Dictator-loving, moonbat/former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and the cypto-commies at ANSWER, led by Brian Becker, are planning more entertainment for us, this time in the form of a “National Emergency March” on Washington on August 12 to protest U.S. aid to the “Israeli war machine.” One wonders—if this is such an “emergency,” why aren’t they marching today or tomorrow? August 12 seems a long way off if it’s so important, no? It can’t take that long to pull together the usual rent-a-mob, have them dust off their papier mache figures of President Bush as Hitler and head for D.C. Mr. Becker already has his spiel ready. This act is so old it’s got a longer beard on it than the one found on the most devout Islamic fanatic.
In connection with the announcement of this event, Clark issued what must be his 200th call for the impeachment of George W. Bush. The latest grounds, according to the doddering Mr. Clark, who has the distinction of defending not only Saddam Hussein but the late Slobodan Mislosevic, is U.S. funding of the Israeli military. As usual, Mr. Clark is right on the cutting edge—NOT. He’s just realized that the U.S. has been giving aid to Israel, a practice begun under the Truman administration. I guess defending America’s enemies doesn’t leave a lot of time for studying history.

This former Useful Idiot of the Week winner and walking illustration of the expression “there’s no fool like an old fool” has once again joined forces with commie Brian Becker, a member of the secretariat of the World Workers Party known for praising the Soviet Union for helping Cuba and Vietnam resist “U.S. imperialism.” I just saw Mr. Becker on “The Big Story” hosted by the terrific John Gibson (once a guest on the Teri O’Brien show). He engaged in the typical commie technique of refusing to answer any direct questions, shouting down those with opposing views and trying to bully the host, unsuccessfully of course.

Rest assured that if this idiotic group of halfwits says anything of note we will share it with you on the show on August 13, Castro’s 80th birthday. As you know, we watch C-SPAN so you don’t have to.Do you suppose they’ll have a cake for the murderous thug that they all admire so much? Just another reason to stay tuned.

Trackback URL

That’s the reason that John Bolton must be confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. As you no doubt recall, last year, after what can only be described as a character assasination campaign, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to let his nomination come to the floor for an up or down vote. President Bush appointed him during the Senate recess, but if he is not confirmed, his appointment will expire in September. The committee will take up his nomination this morning. The man with more chins than a Chinese phonebook, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) has promised a “bruising fight,” and, speaking of panty wearers, now that now that Sen. George Voinovich as stopped blubbering about how terrified he is at the prospect of Mr. Bolton at the U.N., I say let the democrats put on another display of their hallmark characteristics: concern for world opinion above all else, including our national security, unceasing desire to appease dictators and terrorists, and contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism. That’s why they demonized Mr. Bolton when he was nominated last year, and now that Sen. Voinovich as come to his senses, the fig leaf of “bipartisan” opposition is gone.

Even the boneheads at the Los Angeles Times, who would rather see Madelyn Albright (Notbright) or someone of that ilk at the U.N., grudgingly admit that the democrats’ standard ploy to deal with the inconvenient fact that they can’t win elections, the filibuster, is the wrong way to deal with Mr. Bolton’s nomination.

Peter Brooks and Frank Gaffney, Jr. both have great pieces today about the Bolton nomination.

Give the man his up or down vote and let the members of the September 10 party vote against him if they want. Then make sure we ask them why.

Trackback URL

That Kofi Annan has accused Israel of intentionally bombing the U.N.’s “observation post?” The only surprise is that any serious person regards Mr. Annan as anything other than a joke. Not only do we have this insane accusation,which is ridiculous on its face–how would Israel benefit by intentionally attacking the U.N.–here we have a man who leads a venal, worthless organization, and who turned a blind eye to the stunning corruption of the Oil-for-Food program, pompously lecturing the world, and telling everyone how “shocked and deeply distressed” he is that 4 U.N. peacekeepers were killed in the bombing. I’m a little shocked and distressed that these poor observers were ordered to be sitting ducks in a war zone inhabited by murderous maniacs always on the lookout for unarmed human shields. What in the world were these people doing in the middle of this war zone, Mr. Secretary? And what perfect human shields these observers make for the terrorists! Use their compounds just like apartment buildings in Lebanon; that is, stash some missiles or other munitions in or near them, so that the Israelis will be reluctant to attack them. If they are attacked and some unarmed observers are inadvertently killed or injured, they become the perfect propaganda tools. When the gutless appeasers whine for “immediate cessation of hostilities,” what better accompaniment than incidents like this? When the anti-Semites shrilly condemn Israel and its “disproportionate” response, what better way to try to convince the world than by claiming that they brutally targeted unarmed “peacekeepers?”

The U.N. has been in Southern Lebanon since 1978. Had it done its job, these peacekeepers would not have been there in the first place. Had Kofi Annan permitted them to leave, they would not have been in harm’s way. But then, Kofi and the rest of the Israel-is-always-wrong club wouldn’t have yet another reason to assert that claim on the world stage.

Here’s a suggestion, Mr. Secretary. Rather than trying to cover up your own failures by blaming the victim in the current Israel-Lebanon conflict, why not leave that to the grownups? You can go back to pretending to solve the world’s problems by endless babbling and posturing. I understand there’s a little problem in the Sudan you might want to fake solve, you know, sort of like the great job you guys did in Rwanda.

Trackback URL

Today’s lead editorial in the Liberal Death Star (aka The New York Times), “No More Foot Dragging,” reflects the dissonance that liberals always bring to discussions about national security, and everything else for that matter. It’s all too familiar, but never less annoying, no matter how many times you hear it. “Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but …” “No one is FOR abortion, but …” “Of course, racial discrimination is wrong, but …” None of that narrow-minded, black and white thinking for them. Leave that to the mouth breathers in the Christian right. In the present case, they apply their nuanced analysis to the current efforts by Israel to eliminate the cancer that Hezbollah is in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, they have decided that what is needed now is a ceasefire. There’s a shocker—liberals wanting to stop fighting terrorists.

Check out these choice excerpts from this fatuous editorial:

“The White House has resisted calls for a cease-fire, arguing that a return to the situation that existed before the latest fighting would not bring lasting peace. While that is true, we fear that what the administration has been doing is buying Israel more time to pound Hezbollah and Lebanon.”

Yeah, and the problem with that is …? Note the perfect illustration of liberal weeniness in the first two sentences. They admit that the Bush administration is correct in its assessment that yet another timeout to allow the murderous dirtbags in Hezbollah to regroup won’t accomplish anything constructive, and STILL they “fear” any action that will actual result in permanent peace.

“Since July 12, hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed and nearly a score of Israelis. For all that dying, there is little sign that Hezbollah — which fired 100 missiles into Israel on Sunday — has been so deeply wounded that it can’t rebuild quickly. Ms. Rice needs to make clear to Israel that more civilian deaths in Lebanon won’t make Israelis safer.”

No, my squishy friends, more “civilian deaths” won’t in itself make Israel safer, but killing more terrorists will. Since the terrorists’ official policy is to use civilians as human shields, it’s inevitable that some civilians will be killed. That is sad, even tragic, but it happens in every war. If the New York Times is so concerned about civilian deaths, they should turn their outrage on those who are actually responsible, Hezbollah, and their patrons Iran and Syria.

“After her sessions in Israel, Ms. Rice goes on to Rome, where she will meet with Arab and European officials. She needs to use these discussions to win support for a United Nations resolution authorizing such a force and strengthening its call — so far unheeded — for Hezbollah to disarm.”

Oh yeah, that’s just what we need, another U.N. resolution.

“Ms. Rice has no plans, apparently, for a surprise visit to Damascus. At a minimum she must urge European and Arab allies to make that trip. They must deliver a united message that isolation and scorn is the price Syria and Iran will pay for continuing to abet Hezbollah, and that Israel will not be restrained until Hezbollah is restrained.”

Wait a second—“Israel will not be restrained until Hezbollah is restrained?” Isn’t that precisely what this editorial is calling for—for Israel to stop “pounding” Hezbollah while their missiles are still raining down on Israeli cities?

This editorial is one more reminder, as if we needed any, of why we can’t trust liberals to defeat the enemies of Western civilization, no matter what John Kerry says.

Trackback URL

“Prosecutors on Wednesday stood by their contention that the three teens who allegedly beat and robbed a 14 year-old Beverly boy won’t be charged with a hate crime—even though one of the trio told police they picked the boy because he was “a goody-looking white boy.” Chicago Sun-Times, 7/20/06

When did Spike Lee become Cook County State’s attorney? I ask because it was the mouthy moviemaker who famously said that black people couldn’t be racist, and apparently prosecutors in the Ryan Rusch case have the same opinion. What other explanation can there be for their failure to tack on a hate crime charge against the three thugs police say beat and kicked Ryan Rusch, a 14-year-old with a heart condition?

Regular listeners to my program and readers of my scribbling know that I am no fan of hate crime legislation. I think it should be repealed. It shouldn’t matter what subjective reason a person has for committing a violent act against another, nor should the state send the message that a person in a politically correct special class is more worthy of protection than another. The Cook County State’s attorney doesn’t have that point of view, however. You might even say that they wrote the book on enforcing these so-called “hate crimes.”

“Conceived and developed by a consortium of experts, including professionals from the ADL Greater Chicago/Upper Midwest Regional Office, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, a multichapter handbook, A Prosecutor’s Guide to Hate Crime, prepared by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, provides Illinois state prosecutors with a comprehensive and
systematic approach to understanding and prosecuting hate crimes.
The handbook guides prosecutors through the various stages of a hate crime case. Beginning with background on the Illinois hate crime statute and precedents upon which it is based, the handbook describes specific office and pretrial procedures and possible courtroom strategies — including anticipated defense motions, mixed motive cases, witness preparation, and selection of an impartial jury.
Due to the high profile nature of hate crime, one chapter of the guide is devoted to community relations strategies. Although hate crime victims are generally individuals or a family, incidents of bias reverberate throughout the victim’s community. Sensitizing prosecutors to the concerns of these secondary victims, the guide also offers advice for assisting them. In addition, the guide seeks to properly equip prosecutors to respond to media inquiries without jeopardizing the case or alienating the victim.”
“How to Combat Bias and Hate Crimes,” An ADL Blueprint for Action, Anti-Defamation League, 2003.

There is also something called the “Cook County Hate Crimes Council,” no doubt a tremendously valuable way to spend our tax dollars. If the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office thinks these thought-crime laws are such a great idea, it seems to me that they have some ‘splainin’ to do in this Rusch case.

No one should be naïve enough to discount the impact of the release of the Burge Report on this case. As most of you know, this report was issued by special prosecutors investigating the alleged 1982 torture of murder suspect Andrew Williams by Police Cmdr. Jon Burge. Mayor Richard M. Daley, who was State’s Attorney at the time, amazingly has emerged completely blameless in the report, even though the Police Supt. Richard Brzeczek wrote him a letter in February 1982 asking how to investigate the incident. Daley ignored the letter, and the special prosecutors blame Brzeczek in their report. Certain race-baiting political foes of the mayor aren’t being so generous. They are warning that he will pay a big political price in the form of lost support from African-Americans should he choose to run for re-election. Here we go. Once again instead of being about the wrong behavior of certain individuals, the people involved become mere proxies for various racial groups that can be manipulated for the benefit of cynical politicians.

In this environment, it’s no surprise that the State’s Attorney would take a “Racism? What racism?” approach in the Rusch case. Do you suppose they could scrounge around the office for a copy of that manual they wrote and to figure out how to be sensitive to the Rusch family when they explain why justice in this county is far from color-blind?

Trackback URL

I’ve decided that John Bolton is the most emotionally-balanced man on Earth. Remember when Chicago Bulls’ fans used to call their coach Phil Jackson the “Zen Master?” I never understood that, but I chalked it up to the usual superficial BS that PR people cook up to create a human interest angle to a story. This Bolton guy really must be the Zen master. Otherwise, how could he endure spending more than 10 seconds in what is best a glorified debating society and at worst a destructive force for evil in the world, the U.N.?

I’m sitting here watching another one of these—ok, I won’t say it, but a situation where a group of guys form a circle—now you fill in the blanks—debates at the U.N. This one was precipitated by the Iranian whackjob who runs that country, the guy who looks like the Persian Dennis Kucinich, and his surrogate war against the civilized world currently being waged by Hezbollah.

Here’s the reason you’ve got to admire John Bolton, and wonder where you can get your hands on his meditation manual. He’s got to listen to an endless parade of droning bureaucrats from countries like the Congo and Denmark and Trinidad and Tabago take the mic and begin by stating that “this is a very serious situation.” Ya think, Einstein? That’s just what we needed, an insight like that! The world looks like it’s exploding, so what tipped you off, Brainiac? Then most of them explain that Israel must show restraint and avoid hurting civilians. I’m completely serious. The statements are focused on making sure that big bad Israel doesn’t overreact to the stated desire by Iran and Syria to annihilate it. Don’t “inflame the situation” by daring to defend yourselves, Israel.

As I’m watching these clueless idiots make their pointless statements, I had a thought. You know what would be hilarious? If while all these diplomats are making their serious statements of deep concern, stressing the need for Israel to be restrained, the Israelis swooped in and destroyed every nuclear installation they can find in Iran. I know we’ve been told that these installations are widely dispersed and no one can get them all. That’s ok. It’s like the old joke: what do you call 10,000 dead lawyers? You know the answer: A good start.

Trackback URL

Welcome aboard, Clarence Page!

Here is how Clarence Page begins his column in today’s Chicago Tribune: “Sen. Barack Obama’s call for Democrats to close the religion gap with Republicans shows a keen grasp of the obvious.” Yes, Clarence, like pretty much everything else the man that we call on our show “He Who Walks on Water” says. Why do you think his other nickname is “Mr. Profound Grasp of the Obvious?”

Once again, never doubt me.

Trackback URL

All across the Middle East, filthy heads under dirty rags are filled with happy thoughts. So many things are looking up. The Supreme Court took the liberty of making a treaty with al Qaeda on behalf of the government of the country where it conducts business, but surely can’t consider itself a part of, so while they blow up trains, study blueprints of their targets, and otherwise scheme ways to kill as many Americans as possible, the United States can file briefs and work on effective legal strategies. (Since we can’t reveal all of our sources that prove he and his peeps wanted to blow up 6 nuclear plants, do you think Abdul will cop a plea to 2nd degree purchase of a controlled substance so we can at least put him on probation? Hope so!)

No wonder a bunch of these low lives decided to take advantage of the hottest fad since the tattoo, criminal charges against our soldiers, to try to convince everyone that they didn’t just kill and mutilate our soldiers. They had a reason. Supposedly,they were avenging the rape of an Iraqi woman.

That didn’t make any sense from the git-go because (a) except in rare circumstances, these fanatics don’t believe in the concept of rape and (b) LIKE THEY ALMOST NEED AN EXCUSE for murdering Americans!

Oh, we were a little confused about why you killed and mutilated our soldiers, but now that we know you had a reason, well that’s a whole different kettle of fish. PULEEZE! These guys live to kill us. It’s the be-all and end-all of their miserable lives, and nothing changes that. That won’t stop Bush-hating imbeciles from citing these excuses from our enemy as more evidence of how we are “creating” terrorists.

Trackback URL

In case you didn’t know, the tinfoil hat wearing wackjobs at the Daily Kos, led by their king, the bug-eyed, Truman-Capote soundalike, Markos Moulitsas, have adopted a new pathetic wretch as their latest cause (or should that be kos?), the equally bug-eyed pencil necked Ned Lamont. Mr. Lamont is challenging Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democrat primary, hoping to take away the 18-year incumbent’s senate seat. I realized when I saw Mr. Moulitsas on “Meet the Press” on June 11, 2006, that this Connecticut race is not only important to these kooks. It’s personal. I didn’t think they could generate this much animus for anyone who isn’t a conservative, but they’ve got the long knives out for Lieberman. I’m not sure what they’re more angry about, the fact that Ken Lay died before they could fantasize about him being sodomized in prison, or the fact that it wasn’t Lieberman who had the grabber.

With that background, last night I watched some of the big debate between Ned “vote for Pedro” Lamont and Joe “I was for Clarence Thomas before I was against him” Lieberman. You’ve probably guessed that I’m not a huge fan of Joe’s. After all, he’s got an excellent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, about 80%. After making a very serious, thoughtful speech about Bill Clinton’s sickening behavior in the Oval Office with an intern barely older than his daughter and his subsequent 7 months of lying about it, he refused to introduce even a censure motion and voted against the impeachment resolution brought by the House against the Prevaricator in Chief. So, he’s clearly got some ‘splainin’ to do, but let me show my compassionate side and tell you democrats, you won’t be doing yourselves any favors by nominating this Lamont character. The lefty “netroots” may think he did a bang up job in this debate last night, but let me assure you nothing could be further from the truth. What a cringefest it was to watch him make a horse’s hind end of himself! Here’s a couple of examples:

NESTI[the moderator]: And John in Elington sent us this email, “what do you propose doing to meet today’s energy needs and high costs?” Mr. Lamont, we’ll start with you.

Check out the beginning of the answer:

“I think after 9/11, our country would have done just about anything, anything our government asked us to do, and there was nothing more important than energy conservation and the environment, in a serious way, to free us from this dependence upon foreign oil.”

After 9/11, there was nothing more important than energy conservation? Gee, how about making sure Americans aren’t incinerated while they are drinking their morning coffee? How about making sure they and the commuter trains they ride to work aren’t blown sky high before they can get there? Do you have any idea what happened on 9/11, you dunderhead!!!

I guess the bright side of this boneheaded lack of priorities is that this goof would support drilling in ANWR and off shore, right?

This brainiac continued:

“And instead, Vice President Cheney invited 50 of his favorite lobbyists behind closed doors and passed the bill called the energy bill. Even Senator Lieberman’s friend John McCain nicknamed the bill “no lobbyist left behind.” It was a bad bill.
It was loaded with tax subsidies for big oil and did little or nothing for conservation and the environment and freeing us from a horrible dependence upon Middle Eastern oil. And since that bill has passed, look at what’s happened to the price of gasoline.”

Oh, yeah, the current price of gasoline is all about Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force. It’s also about the bagel I ate for breakfast last November. Look what’s happened to gasoline prices since I ate that bagel!

But there was more (and this is beaut!):

“I think conservation is our best effort that we can make right now. Look what happened when Jimmy Carter 20 years ago put on the cardigan and said, it’s the moral equivalent of war. We doubled the fuel mileage standards of our automobiles. We greatly increased the fuel efficiency of our appliances, and the price of gasoline went down, went down for the next 20 years.”

JIMMY CARTER?! Aside from the fact that Jimmy Carter was not president 20 years ago, and the fact that he looked like a clueless doofus in that sweater, here’s a news bulletin: no candidate does himself any good by invoking the memory of the halcyon days of Jimmy Carter. Talk about “That 70’s Show” from hell! Oh, and another small detail, Ned. Those CAFÉ standards, which many economists think do more harm than good and also increase traffic fatalities, were enacted in 1975, before Jimmy Carter became president. I can’t blame any democrat for trying to block out the memory of the worst presidency in history, but this is ridiculous.

Joe Lieberman cleaned this loser’s clock, but that doesn’t make me happy. I want a Republican to win this Senate seat. Keep it up, wackos! When poor ole’ Ned is sent back to his cable tv gig or whatever he’s doing when he’s not teaching illegal immigrant kids, are we still going to have to endure MSM blather about the Daily Kos and its enormous influence?

Trackback URL

I know it’s not fashionable anymore, to say so, but who’s with me? Shouldn’t this guy catch the first plane to France?

Trackback URL