Can low ratings drive a man insane? Or is the increasingly bizarre series of rantings that the the several hundred viewers of MS-NBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” see the result of Keith’s head-in-the-subway door accident (talk about bizarre!)? Who knows—who cares. Whatever the cause, it’s clear that KO is this close (fingers about a millimeter apart) from a date with a straitjacket, if last night’s “special comment” is any guide.

As part of my sacred obligation to my listeners, I have watched thousands of hours of insufferable tv, as you know. Regular listeners to my radio program know that there are only two things that are guaranteed to drive the Husband out of the room. Olbermann’s show is one of them. (Bill Mahre and his show is the other.) Since I understand how painful it is to watch this show, I consider it a duty to watch it so you don’t have to. Still, nothing, not my genuine indifference about this clowns on tv, not my exposure to a relentless assault of liberal ignorance, stupidity and revisionist history over the last few years, not even my absolute confidence that Keith Olbermann’s personal issues with authority have rendered him incapable of rational thinking, prepared me for what I saw last night.

You should also know that Keith Olbermann was so lathered up over what he felt deserved to be the #1 story in the Countdown (his silly brain dump) that he actually came back from vacation to talk about it! I actually received a special e-mail alert (of course I’m on their mailing list—it’s part of my job) yesterday afternoon alerting me to the fact that Keith, even though on vacation this week, would be in. What was it that had him so outraged? What always outrages liberals? When someone tells the truth about them, of course.

I refer to Defense Secretary Donald Rumfeld’s speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City–you know the one that the 5th column MSM described as the Secretary’s “lashing out” at administration critics–in which he dared to suggest that some people haven’t learned the lessons of history when it comes to fighting a determined, relentless enemy like the Islamofacist headchoppers who have made it clear that they want to murder every single American on the planet. In KO’s twisted vision, Secretary Rumsfeld’s “remarkable speech, was one in which he claimed to possess a “total omniscience,” and in which he “impugns the morality, loyalty and intelligence of the majority of Americans.”

That wasn’t the most delusional part of Keith’s rant, though. That came when he explained that “Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy. Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.His government, absolute — and exclusive — in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.”

Yes, in Keith’s world, the Bush administration is Neville Chamberlain and he and his September 10 party pals, who as Mark Steyn noted are always in the company of a white flag, are Winston Churchill! I kid you not. I can’t make this stuff up. Even I’m not that good.

Here’s KO’s basic argument: Churchill disagreed with Chamberlain. Chamberlain “demonized” Churchill for stating his disagreement; therefore, Rumsfeld, who also “demonizes” his critics is Chamberlain. The only problem with Keith’s argument is that it ignores the policy positions that each side argued for. Like the Bush administration, Churchill argued for confronting evil, sooner rather than later. Chamberlain wanted the equivalent of containment (appeasement), hoping against hope that evil wouldn’t show up on his country’s doorstep.

After making this truly jaw-drop inducing argument, Keith said that our country was still a democracy, but “just barely,” and launched in the usual litany of leftist lamentations (WMD, Katrina, Fog of Fear, Cheney and his cronies profited, Nixon, McCarthy, even Curtis LeMay, for heaven’s sake). He concluded by solemnly reading a quote from—who else?–Edward R. Murrow! In Keith’s fevered brain, “[t]he confusion we — as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.” PULEEZE: try to be more self-important, you glorified sportscaster! I don’t doubt that he’s facing confusion, but not in the embarrassingly adolescent, heroic speaker of truth to power way that this poseur envisions when he thinks of his pathetic self.

Olbermann says that Donald Rumsfeld is no prophet. I say Olbermann is no crusading journalist. He’s just an idiot who got his head caught in a subway door, which explains A LOT.

If you did not see it, the video is here. The transcript is here.

Trackback URL

On Sunday’s show, we discussed Barack Obama’s intervention with the government of Kenya, who had held two local news outlet’s cameras hostage, pending payment of $1000 and $800 respectively. After our own man-god senator heard about this, he demanded that what he called a bribe be immediately refunded. Good job, Barack Obama! I said. Now that you’ve demonstrated the ability to recover the ill-gotten gains from this sort of shakedown, why not bring that ability home and use it here in Chicago and Cook County? I’m sure that there are some small business owners who found themselves needing to grease the palm of a building inspector in order to stay in business who could use some help. How about some of the corporations that Jesse Jackson has used his patented shakedown routine on?

Then this morning (8/29/06) in the Chicago Sun-Times, Lynn Sweet notes that Barack lectured the Kenyan government about corruption, and also told them “ethnic-based politics has to stop.”

I can’t wait until He Who Walks on Water returns to Chicago and implements these ideas here at home! Imagine his delivering this speech and making reference to the corruption in Cook County, and imploring voters to disregard race and ethnicity and simply vote for the reformer, Tony Peraica. Do you suppose that will happen any time soon? And do you suppose that when he does not deliver this anti-corruption, anti-ethnic politics speech here at home, anyone, including Ms. Sweet (who, if her writings are any guide has a schoolgirl crush on the senator) will call him on it?

Trackback URL

Regular listeners to the radio show know that, like many perceptive and intelligent people, I suffer from coulrophobia, or fear of clowns. Irrational? Silly? I don’t think so. Check out this story from Tucson, Arizona:

“Four people are in custody, accused of holding up area check-cashing businesses dressed as clowns.”

No one should be surprised by this story. In fact, at the risk of being accused of wardrobe profiling, I suggest that anytime anyone sees a clown, he should immediately contact law enforcement. Trust me. Nothing good will happen from neglecting to do so. Allowing these white-faced, giant floppy-shoe clad, polka-dot wearing, fake red nose displaying characters to run amok in your neighborhood is a recipe for disaster.

Trackback URL

When Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor issued her idiotic and poorly reasoned decision declaring the NSA terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional, some of us suggested that perhaps she was motivated by something other than a careful reading of the Constitution, noting her history as a political hack and the fact that she was appointed to the bench by the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter, who through people like Diggs-Taylor has been able to continue his useful idiocy for decades after the American people wisely gave him the heave-ho. The editorial page of the Liberal Death Star (New York Times) considered these criticisms of the judge unfair, and typical of the knuckle-dragging right-wingers who dared to raise them. Now in today’s LDS, we read this lead in Eric Lichtblau’s story, “Conflict of Interest Raised in NSA ruling:”

“The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.”

MMM …do you suppose our friends in the MSM will lead their news casts today with this latest item? Note also that Eric couldn’t resist the temptation to once again mischaracterize the program where we intercept the plan’s of the next Mohammed Atta as “President Bush’s eavesdropping program.” That’s ok, Eric. I’m sure that President Bush isn’t ashamed of the fact that he’s trying to stop another 9/11, as surprising as that might be to you and other members of the MSM.

Speaking of Diggs-Taylor’s unfortunate opinion, please check out this op-ed, also from today’s LDS from of all places the University of Wisconsin, which explains why even intelligent supporters of the decision’s result consider it a pathetic disgrace, something that would earn a first-year law student a failing grade. In her op-ed “A Law Unto Herself,” Professor Ann Althouse writes:

“For those who approve of the outcome , the judge’s opinion is counterproductive. It will be harder to defend upon appeal than a more careful decision. It suggests that there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush. It helps those who have been arguing for years about result-oriented, activist judges.
Laypeople consuming early news reports may well have thought, “What a courageous judge!” and “It’s a good thing someone finally said that the president is not above the law.” Look at that juicy quotation from Judge Taylor’s ruling: “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”
But this is sheer sophistry. The potential for the president to abuse his power has nothing to do with kings and heredity. (How much power do hereditary kings have these days, anyway?) And, indeed, the president is not claiming he has powers outside of the Constitution. He isn’t arguing that he’s above the law. He’s making an aggressive argument about the scope of his power under the law.
It is a serious argument, and judges need to take it seriously. If they do not, we ought to wonder why a court gets to decide what the law is and not the president. After all, the president has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution; he has his advisers, and they’ve concluded that the program is legal. Why should the judicial view prevail over the president’s?”

Trackback URL

Dick “Eddie Haskell” Durbin, John McCain, Luis Guitterez, or even President Bush bristle at the notion that the “comprehensive immigration reform” that they are promoting is just another amnesty, insisting that the beneficiaries of the law would not be given a free pass. No, no, no, they protest, it’s nothing of the kind because they would have to learn English, pay a fine, and go to the back of the citizenship queue. After we’ve regained our composure after a near-death inducing guffaw attack, many of us point out that (1) because it rewards people for being illegally in the country longer, this proposed law will actually produce the bizarre result of an underground industry in fake documents so that immigrants can prove they’ve been breaking the law LONGER than they actually have and (2) more important, leaving that ridiculous result aside, no matter how tough the sanctions in the law might seem, do the proponents really expect any of us to believe that there is any way to enforce them? What are we going to have—English class police? The law’s proponents scoff at these concerns, but never offer any satisfying response. Of course not—THERE IS NONE AND THEY KNOW IT! Here’s the latest proof, the story of Elvira Arellano.

“With the help of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. Luis Guitierrez (D-Ill.) and various community groups, Arellano secured four one-year extensions to stay in the United States. They enabled her to get a legal Social Security card, Illinois driver’s license and work permit. But she’s ineligible for citizenship because of her first arrest.”
“Vigil set to halt migrant’s deportation,” Chicago Sun-Times, August 14, 2006, p. 11.

That first arrest and conviction was for using a fake Social Security number. She had also been deported once before in 1997, but crossed illegally again 3 days later.

OK, so here’s my question for Sen. Durbin and Rep. Guiterrez, zealous propopents of the latest amnesty, who claim it isn’t because of the sanctions it contains. If you are currently doing everything you can to subvert existing immigration laws, why do you think we can trust your assurances that you will make sure that the new law is enforced? Just how stupid do you think we are? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have had it with Eddie Haskell and friends continuously demonstrating their cynical contempt for us with baloney like this.

The latest about Ms. Arellano: she’s decided that she’s the new Rosa Parks. I would ask law abiding African-American citizens: are you offended by that comparison? If not, you should be.

Trackback URL

On tonight’s edition of “60 Minutes,” Mike Wallaceinterviewed the Persian Dennis Kucinich, Mahmoud Ahmanijenidad, President of Iran. I couldn’t help but notice the similarity between what he had to say, and what I heard on an earlier interview today:

“I am very saddened to hear that 1% of the total population is in prisons and 45 million people don’t have a health care cover.”
Mahmoud Ahmanijenidad, responding to Mike Wallace’s question, “What do you think of President Bush?,” ‘60 Minutes,’ 8/13/06

“We need a new direction in America, we need a new direction to defend America, and we need a new direction to make the homeland safe, not just in terms of safety from terrorists, but safe for the middle class again. We have seen a decline in the middle class. We need a strong middle class to make America strong again, and with Democratic leadership we’ll have that middle class strong again, with the ability to go to college, with the ability to count on your pension, with the ability to have decent health care.”
Howard Dean, Chairman, DNC, “Meet the Press, 8/13/06

Coincidence? I think not.

Another highlight in which a member of the 5th column MSM shows his true colors:

Mike Wallace:“What do you think of George Bush as a man and as the commander in chief of the so-called free world?”
The Iranian wackjob: “Well, the so-called says everything.”

You said a mouthful there, Goofball, but not in the way you think.

Trackback URL

Since Ramzi Yousef successfully used nitroglycerine, a sports watch and a 9-volt battery to blow a hole in a 747 in December, 1994, why we’re only now banning liquids in carryon luggage, especially since these sorts of bombs can’t be detected?

Just what exactly were those 11 Egyptians, who entered the country on student visas ostensibly to attend Montana State University and then disappeared, doing here? One of them, Ahmed Mohamed Mohamed Abou El Ela—good grief, these people have GOT to get shorter names–was arrested today at O’Hare after causing a disturbance, and so far, no explanation.

When the U.N. passes its latest pointless resolution to try to end the war in Southern Lebanon, who signs on on behalf of the Hezbos aka Hezbollah? And how exactly will it be enforced? (Yeah right)

Trackback URL

Not only were they able to thwart a major terrorist plot. They are also all over the tabloid types who were listening in on Prince Charles’ phone calls, no doubt hoping to hear something like that infamous tampon comment from the 1990’s. I don’t think anything will top that, but you can’t blame them for trying.

Trackback URL

A few random thoughts:

Is it any wonder that al Qaeda wanted to pull off something BIG right now? Narsrallah aka Ottoman Head has become a rock star among fans of headchopping murder of the infidel in recent days, and they needed to get back on top.

How long before moonbats start suggesting that President Bush and Tony Blair, who are both on “vacation” now, staged these arrests to prove that they are still on top of things, and to distract from the “failure” that Iraq has become?

I hope the Brits weren’t eavesdropping on any conversations prior to making these arrests. I’d hate to think that any terrorists’ rights were violated!

More later. God Bless America.

Trackback URL

The Liberal Death Star (New York Times) recommends doing it. Consider today’s lead editorial entitled “Start Talking,” which scolds President Bush for not going hat in hand to Bashar Assad to ask for his help in stopping the Hezbos. If only President Bush could only overcome his propensity to lecture instead of listen …if only he would assure Bashar that we don’t have no interest in regime change in Syria …if only John Kerry were president. Well, they don’t include that last one explicitly, but it’s implied. Kerry shares the editors’ naïve optimism about the value of endless jawing with evil despots who would do just about anything to harm America and her allies, and like them, he has the audacity to blame the Bush administration for the situations in Iran and North Korea. Both have the fingerprints of the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter, all over them. There was a guy who believed in “conflict resolution” over the use of military force, and that went well, didn’t it?

“Of course, talking isn’t enough. Mr. Bush’s impulse, even when he agrees to talk, is to lecture and not listen. The White House will have to hear what Syria wants and consider what inducements might be worth offering in exchange for Syria’s help.”

I may hurl! Why not just have them e-mail us a wishlist? (1. Nuclear warheads for Iran. 2. Nuclear warheads for us. 3. No more questions about that Hariri thing. 4. Israel eliminated immediately. 5. A few million dollars wouldn’t hurt.)

“That’s not appeasement. That’s negotiation. No one is suggesting Mr. Bush give away the store. At a minimum, however, Mr. Bush will have to start with a clear signal that what the United States wants is a change in Syria’s conduct, not the overthrow of its regime.”

It’s exactly the opposite, NY Times pinheads. What incentive does Bashar have to change his behavior unless he believes that he could end up like Saddam Hussein, and end up that way sooner rather than later? I’m sure we are talking to the Syrians, through back channels, and I hope and pray that they are being told exactly that, and also telling them that we aren’t going to allow them to get away with the murder of Rafik Hariri.

The LDS reveals it’s true colors in the last paragraph:

“There is no guarantee that negotiations will persuade any of these countries to do what’s right or even what’s in their obvious self-interest. Mr. Assad is not known for personal courage or good sense. But the price for not trying to talk will be more fury toward the United States and our few remaining allies in the region. That’s no reward.”

Maybe my memory is failing me, but didn’t the Clintonistas spend a lot of time talking to these thugs in North Korea and the Middle East? That did a lot to reduce their “fury,” didn’t it? Whether it did or not, the fact that the liberals are more concerned about whether the rest of the world loves us than whether we win this war against those who are out to destroy Western civilization tells you everything you need to know. If the LDS is for it, it has to be a bad idea.

Trackback URL