fomenting terrorism there, democratic reforms in Iraq and Afghanistan will never survive and America's security will be endangered.

I'm not suggesting regime-changing military invasions of Iran and Syria. Regime change, in these two cases, should be a long term goal. In the short term, I would like to see the president announce to the world a merging of the Bush and Reagan Doctrines with emphasis on three points:

1) A reaffirmation that the U.S. will use preemptive strikes against terror-sponsoring countries;

2) For each Islamist terrorist attack in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else -- be it an IED, suicide bombing, kidnapping, etc. -- there should be prompt retaliatory airstrikes on high-value military and economic targets in Iran and Syria. In other words, force Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Assad to pay a painfully high and, ultimately, prohibitive price for murdering Americans, Iraqis and Afghans; and

3) The U.S. should actively support Iranian and Syrian opposition groups seeking to overthrow their countries' tyrannical regimes. This way, the eventual regime changes in Iran and Syria will be the result of a homegrown revolution thus having instant legitimacy.

Finally (and this is crucial), the president needs to define the enemy in no uncertain terms. America's principal enemies in this world war are Iran, Syria and the terrorist mercenaries those regimes employ. And all strategies we use in fighting this conflict must be grounded in that fact.

2006-12-07T14:51:00.000-05:00

In Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941
At 89 years of age, Navy veteran Elmer Willis Smith contributed his story to the Pearl Harbor Survivors Project:

My buddy, Swede, and I were in port to overhaul all the engines on all the boats from our ship, The North Hampton. Our ship was on manuevers. On Dec. 7th I awoke by lots of noise. Swede and I slept in the Captain's Gig, and ate our meals at the hospital. Our repair shop was at the neck of the Harbor. I told Swede I was going to step out to see what all the noise was about. Just as I stepped on the float a Zero flew over, low, and I saw him drop his torpedo. We hunkered down under a concrete platform until the attacks were over.

Then we took the boat and went looking for survivors, and those who didn't survive. We came around the end of Ford Island and saw the USS Oklahoma upside down and smoking. This was so hard to take as I was on that ship for three years and had many buddies still on her. As we went by her, we heard pounding on the hull, marked the location and went into dock to alert authorities that there were people still alive in that ship. (In 2004 I went to a Pearl Harbor Survivors lunch and met an Oklahoma survivor who had been pounding on that hull!)

At lunch time Swede and I went to the hospital as usual. On the way there we saw the medics picking up the pieces of the body of a Japanese aviator who had been shot down. Normally, that would have turned my stomach and made it impossible for me to eat. That day I just thought, 'Good, he will never kill anyone anymore' and we went in and ate a hearty lunch. That hospital crew was somethings else, really doing their job in the middle of terrible conditions. After lunch until dark we ferried men back to their boats and continued to pick up survivors and body parts.

We went to see the latest Pearl Harbor story [movie] last year. It was good, but couldn't begin to give one the feel of the level of noise, the horrible stench of burning oil and flesh, the smoke so thick that it hid the sun and choked one with every breath. I never felt so proud of being an American as we watched each man, each survivor doing what needed to be done, doing their duty and the duty of those who were killed. I don't think the Japanese understood the nature of Americans nor what they took on.

2006-11-11T11:04:00.000-05:00

Two Veterans
We honor today brave Americans who are willing to risk all to defend their fellow citizens' freedom. Americans like Private Joseph Plumb Martin and Corporal Jason Dunham.

When Joseph Plumb Martin was 15, he volunteered for the Connecticut militia in 1776 and served in the Continental Army for the duration of the Revolutionary War and fought in most of its major battles. After struggling so long for American independence in places like Brooklyn, White Plains, Valley Forge and Monmouth, it's fitting that Martin was present for the Revolution's climactic battle at Yorktown.

At Yorktown in October of 1781, Lord Cornwallis and the main contingent of the British army were trapped. American and French forces led by General George Washington, General Comte de Rochambeau, the Marquis de Lafayette and Admiral de Grasse prepared to lay siege from land and sea. The battle commenced when General Washington himself fired the first shot. In his 1830 memoir, The Adventures, Dangers and Sufferings of a Revolutionary Soldier, Private Martin describes what happened next:

As soon as the firing began, our people began to cry, "The fort’s our own!" and "Rush on boys!" The Sappers and Miners soon cleared a passage for the infantry, who entered it rapidly. Our Miners were ordered not to enter the fort, but there was no stopping them. "We will go," said they ... I could not pass at the entrance we had made, it was so crowded. I therefore forced a passage at a place where I saw our shot had cut away some of the abatis; several others entered at the same place. While passing, a man at my side received a ball in his head and fell under my feet, crying out bitterly. While crossing the trench, the enemy threw hand grenades (small shells) into it. They were so thick that I at first thought them cartridge papers on fire, but was soon undeceived by their cracking. As I mounted the breastwork, I met an old associate hitching himself down into the trench. I knew him by the light of the enemy’s musketry, it was so vivid. The fort was taken and all quiet in a very short time. Immediately after the firing ceased, I went out to see what had become of my wounded friend and the other that fell in the passage. They were both dead. In the heat of the action I saw a British soldier jump over the walls of the fort next the river and go down the bank, which was almost perpendicular and twenty or thirty feet high. When he came to the beach he made off for the town, and if he did not make good use of his legs I never saw a man that did.

All that were in the action of storming the redoubt were exempted from further duty that night. We laid down upon the ground and rested the remainder of the night as well as a constant discharge of grape and canister shot would permit us to do, while those who were on duty for the day completed the second parallel by including the captured redoubts within it. We returned to camp early in the morning, all safe and sound, except one of our lieutenants, who had received a slight wound on the top of the shoulder by a musket shot. Seven or eight men belonging to the infantry were killed, and a number wounded....

We were on duty in the trenches twenty-four hours, and forty-eight hours in camp. The invalids did the camp duty, and we had nothing else to do but to attend morning and evening roll calls and recreate ourselves as we pleased the rest of the time, till we were called upon to take our turns on duty in the trenches again. The greatest inconvenience we felt was the want of good water, there being none near our camp but nasty frog ponds where all the horses in the neighborhood were watered, and we were forced to wade through the water in the skirts of the ponds, thick with mud and filth, to get at water in any wise fit for use, and that full of frogs ...

In the morning, while the relieves were coming into the trenches, I was sitting on the side of the trench, when some of the New York troops coming in, one of the sergeants stepped up to the breastwork to look about him. The enemy threw a small shell which fell upon the outside of the works; the man turned his face to look at it. At that instant a shot from the enemy, which doubtless was aimed for him in particular as none others were in sight of them, passed just by his face without touching him at all. He fell dead into the trench. I put my hand on his forehead and found his skull was shattered all in pieces and the blood flowing from his nose and mouth, but not a particle of skin was broken. I never saw an instance like this among all the men I saw killed during the whole war.

After we had finished our second line of trenches there was but little firing on either side. After Lord Cornwallis had failed to get off, upon the seventeenth day of October (a rather unlucky day for the British) he requested a cessation of hostilities for, I think, twenty-four hours, when commissioners from both armies met at a house between the lines to agree upon articles of capitulation. We waited with anxiety the termination of the armistice and as the time drew nearer our anxiety increased. The time at length arrived — it passed, and all remained quiet. And now we concluded that we had obtained what we had taken so much pains for, for which we had encountered so many dangers, and had so anxiously wished. Before night we were informed that the British had surrendered and that the siege was ended.

Nearly 223 years later on April 14, 2004, another young American -- Marine Corporal Jason Dunham of Scio, New York -- was at war. While on patrol in Iraq's al-Anbar province, Cpl. Dunham gave his life to save the lives of his Marines.

Yesterday, the Marine Corps' 231st anniversary and what would've been Jason Dunham's 25th birthday, President Bush dedicated the new National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, Virginia and told the story of Cpl. Dunham's uncommon valor:

Like the Marines who have come before them, this new generation has also given some of its finest men in the line of duty. One of these fine men was Jason Dunham. Jason's birthday is November the 10th, so you might say that he was born to be a Marine. And as far back as boot camp, his superiors spotted the quality that would mark this young American as an outstanding Marine: his willingness to put the needs of others before his own.

Corporal Dunham showed that spirit in April 2004, while leading a patrol of his Marines in an Iraqi town near the Syrian border. When a nearby Marine convoy was ambushed, Corporal Dunham led his squad to the site of the attack, where he and his men stopped a convoy of cars that were trying to make an escape. As he moved to search one of the vehicles, an insurgent jumped out and grabbed the Corporal by the throat. The Corporal engaged the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. At one point he shouted to his fellow Marines, "No, no, no, watch his hand." Moments later, an enemy grenade rolled out. Corporal Dunham did not hesitate; he jumped on the grenade to protect his fellow Marines, he used his helmet and his body to absorb the blast.

A friend who was there that terrible day put it this way: "Corporal Dunham had a gift from God. Everyone who came in contact with him wanted to be like him. He was the toughest Marine, but the nicest guy. He would do anything for you. Corporal Dunham was the kind of person everybody wants as their best friend." Despite surviving the initial blast and being given the best of medical care, Corporal Dunham ultimately succumbed to his wounds. And by giving his own life, Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men and showed the world what it means to be a Marine.

Corporal Dunham's mom and dad are with us today on what would have been this brave young man's 25th birthday. We remember that the Marine who so freely gave his life was your beloved son. We ask a loving God to comfort you for a loss that can never be replaced. And on this special birthday, in the company of his fellow Marines, I'm proud to announce that our nation will recognize Corporal Jason Dunham's action with America's highest decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor.

As long as we have Marines like Corporal Dunham, America will never fear for her liberty.

Cpl. Jason Dunham gave his life to secure the freedom first won in the American Revolution by soldiers like Private Joseph Plumb Martin. These two men, separated by over 200 years, are part of what General George C. Marshall described as America's "secret weapon--the best damn kids in the world." And they are exemplary representatives of the veterans we thank on this day.

2006-11-10T13:43:00.000-05:00

America's Enemies: "Hooray For The Democrats!"
In an audio tape released on terrorist websites, the leader of al-Qeada in Iraq announced his approval of the Democrats' electoral victories and then threatened to blow up the White House. The AP reports:

On the audio ... the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House. "The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God's sake," a man who identified himself as Abu Hamza al- Muhajir said. Al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also urged the U.S. to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops. "We haven't had enough of your blood yet," he told the U.S. "We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house _ which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said.

And the supreme leader of Iran, the world's leading sponsor of Islamic terror, tipped his turban to the Democrats, too. From Reuters:

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran ... "This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday. "Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

To those who voted for Democrats on Tuesday: does the fact that Islamic terrorists are grateful for your vote bother you at all? If not, email me your reasons.

2006-11-10T13:27:00.000-05:00

Don't Let The Door Hit You In the Ass!
"Sen. Lincoln Chafee May Leave GOP" -- AP headline

2006-11-09T11:22:00.000-05:00

Riddle Me This
I've always wondered why Republicans insist on acting like Democrats in hopes of retaining political power, while Democrats act like us in order to win. -- Dick Armey, Former House Republican Majority Leader, writing in the Wall Street Journal, 11/09/06

2006-11-08T15:32:00.000-05:00

The Grand Old Flop
Asked last month why his campaign for governor was polling far behind his Democratic opponent, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell gave a characteristically frank answer:

People are frustrated that folks campaign like Ronald Reagan and then govern like Jimmy Carter.

And for the Grand Old Party that, rather than the direction of the war in Iraq, is the message of yesterday's election.

Lacking leadership, direction and focus from the president these last four years, the Republicans in Congress began freelancing and betrayed the voters who put them in the majority. They abandoned the party's core principles -- limited government, fiscal restraint, tax cuts, marketplace deregulation and strong national defense. (That last item in the series may come as a surprise. If you think the GOP was committed to a strong defense, read this.) Congressional Republicans spent like Democrats, stuffing federal budgets with billions in anonymous earmarks and other legislative foolishness. Even in the face of skyrocketing gas prices, the Republican majority joined the Democrats in refusing to lift bans on oil exploration in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. Most egregious, the GOP lawmakers failed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent; this will ultimately result in a massive income tax increase once the tax cut law expires.

If voters had wanted Republicans to govern like Democrats, they would've chosen Democrats in the first place. Yesterday's election results were a repudiation of Republican hypocrisy more than an endorsement of Democrats. (Besides, how could it be an endorsement of the Democrats' campaign agenda when they offered no campaign agenda?)

So Ken Blackwell hit the nail on the head; when Republicans campaign as conservatives but govern as liberals, they will be held to account by voters. You would think that, of all people, President Bush would, in light of the election results, understand that now. Wrong.

What was the president's reaction to voters firing Republicans for acting like Democrats? To act like a Democrat! At his press conference today, the president, like congressional Republicans, betrayed the voters who put him in office. He surrendered whatever was left of his domestic agenda when he bizarrely announced that a minimum wage increase is an issue important to Pelosi and that he would be willing to work with her on it. Most disturbingly, he ceded control of the war to the Democrats by giving them the trophy they most desired: Don Rumsfeld's dismissal. (Imagine the message this sends to our troops and the terrorists.) Considering that the Democrats have all but announced their hope that the U.S. will lose in Iraq and that their foreign policy agenda is so anti-American that they are often in full agreement with the terrorists, you can bet our military will be prevented from winning the war.

Compounding the problem, the president is looking for assistance from leaders of an administration that decided to leave Saddam in power after defeating the dictator in Desert Storm. He nominated a retread from his father's failed presidency to be secretary of defense, former CIA director Robert Gates. (This is the same guy who believes we can negotiate Iran out of acquiring nuclear weapons. How Carteresque.) The president also mentioned the Iraq policy review panel chaired by James Baker, also a retread from Bush 41.

With his eagerness to give the Democrats anything they want, Bush rendered himself one of them. He made himself a lame duck today and ensured Democrat dominance at the polls for many years to come. But the political ramifications pale in comparison to the national security consequences. By throwing Rumsfeld under the bus to appease Democrats and replacing him with a discussion group facilitator, the president has invalidated the Bush Doctrine, undermined our troops and endangered the lives of his fellow Americans.

The clock has been turned back to September 10, 2001.

2006-11-02T17:06:00.000-05:00

It's Bush's Fault!
After refusing to apologize for saying in Pasadena what he really believes, John Kerry initially blamed his slur against the U.S. military on President Bush, Tony Snow and Rush Limbaugh. He stopped short of explaining how those three men managed to force him to utter those words. Today, Kerry changed course and said his comments were a "botched" joke about President Bush. Considering that the now-infamous remark contained no mention of nor allusion to Bush, Kerry's clarification made a deep hole much deeper. What a colossal boob. (My eternal gratitude to the over 60 million American voters who, in 2004, denied this simpleton entry to the White House.)

Here's one of several interesting observations military historian Victor Davis Hanson blogged about the latest Kerryism:

How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman.

Zing!

After a day of declaring that he apologizes to no one, Mr. Empty Suit was pressured by his fellow limousine liberals into issuing a non-apology apology:

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended. As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and was never intended to refer to any troop...I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues.

Kerry couldn't have been that sincere about "personally" offering this apology because it was issued as a written statement that he, no doubt, didn't write. Besides, it's not an apology. He's merely sorry that some people were stupid enough to have "misinterpreted" his words "to wrongly imply anything negative" about the military. In other words, it's YOUR fault for misinterpreting what Kerry goes on to claim is a "verbal slip." Shame on you!!

In truth John Kerry spoke his mind, small as it is. His comments were no verbal slip; if anything, they were a Freudian slip. After returning from Vietnam, Kerry falsely accused his brothers-in-arms of war crimes. Then in 1972, as the AP reports, Kerry expressed disdain for an all-volunteer military and the skin color of those who may volunteer to serve in it:

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

Why am I wasting keystrokes writing about this dick?

2006-10-31T13:36:00.000-05:00

C-Minus Student To Military: "You're Stupid!"

You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq. -- Sen. John Kerry, C-minus average college student, speaking at Pasadena City College, Oct. 30, 2006

Once again, Mr. Teresa Heinz has publicly demonstrated his and the Democratic Party's contempt for the men and women who volunteer to protect our country. And, once again, when called to account for his behavior, he shamelessly hid behind the very uniform he routinely disparages. Today, Kerry defended his Pasadena comments:

It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who have never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did.

By that logic, civilians have no right to criticize Benedict Arnold.

To Senator Kerry, his military service is merely a political shield to be deployed whenever he's caught being himself: a leftist kook who loathes the men and women of the United States military and seeks to sabotage the missions they undertake.

At Pasadena City College, John Kerry was just being honest about who he is -- the face of a political party hijacked by 1960s radical leftists intent on destroying both America's free market traditions and military might.

On the other hand, maybe we should cut the guy some slack. In all fairness to Sen. Kerry, I think he misspoke. What he meant to say was, "If you make the most of your education, you can do well. And if you don't, you can marry rich women."

2006-10-09T13:41:00.000-04:00

Is Kim Mailing Thank-You Notes?
Amazingly, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton weren't invited to attend North Korea's nuclear bomb test last night. How rude! Not only is Kim Jong Il a mass murdering commie, he's an ingrate, too.

Though every American president since Eisenhower has been far too tolerant of North Korea's bullshit, Carter and Clinton are the two most responsible for transforming the world's craziest regime into a nuclear power. In 1994, Jimmy Carter was (as he is today) desperate to change his well-deserved reputation as a profoundly crappy president. So he volunteered to represent Clinton in bilateral negotiations with the North Koreans, the aim of which was to persuade Kim to abandon his quest for nuclear weapons. In true Neville Chamberlain fashion, Carter announced that he had successfully persuaded Kim to freeze and eventually abandon his nuclear weapons program in exchange for the U.S., South Korea and Japan building for him two nuclear power plants. President Clinton and Congress signed off on the agreement.

And, as I wrote in 2002, after Kim got his nuclear reactors, courtesy of the United States, he broke the Carter agreement by refusing to halt his nuclear weapons program and using those reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium. In other words, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter gave Kim Jong Il the ammunition for weapons of mass destruction that will most likely be aimed at the United States and our allies.

Jimmy Carter was willing to conclude any agreeement -- even a bad one -- with North Korea just so he could, like Chamberlain did after his talks with Hitler, dramatically announce that his negotiations had averted war and preserved peace. And, like Chamberlain, Carter was very wrong.

What happened last night in the North Korean underground is the direct consequence of Bill Clinton choosing a negotiator whose sole agenda was not safeguarding the United States against nuclear attacks by North Korea, but, rather, repairing his own tattered reputation.

2006-10-09T11:20:00.000-04:00

Axis Of Evil Goes Nuclear
North Korea, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, went nuclear last night when it detonated a nuclear bomb in an undergound test.

Judging from world reaction, diplomats are shocked that over ten years worth of diplomatic appeasement, wish-wash warnings and wrist-slapping sanctions didn't deter Kim Jong Il from developing a nuclear arsenal. And just this morning, President Bush provided a fine example of the hollow diplomatic blather which serves only to encourage Kim and his ilk:

Last night the government of North Korea proclaimed to the world that it had conducted a nuclear test. We're working to confirm North Korea's claim. Nonetheless, such a claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The United States condemns this provocative act. Once again North Korea has defied the will of the international community, and the international community will respond.

This was confirmed this morning in conversations I had with leaders of China, and South Korea, Russia, and Japan. We reaffirmed our commitment to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, and all of us agreed that the proclaimed actions taken by North Korea are unacceptable and deserve an immediate response by the United Nations Security Council.

The North Korean regime remains one of the world's leading proliferator of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria. The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable of the consequences of such action.

The United States remains committed to diplomacy, and we will continue to protect ourselves and our interests. I reaffirmed to our allies in the region, including South Korea and Japan, that the United States will meet the full range of our deterrent and security commitments.

Threats will not lead to a brighter future for the North Korean people, nor weaken the resolve of the United States and our allies to achieve the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Today's claim by North Korea serves only to raise tensions, while depriving the North Korean people of the increased prosperity and better relations with the world offered by the implementation of the joint statement of the six-party talks. The oppressed and impoverished people of North Korea deserve that brighter future.

Let's look at a few of the president's statements:

Once again North Korea has defied the will of the international community, and the international community will respond. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard this before. Sounds just like our diplomatic condemenations of North Korea's long range missile test last July. The key phrase here is "Once again..." That's an inadvertent admission by the president that past diplomatic threats against North Korea are ineffective. And yet, he goes on to make another diplomatic threat: "the international community will respond." It's a safe bet that the international response will be nothing more than a UN resolution concluding that North Korea did a bad thing.

We reaffirmed our commitment to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula ... Um, too late, Mr. President. The time to commit to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula was before Kim pushed the button on his nuke last night. (Besides, a policy goal isn't achieved solely by announcing your commitment to it.) And if the United States is committed to a nuke-free Korean Peninsula, why, after Kim refused to abandoned his nuclear weapons program, did you continue to honor an awful agreement Clinton made in 1994 to build two light-water nuclear power plants for North Korea which ultimately yielded weapons-grade plutonium?

The United States remains committed to diplomacy ... Translation: Nothing will be done to stop Kim from developing more nukes. Why? Because diplomats never act preemptively; their job is to react after the fact, once the damage is done. A case in point is North Korea's nuclear bomb test last night.

The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States ... In this, the president is absolutely correct. North Korea's economy generates no hard currency for the regime, so it must acquire wealth by selling arms aboard. There's no doubt that Iran, Syria and the terrorists those countries employ will be first in line to buy Kim's nukes, and that they will use those arms against the United States and our allies.

A decade of diplomacy has failed to stop Kim Jong Il from acquiring nuclear weapons; so what makes President Bush believe that diplomacy will stop him from developing more nukes and selling them to our enemies?

If there's a U.S. foreign policy matter which cries out for military preemption as a solution, it's this one. An American premptive military action (a naval blockade or airstrikes) will help prevent North Korea from becoming a terrorist's convenience store for nuclear weapons. Many lives could be lost in such a military undertaking, but millions more will die of incineration and radiation if diplomacy remains America's preferred weapon against North Korea.

My greatest fear is that if the president continues to use only diplomacy in dealing with North Korea, then we'll sometime soon wake to the news that a major American or European city is in ashes. And we'll hear the president announce that "Once again North Korea has defied the will of the international community ..."

2006-10-05T12:51:00.000-04:00

The Politics Of The October Surprise
What are the Democrats thinking? The party of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy wants to spring an election year October Surprise and they choose a sex scandal?

I think the Dems realized their strategic mistake shortly after ABC broke the Foley story. So they switched gears, aiming their criticism not at Foley's behavior but, instead, at how the House Republican leadership handled the revelations. But this new strategy -- hammering the majority party for its mishandling of a wayward officeholder -- offers no moral ground from which the Dems can score political points. Far from it.

Why? Well, Democrats for the most part think there's nothing wrong with an officeholder putting the moves on young -- and even underage -- staffers, interns and pages. What's more, Democrats generally believe that when it comes to their public officeholders, private character doesn't matter. No Democrat will publicly say it but the way they react to scandals in their own party loudly makes that point.

Just a few examples off the top of my head. Democrats either offered muted criticism, fell silent or were openly supportive when ...

... Marion Berry, who was caught on videotape smoking crack cocaine while serving as mayor of Washington, successfully ran for the mayor's office again after being released from prison.

... Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge appointed by That Boob Jimmy Carter and later removed from the bench after being impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate in 1989 for perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice, successfully ran for the House of Representatives.

... in an act of defiance, Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds literally turned his back on the House of Representatives in 1983 as motion of censure was read against him for having sex with a 17-year-old congressional page. Studds subsequently held a press conference accompanied by the page and insisted that he did nothing wrong. Studds' heavily Democratic congressional district reelected him the following year and thereafter. He retired from the House in 1997.

... Bill Clinton repeatedly lied about having sex with a White House intern only to confirm that fact later.

... Bill Clinton was held in contempt of court by a federal judge for lying in a federal sexual harassment lawsuit deposition.

... Bill Clinton commuted the prison sentence of former Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds, who was serving time for a variety of state and federal crimes -- including having sex with an underage campaign volunteer and illegal personal use of campaign funds.

... Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson refused to resign after being videotaped taking a $100,000 bribe -- $90,000 of which was found by the FBI hidden in Jefferson's home freezer.

... Senator Ted Kennedy, um, well, there's not enough bandwidth to list this lout's misbehaviors.

There are plenty more examples, but you get the point.

Democrats are incapable of shame and feel no need to condemn the criminal or ethical misconduct of their own officeholders. In fact, they'll even hold some of them up as martyrs to the leftist cause and work for their reelection.

So I'm betting whatever criticisms they're voicing about Hastert and the Republican leadership in the Foley matter will ring hollow and hypocritical with most voters.

If Republicans lose control of one or both houses of Congress next month (and they deserve to), it won't be the result of the Foley scandal; it will be because they were worried more with preserving Republican incumbency than advancing Republican ideals.

2006-10-05T09:09:00.000-04:00

Excuses, Excuses
The ink wasn't even dry on Mark Foley's resignation when he shot off a series of lame excuses. Let's examine each:

1) I'm an alcoholic. So what? There are plenty of boozers in our midst; most, thankfully, don't prey on children as a result of alcoholism.

2) I was molested as a teenager. So what? Sadly there are many adults who were molested when they were children. But most didn't evolve into child molesters.

3) I'm gay. So what? A homosexual is as likely to molest a child as a heterosexual. Two relevant examples are both former congressmen, Dan Crane and Mel Reynolds. Crane had sex with an underage female congressional page and Reynolds did the deed with an underage female campaign volunteer. (Though Crane issued a tearful apology after being censured by the House, voters didn't buy it and tossed his sorry ass out of office. And Mel Reynolds' prison sentence on other campaign related crimes was eventually commuted by President Bill Clinton to time served. Reynolds was then hired by Jesse Jackson as a Rainbow Coalition youth counselor. Seriously.)

Even if the congressional page at the receiving end of Mark Foley's now infamous instant messages was 18-years-old at the time, it changes nothing. A congressman flirting or having sex with a congressional page is wrong, and should not be tolerated.

Mark Foley has no excuse. But there is a reason for what he did -- he's a bad person. Good riddance.

2006-09-29T14:27:00.000-04:00

The 2006 Mitsubishi 4-Door Jihad
An Ohio car dealer recently produced a radio ad which declared a "jihad on the automotive market." According to several reports last week, the Columbus-based Dennis Mitsubishi ad also contained this priceless line:

Our prices are lower than the evildoers every day. Just ask the pope!

(Yeah, I thought it was a hoot, too.)

Even before the ad aired, the local chapter of the Council on American Islamic-Relations popped a vein; CAIR spokesman Adnan Mirza fumed that the ad is "in very poor taste and absolutely offensive." Even though dealership owner Keith Dennis defended the radio spot saying it's "fair game to poke a little fun at radical extremists," he canceled plans to air it.

Funny ... I don't remember hearing a chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations loudly condemning any of the following as being in "very poor taste and absolutely offensive":

*Iranian-backed Islamic militants take U.S. Embassy personnel hostage in Tehran for over a year (1979-1980)

*Islamic Jihad suicide bombers hit the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people (1983)

* Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists suicide-bombed and killed 241 U.S. Marines, sailors and soldiers on a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Beirut (1983)

* Shiite Islamic terrorists bomb the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait City, killing 5 (1983)

* Hezbollah terrorists detonate a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 24. (1984)

* Islamic terrorists in Beirut hijack a Kuwait Airways flight and kill 2 American passengers. (1984)

* TWA Flight 847 en route to Rome is hijacked by Hezbollah terrorists and forced to land in Beirut. While holding the plane there for more than two weeks, the terrorists murder an American passenger, U.S. Navy petty officer Robert D. Stethem, and dump his body onto the tarmac. (1985)

* Palestinian Islamic terrorists backed by Libya hijack the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise ship. The terrorists murder passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, and dump his body into the ocean. (1985)

* Libyan-backed Islamic terrorists bomb the Vienna and Rome airports killing 20 people, including 5 Americans. (1985)

* Libyan-backed Islmaic terrorists detonate a bomb aboard Athens-bound TWA Flight 840, killing 4 Americans. (1986)

* Libyan-backed Islamic terrorists bomb a German nightclub filled with U.S. military personnel, killing one American. (1986)

* Pan Am Flight 103 en route to New York explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland killing all 259 passengers, 189 of whom were Americans, and 11 on the ground. Libyan-backed Islamic terrorists carried out the bombing. (1988)

* Ten al-Qaeda Islamic terrorists in New York City detonate a massive truck bomb in the World Trade Center parking garage, killing 6 and injuring over 1,000. (1993)

* Iranian-backed Islamic terrorists detonate a car bomb at a U.S. military base in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 Americans. (1995)

* Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists detonate a truck bomb at the Khobar Towers U.S. military facility in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans. (1996)

* al-Qaeda terrorists truck bomb the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring over 4,500. (1998)

* In Aden, Yemen, al-Qaeda terrorists detonate an explosive-laden boat along side the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors. (2000)

* al-Qaeda Islamic terrorists simultaneously hijack four American commercial airliners. Two are flown into both towers of New York's World Trade Center, killing 2,749 people. The third plane is flown into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, killing 184. The fourth plane fails to reach its target and crashes into a Shankesville, Pennyslvania field after passengers overpowered the terrorists, killing 40. (2001)

* 12 people are killed at the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan when an al-Qaeda-planted bomb detonates. (2002)

* In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda terrorists suicide bomb a housing facility occupied by Americans and Europeans, killing 34. (2003)

* Islamic terrorists murder 22 foreign oil workers, including an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (2004)

* Three Americans and a Briton are kidnapped and murdered by Islamic terrorists in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (2004)

* Islamic terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 5. (2004)

* 57 people are killed when al-Qaeda Islamic suicide bombers attack three American hotels in Amman, Jordan. (2005) (source: InfoPlease.com)

Gee, that silly car ad suddenly doesn't seem all that offensive now. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Mirza?

2006-09-27T14:27:00.000-04:00

CITGO-ING, CITGO-ING, CITGO-NE
Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan dictator and future chairman of the Democratic National Committee, predicted last week that because of his anti-U.S. speech at the United Nations, he would be targeted for assassination by President Bush.

This is wishful thinking on Chavez's part; he longs to be regarded as a major threat to the United States.

Unfortunately for Chavez, the Bush Administration reacted to his U.N. antics with little more than a diplomatic yawn. The same, however, can't be said for the American people. Aiming to kick Chavez in the financial balls, some Americans are boycotting Venezuelan gas distributor CITGO. And today, 7-Eleven Inc. advanced the cause by announcing that it will drop CITGO as the gas supplier to its 2,100 convenience stores.

The AP quotes a 7-Eleven spokesman:

Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez.

7-Eleven has just picked up a new customer. From now on, I'm buying all my giant slurpees, smoked sausages and lottery tickets at 7-Eleven!

2006-09-26T12:40:00.001-04:00

Daddy Dearest
There's always been a bit of mystery surrounding the identity of the man who sired Bill Clinton. Well, I think I've solved it. Check out the strong family resemblance: click here and then here.

2006-09-26T08:07:00.000-04:00

The Crybaby-In-Chief
It was deja vu. Watching an angry, red-faced Bill Clinton wagging his finger as he whined denials to less-than-pleasant facts about his conduct as president. And as was the case in the infamous Lewinsky press conference, Classless Clinton was -- GASP! -- lying to Chris Wallace during the Fox News Sunday interview.

What is it with Clinton and his index finger? When caught in his own web of lies, he shakes The Finger at people in a shame-on-you manner. He also uses The Finger to poke people; these pokes come in two varieties: the Monica Poke and, as we saw on national television last Sunday, the Chris Wallace Poke.

When Clinton repeatedly poked Wallace's knee to angrily emphasize a point, I was hoping Wallace would respond in one of the following two ways:

1) "Mr. President, I know you're used to touching people below the waist but, unlike you, I'm a happily married man. So hands-off, hillbilly."

2) "BAD TOUCH!! BAD TOUCH!!"

Alas, Wallace held his tongue.

Of all the bullshit Clinton piled during that interview, the most outrageous lies concern Osama bin Laden. Clinton whined, "I worked hard to try to kill him." Later, after making the ludicrous claim that no president came as close to killing bin Laden as he did, the perennial adolescent pouted, "But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some ..." (And here I always thought you'd had to be at least 35-years-old to be president, and yet, America apparently elected a child.)

It's interesting that Bill repeats claims that he tried to "kill" bin Laden after the terrorist received refuge from the Taliban and elements in Pakistan. However, he conveniently fails to mention (and this is key) that bin Laden was based in The Sudan before moving to Afghanistan, and that the Sudanese government repeatedly offered to turn the terrorist bigwig over to the United States. Stunningly, Clinton refused the Sudanese offers.

The answer as to why Clinton declined to take custody of one of the world's most dangerous terrorists can be found in a mindblogging Clinton quote that I wrote about four years ago. The quotation is from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Halberstam's book, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals. Halberstam writes about a meeting in Washington in late 1992 between President-elect Clinton and the Democratic committee chairman from the House of Representatives. When he met Lee Hamilton, the-then chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Hamilton advised Clinton, "Well, Mr. President, we have China. Whatever you do on China, you're only going to please half the people. Then, there's Saddam Hussein --" Clinton interrupts Hamilton and says, "Lee, I've been traveling around our country for a year and no one cares about foreign policy other than about six journalists." Astonished, Hamilton replied, "That may be true but the last presidents have been defined by foreign affairs."

There you have it: Bill Clinton just didn't really care about bin Laden or any other foreign policy matter.

As I wrote in September of 2002, this stunning conversation illustrates the Clinton approach to politics: "Since opinion polls didn't reflect a substantial concern about foreign affairs, President Bill Clinton had no intention of exhibiting leadership on any foreign policy issue. And the enemies of the United States made the most of it."

And thousands of Americans were murdered.

So when Bill Clinton concluded in 1992 that he and most others didn't "care" about foreign policy and governed accordingly, he unwittingly imposed a death sentence on thousands of his fellow citizens.

Clinton's overly defensive behavior on Fox News Sunday suggests that, deep down, he knows the truth and is tortured by it. And justly so.

2006-09-22T11:26:00.000-04:00

Repent! For The End Is Near!
If this isn't a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is.

2006-09-22T10:02:00.000-04:00

Dems Are Outraged!!!! (Eventually)
After taking a day to reflect, contemplate and conduct overnight polling, the Democrats decided that they are (or, more accurately, should pretend to be) outraged at the insults their fellow Marxist, Hugo Chavez, directed at President Bush.

Popeye Pelosi called Chavez an "everyday thug."

Chuck Schumer, who's turned jumping in front of cameras into an aerobic exercise, labeled Chavez's comments as "despicable."

And Charlie Rangel, who was apparently upset that Chavez stole his act, had this warning for the Venezuelan dictator:

You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district, and you don't condemn my President ... I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: don't come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state.

Exactly! Saying grossly offensive things about our chief of state is Charlie Rangel's job, dammit. This was just another case of a foreigner stealing an American's job!

Let's cut through the donkey crap. As their delayed response suggests, these Democrats weren't bothered in the least by Chavez's speech and probably smiled a bit when they heard it. Then, no doubt, polling was conducted overnight which indicated: 1) most Americans strongly disapproved of Chavez; 2) Bush's approval rating improved as a result; and 3) the Dems' lack of response on the topic was hurting them with voters.

If Democrats were legitimately angry at Chavez, they would have more to offer than feigning outrage. They would propose consequences for Chavez's behavior, such as promoting a nationwide boycott of CITGO -- the company which organized the Chavez rally in Harlem and is the face of the Venezuelan government's oil monopoly.

But don't hold your breath; Democrats would never organize such a CITGO boycott. In fact, some of the Democrats' kindred spirits are doing just the opposite: urging consumers to buy CITGO gas as a show of support for Hugo Chavez. (Tip of the hat to The Buzz Blog.)

2006-09-21T17:12:00.000-04:00

The Democrats' Dilemma
Yesterday, an old pal emailed me asking what I thought about the speeches Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez gave at the United Nations.

My reply:

Lincoln said it's better to be thought a fool rather than to speak and remove all doubt. In the case of Ahmadinejad substitute the word "maniac" for "fool". And with Chavez, use the word "clown."

Today Chavez, who is the trailer trash of the international community, put me in mind of the time Nikita Khrushchev arrived at the UN, pounded his shoe on the desk and warned the West, "We will bury you." The funny thing about Hugo is that the Bush Administration has always ignored him--which drives him nuts. He wants so badly to be the new Fidel, to be the one world leader who irritates America the most and to get into a pissing-match with the U.S. But all he seems to get from the U.S. is indifference. And this leads him to say even more outlandish things. Though his country is oil-rich and he's forging alliances with Iran and Syria, he's no strategic threat at this point.

Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is a legitimate threat; and that speech should prove it to anyone who, up until yesterday, was too slow-witted to have figured that out already. His prayer before the UN General Assembly was downright chilling.

Ironically, these two speeches will help Bush politically because they confirm everything he has been warning us about our enemies. And the fact that Democrats are making little or no effort to denounce Ahmadinejad and Chavez will remind voters that Dems, to characterize it diplomatically, are not to be trusted with national security.

But I'm in no mood to be diplomatic; these speeches sounded like they were written by Howard Dean and John Kerry. This is what it has come to: the rhetoric of America's enemies mirrors DNC talking points. Example: [at a recent party] a lefty walked up to me and said with a smirk of smug self-satisfaction, "Your president has really screwed up. We've got to get our troops out of Iraq now." I replied, "Osama bin Laden agrees with you." The smirk disappeared. Then I asked, "Does that bother you at all?" He stuttered a bit and replied, "That's bullshit." and changed the subject.

I'm sure I'm not the only voter to notice that it's getting difficult to tell the difference between the Democrats and the vermin who want to destroy our country.

So the biggest dilemma facing Democrats today is who to choose to deliver the keynote address at their 2008 national convention -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez.

2006-09-11T08:51:00.000-04:00

Patriot Day
On the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, we recall the fire and horror at the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field. America will always remember the thousands of innocent lives taken by the enemies of freedom that morning.

In the face of these unspeakable attacks, we were reminded that the great strength of America is found in the hearts and souls of our citizens. We witnessed firefighters, police officers, other public safety officials, and ordinary Americans demonstrate extraordinary courage, risking their lives to save innocent victims. We saw our country united in compassion as Americans came together to provide relief and bring hope to others.

Today, America is fighting a war that is testing our Nation's resolve. We are once again answering history's call with confidence, and we know that freedom will prevail. Our brave men and women in uniform have stepped forward to fight our enemies abroad so that we do not have to face them here at home, and we are grateful for the courageous individuals bringing terrorists to justice around the world.

We are also confronting the extremists in the great ideological struggle of the 21st century. September the 11th made clear that, in the long run, the only way to secure our Nation is to advance liberty and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. By working together with our friends and allies, we are helping spread the blessings of freedom and laying the foundations of peace for generations to come.

The events of September 11, 2001, will always be a defining moment in our history. We hold the victims and their families in our hearts, and we lift them up in our prayers. -- President George W. Bush

2006-07-04T10:10:00.000-04:00

Submission Or The Sword
(This was originally posted on July 4, 2004)

At 83 years of age and in ill health, Thomas Jefferson had lost none of his eloquence.

Writing from Monticello on June 24 1826, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence regretfully declined an invitation from Roger Weightman to attend ceremonies in Washington marking America's 50th birthday.

The contents of the letter reveal why John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and other colonial leaders chose Jefferson to compose the instrument which notified King George III that His Britannic Majesty no longer reigned over America:

The kind invitation I receive from you, on the part of the citizens of the city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of American Independence, as one of the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. It adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day. But acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to control. I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made.

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

I will ask permission here to express the pleasure with which I should have met my ancient neighbors of the city of Washington and its vicinities, with whom I passed so many years of a pleasing social intercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved the anxieties of the public cares, and left impressions so deeply engraved in my affections, as never to be forgotten. With my regret that ill health forbids me the gratification of an acceptance, be pleased to receive for yourself, and those for whom you write, the assurance of my highest respect and friendly attachments.

Thomas Jefferson died ten days later -- on July 4, 1826.

2006-06-21T15:57:00.000-04:00

The Man Who Makes Voinovich Cry
That big ol' meanie John Bolton, America's ambassador to the U.N., gave a refreshingly frank response today to North Korean demands to negotiate directly with the U.S. regarding Pyongyang's plans to test a ballistic missile:

You don't normally engage in conversations by threatening to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it's not a way to produce a conversation because if you acquiesce in aberrant behavior, you simply encourage the repetition of it, which we're obviously not going to do.

Somewhere, Sen. George Voinovich is crying.

2006-06-07T09:35:00.000-04:00

"The March of Folly"
Yesterday marked the 62nd anniversary of the beginning of the end for Adolf Hitler. On the shores of France, thousands of American and British troops were cut to pieces as the D-Day invasion commenced; but even more made it through. It would be nearly another year and thousands of more lives before the Allies crushed the Third Reich.

The consequences of the rise of Nazi Germany and the war to destroy it are staggering. The death toll estimates are nearly incomprehensible -- 21,000,000 civilians and 20,000,000 military personnel. The political aftermath was just as devastating. Eastern European nations were liberated of their Nazi overlords only to be enslaved again as Soviet puppets. The world was, in effect, divided in two; the Cold War was on and would rage for nearly 50 years.

And it was all the result of a single act of appeasement in 1938.

In that year, Hitler annexed Austria to Germany and made it known that his next target was the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia. In an effort to stem Germany's aggression, English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, hat in hand, met with the Fuhrer in Munich in September. That meeting produced a "non-aggression" pact in which Hitler was given control of the Sudetenland in exchange for assurances that he wouldn't invade any other countries. Upon returning to England, Chamberlain declared that the Munich Non-Aggression Pact represented "peace in our time."

Six months later, Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Six months after that, he invaded Poland, prompting England to declare war on Germany. And by the time Hitler ventilated himself six years later, over 40,000,000 people had been killed.

Historians still debate whether the agreement to sacrifice the people of the Sudetenland to appease Hitler was demonstrative of Chamberlain's naivete or his cruelty.

But what's not debatable is that appeasement of tyrants is a hopeless and dangerous policy, and usually exacerbates the very behavior the appeaser is seeking to quell.

This is something President Bush has maintained throughout the War on Terror. He and other administration leaders have repeatedly said that negotiating or appeasing terrorists and their patrons is bad policy and that doing so merely encourages more attacks.

So it was something of shock to see this AP report yesterday:

A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium _ a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.

The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.

This report, assuming it's true, is so stunning on so many levels that it's hard to decide where to begin to address it.

First, it's obviously a policy of appeasement and, just like Chamberlain's "pact" with Hitler, doomed to fail. Second, the Iranian theocracy has a long history of accepting diplomatic overtures from the United States only to sucker-punch us during the handshake. And third, this very policy was applied by the Clinton Administration to North Korea's pursuit of nukes; I griped about the results of that agreement in 2002:

And Clinton left little doubt which end of the political spectrum he prefers when, in what ranks as one of the strangest moments in presidential history, he publicly offered condolences for the 1994 death of North Korea's monstrously brutal Stalinist dictator, Kim Il-Sung. Clinton punctuated his condolences in a dangerous fashion: he moved to implement a mindnumbingly bad agreement negotiated in 1994 by That Simpleton Jimmy Carter several weeks before Kim arrived at the gates of Hell. As this New York Post editorial explains, the agreement provided that the U.S., South Korea and Japan "would build North Korea two modern 'light water' nuclear reactors" in exchange for Pyongyang halting its nuclear weapons program -- the idea being that a light water reactor would not yield weapons-grade plutonium.

Of course, North Korea agreed to the deal. And, of course, North Korea didn't abide by the deal. "It was a bad deal then and it's a worse deal now," the Post writes. "North Korea has not frozen its weapons programs. And it turns out that the modern reactors -- whose construction is due to start this week -- will produce weapons-grade plutonium anyway."

And here's the kicker: the United States continues to honor its side of the Carter-Kim agreement and is assisting North Korea, a charter member of the Axis of Evil, with the reactor construction! As the New York Post insists, President Bush should cancel this remnant of Bill Clinton's fetish for communists, and move to replace North Korea's deadly regime.

If it's true that the United States is going to give Iran, the world's top patron of terrorism, nuclear technology in exchange for a promise to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, it's a sure bet that Iran will 1) promptly break the agreement and 2) acquire nuclear weapons more quickly than they otherwise would have.

Appeasement didn't work with Hitler. It didn't work with North Korea. And it won't work with Iran's mad mullahs. In fact, a policy of appeasement always achieves the opposite of the appeaser's goals.

In her book The March of Folly, historian Barbara Tuchman examines instances of governments throughout history pursuing "policy contrary to self-interest" -- what she terms "folly."

Let's hope this AP report isn't accurate. But if it is, then President Bush has fallen in step with the long march of folly.

2006-06-06T15:31:00.000-04:00

D-Day
SUPREME HEADQUARTERS
ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is will trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
— General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Order of the Day, June 6, 1944

We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue.

Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs ...

... Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life ... and left the vivid air signed with your honor."

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
— President Ronald Reagan, commemorating the 40th Anniversay of D-Day at the U.S. Ranger Monument in Pointe du Hoc, France, June 6, 1984

2006-06-02T09:01:00.000-04:00

GOP CYA
Just a week or so after a substantial bloc of (alleged) Republicans betrayed their constituents by voting with nearly all the Democrats in the House to keep the ban on offshore drilling (the vote was 279-141), they went into Cover-Your-Ass mode.

The AP reports that by a vote of 225-201 on May 25, the House directed "the Interior Department to open oil leases on the coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- an area of 1.5 million acres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil."

Hold your applause.

Are we to believe in the week between their vote to prohibit offshore drilling and their vote authorizing ANWR drilling that members had an epiphany? That they finally realized that environmentalism is, by design, a cancer destroying our market-based economy?

Puh-leaze.

The ANWR bill passed the House for two reasons. First, it was a hollow attempt by House Republicans to stem the political backlash from the offshore drilling vote. And second, the members know that the ANWR authorization bill doesn't have a popsicle's chance in Hades of passing the Democrat-controlled Senate. (Yes, I know, the Republicans are the Senate majority but the Democrats run the show there.)

I wonder how many of the 94 House Republicans who voted for the ban on offshore drilling were shameless enough a week later to vote for drilling in ANWR. I'll get back to you on that.

2006-06-01T13:45:00.000-04:00

Tale of Two Emails
EMAIL 1: Since I'm on the Republican National Committee's email list, I routinely receive messages from them and, just as routinely, I ignore them. But last week, one message caught my attention. The email, written under the signature of RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, warned that if Democrats were in charge, gasoline prices would soar to $3.75 per gallon. A couple excerpts with emphasis added by yours truly:

Democrats have consistently stood in the way of lower energy prices for American families. Whether it's higher taxes, more regulation, blocking new exploration, or opposing the conservation measures in last year's energy bill, Democrats in control of Congress would mean higher prices at the pump . . .

. . . When it comes to gas prices, Americans have a choice between President Bush's four-point plan for lowering prices at the pump, or liberal Democrats who consistently choose higher taxes, more regulations, and more dependence on foreign oil over safe exploration within our borders

Apparently, Mehlman doesn't follow the news.

Or he's a hypocrite.

Why?

Because a few days before the RNC mass emailed this message, the Republican-majority House of Representatives voted to retain the ban on offshore oil and natural gas drilling, which includes the Outer Continental Shelf. (Oops, I forgot to mention one little fact: geologists estimate that the Outer Continental Shelf contains a supply of oil that rivals Saudi reserves. And there's a whole bunch -- that's a geological term -- of natural gas, too.)

So by this vote, House Republicans demonstrate that they too, to paraphrase Mehlman, favor "blocking new exploration" resulting in "more dependence on foreign oil over safe exploration within our borders."

The mind boggles.

If someone knows why Republican officeholders believe the key to reelection is acting like a goddamned Democrat, please email me.

EMAIL 2: In the many years I've been wasting time on the Internet, I've never received an email from any Democrat organization -- until today. In my inbox this morning was a mass emailing from Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campagin Committee (DCCC). (Now I know how Dracula feels when he sees a crucifix.) Anyhoo, take a Pepcid before reading this excerpt:

As Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), I'm writing you today to bring you on board with the campaign for a Democratic Congress at a pivotal moment. As the official campaign arm of the Democratic House Members of Congress, the DCCC is the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way through this critical election year.

In short, the DCCC helps our party's candidates get elected so we can enact positive, progressive policies that benefit all Americans, not just a select few ...

This election, it will be Democrats who set the tone forcing Republicans to frantically spend millions of dollars to defend themselves. It will be Democrats who go on to Republican turf and make them fight for their political lives - and it's been because of supporters like you.

Supporters like me, eh? Maybe it was time for Mr. Emanuel and his League of Extraordinary Socialists to hear from this particular "supporter." My reply:

I don't appreciate receiving unsolicited email from a gaggle of traitorous Democrats. (Yes, that's correct, I'm questioning your patriotism -- and with good reason.) Remove my email address from your mailing list.

In less than two minutes, I received this one-word reply from the DCCC:

Done.

No refutation. No "How dare you?" No "You're an asshole!"

Just an innocuous "Done."

Apparently the folks at the DCCC aren't offended by the truth.

2006-05-29T09:16:00.000-04:00

Memorial Day
Shortly after the Battle of Gettysburg in the summer of 1863, the governor of Pennsylvania appointed Judge David Willis to organize efforts to clear the battlefield and bury the dead.

As the many burials neared completion in September, Judge Willis prepared for the cemetery's dedication ceremony scheduled for November. Given the massive scale of destruction wrought at Gettysburg (over 51,000 killed or injured in three days) and the herculean effort to inter the dead in a timely fashion, the judge felt that the ceremony should be commensurate. He decided that on November 19, the new cemetery at Gettysburg would be consecrated with an elaborate speech delivered by America's most renowned orator -- Edward Everett.

Over the next six weeks, Everett set about composing one of his trademark two-hour speeches. As public orations were the rock concerts of the day, people would no doubt flock to Gettysburg to listen to the eloquence of the most famous orator of all.

Only 17 days before the big event, Judge Willis may have thought it was a bit tacky not to invite the president of the United States to attend the ceremony and, if he chose, to briefly address the crowd after Everett's performance. In his November 2 invitation to Lincoln, the judge wrote:

These Grounds will be Consecrated and set apart to this Sacred purpose, by appropriate Ceremonies, on Thursday, the 19th instant. Hon Edward Everett will deliver the Oration.

I am authorized by the Governors of the different States to invite you to be present, and participate in these Ceremonies, which will doubtless be very imposing and solemnly impressive.

It is the desire that, after the Oration, you, as Chief Executive of the Nation, formally set apart these grounds to their Sacred use by a few appropriate remarks.

Translation: "If you're going to speak, Mr. President, keep it short."

It's doubtful Lincoln viewed this last-minute invitation as a slight because he accepted it.

On November 19, over 15,000 people assembled at Gettysburg to hear Edward Everett's grand oration; he didn't disappoint. Everett's two-hour performance left the audience mesmerized. Lincoln then rose to deliver his speech. Consisting of just three paragraphs, the president's "remarks" were "few" indeed. When he finished, the audience gave little, if any, response.

Legend has it that the president regarded the crowd's silence as an indication that his speech flopped. I doubt that. Lincoln was a shrewd political operative and was no stranger to the soapbox. I suspect that he knew Everett would drone on for an hour or two, and that his speech would, by its brevity, stand in stark contrast and command much more attention. So, most likely, the audience's muted reaction was really stunned silence. And in days after the dedication ceremony, Lincoln wrote several copies of what would become known to history as The Gettysburg Address; if the president truly believed his speech was a failure, he would not have taken the time and effort to make handwritten copies for posterity.

In his speech that day, Lincoln not only pays tribute to those Americans who lost their lives defending their fellow citizens' liberty, he also charges us -- the citizens who survive -- to honor our war dead by pressing on to victory in the cause for which they died. The genius of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is that its message transcends time.

On this Memorial Day, as the United States fights another protracted war to preserve freedom, Abraham Lincoln speaks to us again and his "few appropriate remarks" of 143 years ago ring anew:

. . . in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

2006-03-27T10:34:00.000-05:00

Drop The Chalupa and Have A PB&J Sammich
What motivates Mexicans to risk everything to flee Mexico for life as an illegal immigrant in America?

Mexican food, that's what.

Think about it. If you spent your life on a daily diet of re-fried beans, rock-beaten bread and spices that smell like rancid sweat, you'd make a mad rush for the border, too.

This is what all the proposals for stemming the tide of Mexican illegals fail to address. The United States should pressure Mexico to outlaw Mexican food and replace it with American cuisine. That way, Mexicans will get way too fat to ever attempt the exhaustive trek across the Rio Grande.

Granted, that's a long-term solution.

What about in the short-term?

For starters, make a real effort to stop illegals at the border. And if that takes citizen patrols such as the Minutemen because the Feds are too politically correct to do their job, so be it.

Next, promptly deport anyone who is here illegally.

Finally, no state should ever permit or tolerate organized protests on American soil by foreigners who are -- by virtue of their illegal entry into the country -- criminals. So why not turn these protests into a sting? Considering that there would be slew of illegals in one spot, busting them would be a cinch. (It's kind of like those operations where police send fugitives phony "You Won a Car!" sweepstakes notices and then arrest them when they show up to claim the prize.)

And even if these protests by illegals continue, who gives a shit? Many, if not most, of these protestors aren't here legally and thus can't legally vote. So who cares what they think? Until they're legal immigrants or naturalized citizens, their opinions don't matter.

When it comes to immigration reform, I tend to agree with the president when he says that we should just enforce the existing laws rather than create more bureaucracy. (Which is ironic considering W's atrophic record on enforcing immigration laws.) But this is an election year and that means politicians from both sides of the aisle will exacerbate the problem with more laws.

Until Mexicans are free from the yoke of culinary oppression, the United States should strictly enforce immigration laws with more border patrols and deportations. Though there's no need to be as harsh about it as the Mexican government.

2006-03-07T10:50:00.001-05:00

Photograph Of The Day
Clearly disappointed, the cast of Brokeback Mountain is seen here leaving the Oscars.

2006-02-20T11:08:00.000-05:00

2006-02-13T13:08:00.000-05:00

Be Vewy, Vewy Quiet; We're Hunting Scandal
In light of his already infamous hunting accident, there's one conclusion we can draw about Dick Cheney: that Vice President Aaron Burr was a better shot.

That profundity aside, I jokingly predicted to a friend yesterday that desperate leftists would try to turn Cheney's accidental shooting of his friend Harry Whittington into a Bush scandal.

Turns out it was no joke.

About an hour ago, White House press secretary Scott McClellan (who really sucks at his job, by the way) was confronted by a drooling press Corps hollering What did the president know and when did he know it?-type questions about the Cheney hunting accident. Reporters were demanding to know when the president was informed of the accident. The correct response would have been, "Since it doesn't matter when the president found out, I never thought to ask. But I'll check into it and get back to you." But instead McClellan characteristically blushed, assumed a defensive tone and rambled.

This served to heighten the press corps' feeding frenzy over a non-issue, i.e. when Bush found out about the hunting accident.

But the accident itself is a legitimate issue.

I'm a big fan of Dick Cheney. Until yesterday, I would've called him a straight shooter. (Insert laugh-track here). Instead, let's call him a straight talker. He's honest, of good character and has a breadth of experience few people in politics and government can match; Cheney's performance on September 11, 2001 is proof of that. But if I were in the same situation as Cheney is now, I would offer my resignation to the president and let him decide whether to accept it.

2006-02-10T19:21:00.000-05:00

O No!!
Few events are less interesting than the Winter Olympics. That hasn't always been the case. The US/USSR hockey rivalry was fun but that fizzled after the Soviet Union commied its way out of existence.

So all the Winter Olympics has to offer are curling matches and cheating French figure skating judges.

Can it get any worse? Sure it can! During the opening ceremonies earlier today, a prayer for peace was led by that baying old salamander, Yoko Ono. That's right: Yoko Ono praying. This is the same Yoko Ono who, with her drug-addled late husband, mocked religion in general and Christianity in particular. The mind boggles.

If the International Olympic Committee is hellbent on transforming the Olympics opening ceremonies into a celebrity-drenched Super Bowl halftime event, the least they can do is get real celebrities rather than a talentless piece of gristle who masquerades as a prophet of peace.

And judging from this photograph from today's opening ceremonies, organizers must have helped themselves to Yoko's stash.

GO USA!!

2006-01-30T12:46:00.000-05:00

All In The Family
According to the president, the Bush family has new addition. Reports Reuters: "President George W. Bush says Bill Clinton has become so close to his father that the Democratic former president is like a member of the family ... Asked about his father and Clinton, Bush quipped, 'Yes, he and my new brother.'"

Yikes!

Hey, W! Lock up your daughters!!

2006-01-19T15:02:00.000-05:00

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?
Last Sunday, much of the press was abuzz with reports that the United States had "botched" an attempt to kill some of al-Qaeda's leading vermin while they were having dinner. The pro-terrorist London Guardian breathlessly reported that a U.S. "missile attack on a mountain village killed women and children. The attack was precise, the intelligence was flawed."

Gasp! How dramatic.

The drama queen Guardian reporter continues:

... though the technology that guided the missiles to their targets at 3am on Friday was faultless, the intelligence that had selected those targets was not. Even as American military and intelligence sources spoke of the possible death of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second-in-command of al-Qaeda and the man considered to be the brains behind the militant group's strategy, Pakistani officials said that there was no evidence any 'foreigners', shorthand locally for al-Qaeda fighters, were among the 18 victims ...

The only thing "botched" here is the Guardian's wishful-thinking disguised as reporting.

Turns out that during dinner on that Friday night in Pakistan, at least three leading al-Qaeda stinkies had a Hellfire missile for dessert. Yummy! Try the Hellfire -- it's to die for!

The AP reports on the indentity of the dead diners:

Pakistani officials say they likely included Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, an al-Qaida explosives expert with a $5 million bounty on his head.

He allegedly tested chemical weapons on dogs and trained hundreds of fighters at a terror camp in Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. Terrorism experts believe that among his students were the suicide bombers who killed 17 U.S. sailors on the USS Cole in 2000.

Another likely victim is Abdul Rehman al-Maghribi, a Moroccan believed to be al-Zawahri's son-in-law, who acted as a PR man for the terror group, distributing CDs and videos to publicize its exploits and attract new followers.

But the biggest quarry could be Khalid Habib, al-Qaida's operations chief along the Afghan-Pakistan border — from where militants can launch attacks on U.S. forces and Afghan government targets. Pakistani officials also accuse him of planning two assassination attempts on Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

"You can say he's the No. 3 leader," [terrorism expert Rohan] Gunaratna said. "As the chief operations officer, he decides who gets hit and when."

If no terrorists died as a result of a U.S. airstrike last Friday in Pakistan, as the Guardian smugly claimed, then someone at that dinner table had one hell of a case of gas.

2006-01-19T13:59:00.000-05:00

Kennedy Title Update
Though really gruesome Senator Ted Kennedy has chosen a title for his upcoming children's book, Pam emailed me from an undisclosed location with this gem of a suggestion:

Driving Miss Kopechne

Speaking of upcoming children, check this out.

2006-01-09T16:03:00.000-05:00

Tainted Turkey
A wire report claims that there are 15 cases of bird flu in Turkey.

Bird flu in Turkey. Who didn't see that coming???

Next obvious health scare: high cholesterol levels in Greece.

2006-01-09T14:00:00.000-05:00

What's Next? A Children's Book By Ron Jeremy?
The AP brings word that Sen. Ted Kennedy has written a book for children. I don't remember the title but here are a few possibilities:

The Chappequiddick Express
The Little Brother That Couldn't
James and the Giant Peach Schnapps
Sinderalla
Green Beer and Ham
Curious Georgette
Pippi Takes Off Her Longstockings

Any other suggestions? Email me.

UPDATE: Susie S. reports in from her secret bunker somewhere in the Midwest with more title suggestions:

Goodnight, Moonshine
Clifford the Big Red Drunk
The Harry Pothead series
Where the Wild Girls Are
Grimm's "Fairy" Tales
Little Brewery on the Prairie
Stoned Soup
Lassie Come Home from Rehab
Sarah Plain and Tall and Discreet
Mary Poppin Fromacake
Swiss Family Bankers
One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Mary Jo is Blue Fish
The Adventures of Huckleberry Gin

All classics. Turns out Sen. Kennedy's book is told from his dog's point-of-view. According to James Taranto, the senator's dog is named Splash. (Seriously.) And Susie S. claims to have located a photograph of Splash.

2005-12-25T12:51:00.000-05:00

Christmas
A Merry Christmas to all -- even to the modern-day Pontius Pilates at the ACLU who waste millions of taxpayers' dollars persecuting Christians and perverting the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

2005-12-07T19:21:00.000-05:00

'Inevitable Triumph'
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God. -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a speech to Congress the day after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, December 8, 1941

Hard to believe such brave and patriotic sentiments came from the mouth of a Democrat. But this was over 60 years ago -- when most Democrats weren't traitors.

2005-11-24T10:20:00.000-05:00

A Marine Gives Thanks
This is a message posted on AnyMarine.com by a Marine who's deployed near Baghdad:

Today, I am thankful for my beautiful wife and kids, giving me joy that I would not otherwise have. Thankful for my parents and in-laws who support us in so many ways that I couldn't even begin to count them. My friends all over the country, the world and from our church. To all of you in Cyber land who have supported our Marines with letters, cards, emails and packages. I am thankful for my health and ability to lead Marines. Thank you Mr. Bush for having the tenacity to stand up to those who oppose us. I thank you God most of all for allowing us the chance to live another day, to watch the sun rise across the sky and know we have a chance to write a new page in our lives. That's it for me; I hope you all have a wonderful day and a fantastic holiday back in the states.

Semper Fi,

Major Mitchell "Taco" Bell
USMCR

2005-11-24T10:11:00.000-05:00

Thanksgiving
The Year that is drawing to a close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke the aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theater of military conflict; while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversion of wealth and strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore.

Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.

And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascription's justly due to Him for such singular deliverance's and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

2005-11-18T11:14:00.000-05:00

Food For Thought
We have been sleepwalking through the greatest revolutionary movement in the history of the Middle East, as the U.S. military is quietly empowering the once-despised Kurds and Shiites — and along with them women and the other formerly dispossessed of Iraq. In short, the U.S. Marine Corps has done more for global freedom and social justice in two years than has every U.N. peacekeeping mission since the inception of that now-corrupt organization ...

... Forget acrimony over weapons of mass destruction, platitudes about abstract democracy, and arguments over U.S. security strategies. Instead bluntly explain to the world how at this time and at this moment the U. S. is trying to bring equality and freedom to the unfree, in a manner rare in the history of civilization. -- Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online, October 28, 2005

2005-11-11T09:52:00.000-05:00

The "Transcendent Grace" of Gratitude
Then and Now Americans Support Their Troops
By Bob Dole and Lonnie Moore
Special to American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 2005 – The two of us were born more than 50 years and nearly 160 miles apart. But we are connected to each other -- and to so many of our fellow Americans -- in ways that easily surpass both age and geography.

We were born and raised in Kansas. Both of us are Army veterans. And both of us nearly lost our lives on the battlefield.

We were wounded near Castel d' Aiano, Italy, on April 14th, 1945; and in Ramadi, Iraq, on April 6th, 2004, respectively. We were struck down by Italian bullets and Iraqi rocket-propelled grenades almost exactly 49 years apart.

These connections of shared military experience, of circumstance and of history, are eternally meaningful for the two of us and for millions of other veterans.

We are sharing our experiences on this Veterans Day, when we honor our brothers in arms, to also pay tribute to our shared connection with Americans on the home front, to the enduring power of their letters and their packages and their contributions, to the transcendent grace of their gratitude and prayers.

Support the troops. It is a noble idea, and a long-standing American tradition. And in the 50 years that separate the two of us, it has played out in countless unique ways. But at its simplest and most essential, it just means getting a letter from home.

Back in World War II, letters that arrived in a week were considered speedy. Today anyone can go to the Web site www.americasupportsyou.mil to send a letter to a soldier abroad with just a click of the mouse, and to read soldiers' replies just as quickly.

The America Supports You Web site is much more than an electronic post office. Created by the Department of Defense, it connects and inspires ordinary Americans who are doing something to support the troops, while at the same time amplifying the impact of their efforts. It is, to borrow a military phrase, a "force multiplier" for Americans on the home front.

Writing letters to a soldier may seem a bit quaint today. But back in World War II, few things were more disheartening for a soldier than to go to mail call every day and never get a letter.

In Iraq today, even soldiers without families back home get literally boxes and boxes of letters from Americans in every corner of the country.

In the sometimes lonely and always stressful nights of war, these notes of concern and appreciation from complete strangers, from school children in Wichita, Kansas, to elderly women in retirement homes, are an immediate and necessary connection to home -- they are a reminder that our service has a national purpose.

But the connection to home also has a, well, practical purpose. One that speaks more to everyday comforts than to our deeper emotional needs, but which many soldiers will tell you affects their morale nearly as much.

Back in World War II, we were lucky to get "goodie" packages filled with sunflower seeds, candy, oranges, and even shoes. These items were bought by parents and neighbors with their own food coupons. Contributions were collected in cigar boxes on drug store counters.

Today an America Supports You member organization like "Soldiers' Wish List" mobilizes a virtual, internet-connected national "neighborhood" to send soldiers mountains of cookies, DVDs, phone cards, video games and even tooth brushes.

Maybe all of this talk of letters and care packages seems a bit trivial in a time of war. Maybe it is hard for Americans to understand the real value of all their kind gestures and small gifts when the context is conflict and war. But our own experience shows that it is precisely the sober context that makes all the little efforts of support so essential.

As we mentioned at the beginning of this article, both of us had to recover from life- and body- altering injuries. We can tell you that whatever the medical technology, recovery and rehabilitation are as much an emotional challenge as a physical one. It is hard to put into words how important it was for us to hear from ordinary Americans that despite the damage done to our bodies, that we were still full persons whose sacrifice was not only appreciated, but meaningful.

Few things are as therapeutic to the injured as the tangible support - big and small -- provided by friends and strangers back home. The cliché, in this case, is true. It is the thought that counts.

And as much as the two of us are connected by our Kansas roots, and by our military backgrounds, and by the shared experience of our injuries, we share an even deeper connection with all of you back home who in ways large and small let us know, then and now, that Americans support their troops. Your support made our service possible. And that's as true today as it was 50 years ago. And just as necessary.

(Former Kansas Senator Bob Dole was a second lieutenant in the Army's 10th Mountain Division during World War II. Wichita native and retired Army Capt. Lonnie Moore fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom with the 1st Infantry Division. He now works outside of Washington, D.C.)

2005-11-03T14:11:00.000-05:00

Barf Bag Alert
Take a swig of Pepto Bismal before reading the following quote from Bill Clinton's eulogy of Rosa Parks:

I remember, as if it were yesterday, that fateful day 50 years ago. I was a 9-year-old southern white boy who rode a segregated bus every single day of my life. I sat in the front. Black folk sat in the back. When Rosa showed us that black folks didn't have to sit in the back anymore, two of my friends and I, who strongly approved of what she had done, decided we didn't have to sit in the front anymore. It was just a tiny gesture by three ordinary kids.

If 9-year-old Bill Clinton ever sat in the back of a bus it was only because he was playing "show and tell" with a neighbor girl.

2005-10-28T13:23:00.000-04:00

I. Resigns
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. -- someone I never heard of until the CIA leak case -- was indicted by a federal grand jury today for perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice.

How Libby managed to dodge an indictment for having a ludicrous nickname, I don't know. If your full name is "I. Lewis Libby, Jr." the last thing you need is an extra name -- let alone a dopey name. And what does the "I" stand for? Can you think of a male first name which begins with that letter? Iggy, perhaps? Iggy Libby??? No wonder he only uses the initial.

Anyway ... shortly after the indictments Libby resigned as Cheney's chief of staff, which was the right thing to do.

The irony is that today's indictments are the culmination of a nearly two-year-old grand jury investigation to determine if someone illegally disclosed the identity of a CIA agent -- something for which Libby was not indicted. It's odd that after two years, the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has apparently failed to find evidence that someone committed a crime in disclosing that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent.

Granted, Fitzgerald's investigation may be ongoing. But at this point it seems that Libby is about to be prosecuted for lying to the FBI and the grand jury over a press leak which wasn't illegal.

2005-10-27T13:26:00.000-04:00

Janet and Harriet
This is been a bad week for childless women.

Yesterday, Janet Jackson strongly denied rumors that she gave birth to a child in secret. I believe her; otherwise, she would've popped the kid out while performing at a Super Bowl halftime show.

And today, White House Counsel Harriet Miers withdrew from consideration for the Supreme Court.

Regarding Janet Jackson, who really gives a shit?

As for Harriet Miers, the nomination never made any sense -- politically or judicially. Her sole qualification was that she is a friend of the president. Well, whoop-dee-do. Is there any doubt that had Miers been the chief counsel of, say, Health and Human Services and unknown to the president that she never would have been nominated?

What's confounding about this fiasco is that George W. Bush has demonstrated potent political prowess and a talent for choosing exceptional judicial nominees. Why, then, did he expend so much political capital on such an obviously lame choice for the Supreme Court? Can this possibly be the same president who nominated John Roberts for chief justice? The mind boggles.

The White House's effort to sell the Miers nomination was clumsy at best. The only way it could've gotten worse is if during the confirmation hearings, Harriet had a costume malfunction.

So, thankfully, the president concluded it was time to Kevorkian the nomination.

Now W has a chance to get it right. And if he is determined to replace Justice O'Connor with a woman, then there are plenty of highly-qualified candidates. Janice Rogers Brown, for example.

Here's a rule-of-thumb: if the nominee makes Democrats squeal like stuck pigs, then she's a great choice.

2005-09-26T06:50:00.000-04:00

John Kerry Is To Speechwriting What Ted Kennedy Is To Teaching Drivers Education Courses; What Bill Clinton Is To Not Committing Adultery; What Jimmy Carter Is To Hostage Negotiating; What Walter Mondale Is... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Presidential loser John Kerry, Ho Chi Minh's favorite American, released a statement criticizing President Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina. Here are some excerpts as reported in The Hill:

This is the Katrina administration. Katrina is a symbol of all this administration does and doesn't do ... Michael Brown is to Katrina what Paul Bremer is to peace in Iraq; what George Tenet is to slam-dunk intelligence; what Paul Wolfowitz is to parades paved with flowers in Baghdad; what Dick Cheney is to visionary energy policy; what Donald Rumsfeld is to basic war planning; what Tom Delay is to ethics; and what George Bush is to "Mission Accomplished" and "Wanted Dead or Alive."

Uh ... yeah ...

Did Kerry dip into his wife's arthritis remedy before composing that verbal shipwreck? Or did he hire an 8th-grader to write it? Sheesh.

John Kerry believes this was a clever and blistering broadside. In truth, it's proof that when it comes to political communication, Massachusett's junior senator rates an even lower grade than his C-minus average at Yale.

Senator Kerry, take my advice. Stick to the job for which you've demonstrated much talent: massaging your drunken wife's feet.