Media Research Center's Most Notable Quotes from 2007

In 1987, a group of young conservatives set out to not only prove, through sound scientific research, that bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.

This project was named the Media Research Center (MRC).

The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the bias the saw in our major news organizations. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.

The New York Post names it "Hoisted by their own petard".

For 20 years they have compiled quotes from every major television, newspaper, and magazine group, for their annual most notable quotable awards and they have just released this years winners.

This years quotes, from December 2006 through December 2007, were chosen by the center, with the help of 53 judges, which were made up of, radio talk show hosts, magazine editors, columnists, editorial writers, and media observers.

It consists of a compilation of the most outrageous and/or humorous news media quotes from 2007.

The list of panel member/judges can be found here.

To pick their award winners, each selected their choices for the first, second and third best quote from a slate of five to eight quotes in each category. First place selections were awarded three points, second place choices two points, with one point for the third place selections.

Each judge was also asked to choose a “Quote of the Year” denoting the most outrageous quote of 2007.

This year the judges picked as their "notable quotable" of the year a McClatchy News Service headline, to an article written as violence fell and news from Iraq started being seen in the news less and less.

The headline read "As Violence Falls in Iraq, Cemetery Workers Feel the Pinch”

]

Highlighting a few of the most memorable quotes, they list one under the "America makes us sick award" category, and the winner of that one was William Arkin, when he called U.S. soldiers "mercenaries".

“Through every Abu aib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform....We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?...[T]he recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary — oops sorry, volunteer — force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.”
— WashingtonPost.com military columnist William Arkin in a January 30 column reacting to a report by NBC reporter Richard Engel. Arkin later apologized for using the word “mercenary.”

The original article where he published that was on Mr. Arkin's blog page at Washington Post, where they have added an editors note saying they were forced to close comments on that article after 900 comments came in a firestorm of criticism to Mr. Arkin, because the page wouldn't load properly if they allowed any more comments.

Another one of the MRC's notable outrageous and/or humorous quotes is listed under the "Madness of King George" award, whereEx-Washington Post sports reporter and Seinfeld writer Peter Mehlman in a June 20 Huffington Post blog item says “You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought [they] were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc....Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of ‘I’m so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends’ good?’"

The original entry for that can be found over at Huffington Post.

Moving right along to the "Tin Foil Hat" award for crazy conspiracy theories, the winner is Joy Behar, from the popular morning show "The View", discussing Democratic Senator Tim Johnson’s illness on December 14, 2006, where MRC captured the video of a conversation between Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck:

Co-host Joy Behar: “Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him?...”
Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck: “Why is everything coming from the liberal perspective a conspiracy?...”
Behar: “I know what this [Republican] Party is capable of.”

Other amusing awards can be found on their best of notable quotables for 2007 page, which include the , Blue State Brigade, (Barack Obama and Chris Matthews on MSNBC) Channeling the Nutroots (Chris Matthews and Michael Moore onMSNBC) , Damn Conservatives (Bill Maher, HBO), Drive By Media (Matt Lauer, Reporter Michael Okwu, and Paul Waldman, Media Matters for America on NBC)Dynamic Duo (Chris Matthews on MSNBC),Goreacle (Harry Smith and Al Gore on CBS), Meaningless (Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran on ABC), Media Hero (Barbara Walters recounting her interview with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez on ABC), Media Millionaires (Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift discussing the Minneapolis bridge collapse, August 25 McLaughlin Group), Morning Morons (Meredith Vieira talking about global warming on NBC), Not Biased Enough (PBS’s Bill Moyers, in a January 12 speech to a conference on “media reform” aired four days later on the left-wing Pacifica network’s Democracy Now.), Perky Princess (Katie Couric on CBS evening news), and the Streisand IQ(Rosie O’Donnell on ABC), awards.

Winners and media outlet in parenthesis and all links also list the runnerups in that category.

.

France Suspends Diplomatic Contacts with Syria

Hat Tip to Don Surber, who points us to a BBC report about statements from the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy regarding the suspension of diplomatic contacts with Syria.

Links will be restored only when France has proof that Syria is not blocking progress towards installing a consensus president in Lebanon, Mr Sarkozy said.

Lebanon has been without a president since November, as rival pro- and anti- Syrian factions argue over who should fill the post.

"I ask Syria to... work to create agreement," said Mr Sarkozy.

France "will not make any more contacts with Syria... as long as there is no proof of Syria's willingness to let Lebanon choose a consensus president," he told reporters, during a visit to Egypt.

Actions speak louder than words and according to The International Herald Tribune, Sarkozy is echoing those sentiments with the statement "France has taken the responsibility of talking with Syria. One must recognize today that we cannot wait any longer, Syria must stop talking and now must act."

On November 23, 2007, pro-Syrian leader Émile Lahoud, stepped down at the end of his term. The election for a new President in Lebanon has been delayed 11 times because opposition boycotts have hindered the process to choose a president by preventing a quorum in Parliament.


AFP reports other statements from Sarkozy as well as pointing out that Bush said earlier this month that his " patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago."

"It's time for Syria to prove with facts what it has not stopped saying in speeches," Sarkozy said. "We are now waiting for acts on Syria's part and not speeches."

France is also going ahead with plans to free up funds on order to complete the international tribunal intended to try those behind a series of assassinations in Lebanon that began with the murder of former premier Rafiq Hariri in 2005.

Syria has been accused of being behind that assassination but has denied involvement and has done everything in their power to stop the tribunal meant to determine who is responsible for Hariri's murder.

The Lebanon Daily Star gives an excellent overview of the problems that have plagued Lebanon in 2007, from civil unrest to political inertia.

Syria has been a destabilizing force for Lebanon and Sarkozy, Bush and other leaders of the international community seem to be fed up with Syria saying one thing then doing another.

.

Growing Controversy over Tennessee Executive Mansion Renovations

Questionable politics is nothing new in the state of Tennessee in regards to the Governors office. Presidential candidate Fred Thompson was a part of bringing down the corrupt Blanton administration in the late 70's and early 80's for selling pardons, liquor licenses, and other favors from the governor's office. Former Governor Don Sundquist remains shrouded in suspicion of corruption during his administration for "no-bid" contractual awards for state work.

And now we have current Governor Phil Bredesen, a New Jersey native who grew up in New York. The Governor's tax positions have had him in hot water with voters during his second ("lame duck") term as governor, and now a situation that has been developing since his election and taking office during his first term is becoming a sore spot for the sitting Governor of Tennessee.

Group assails spending on governor's mansion

By KRISTIN M. HALL
Associated Press

A taxpayer group funded by a neighbor of the governor's mansion is criticizing the spending for construction and renovation to the executive residence in upscale Oak Hill.

Tennesseans for Accountability in Government, created by a donation from a Nashville auto dealer, called on the state Tuesday to provide cost details on renovations and the addition of an underground banquet hall at the mansion.

Susan Kaestner, vice president of the group, said the facility was an irresponsible waste of taxpayer money and the governor could use existing venues in Nashville for meetings. She said the group was created by a donation from Lee Beaman, a neighbor, but this wasn't a neighborhood group focused solely on the local impact to the community.

"The renovations have gone way past reasonable," Kaestner said, adding that the state hasn't been forthcoming with plans and costs.

When Gov. Phil Bredesen took office in 2003, he agreed not to move in the home so it could be renovated. First lady Andrea Conte has said the new underground facility is needed so the mansion — which was a private residence before it became an official home for Tennessee's governors in 1949 — will have sufficient and suitable space for meetings and entertainment.

It's the underground facility that has raised such an uproar. While residents of the Oak Hill community are concerned about traffic involved with the renovations and events held at the mansion with the addition of the "party bunker," as some pundits have labeled the underground facility, other taxpayers around the state are concerned with the price tag that comes along with it, and from where the funding for the project will come.

Meeting doesn't ease concerns over hall at governor's mansion
State architect gets earful from nearby residents

By SHEILA WISSNER
Staff Writer

Angry neighbors lashed out at state architect Mike Fitts Thursday night during a public hearing about a proposed underground meeting hall at the governor's mansion.

The Oak Hill Planning Commission called the meeting to solicit comments for Fitts to consider as the state moves forward with plans to blast though rock under the mansion lawn to create a 13,000 square-foot, sky-lighted banquet hall.

The city of Oak Hill has no authority to veto the project on Curtiswood Lane, but state officials have said they want to work with the city and residents.

Mansion neighbors said Thursday they remain concerned about the disruption the new "Conservation Hall" will have on their neighborhood.

"The renovation of the mansion was a good thing, it was needed, but I don't see a need for this," said Martha Thompson Elder, who attended Thursday's meeting on behalf of her elderly mother who lives near the mansion.

"Curtiswood Lane is a narrow street, and what will they do with all that additional traffic? It just doesn't need to be in a residential neighborhood.

"Why are we building something that is not needed and putting the burden on taxpayers."

In the past, large parties have been held in tents set up on the lawn. The underground hall will cut down on the tents.

Fitts told The Tennessean previously that tents still might be required for events too large for the hall. It is designed to accommodate 160 guests for a sit-down dinner or up to 500 guests and staff for other events.

Oakhill resident Tom Lawless worries about the effect the additional traffic will have on the community, and believes a formal traffic study should be conducted and a disaster plan considered.

Bill Hobbs of the Tennessee Republican Party has put together a comprehensive time-line for the events surrounding the proposed renovations and addition to the executive mansion:

DOCUMENTS INDICATE BREDESEN NOT ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL ABOUT MANSION BALLROOM PROJECT FUNDING

NASHVILLE - The Tennessee Republican Party calls on Gov. Phil Bredesen and his wife to “put the brakes on the ballroom” in light of documents uncovered that indicate the Bredesens have been playing a shell game to mislead the public about the true cost of – and who is really paying for - the massive underground ballroom and entertainment complex they intend to build on the grounds of the Governor’s Mansion.

The documents from the State Building Commission – which the TRP is making available online for taxpayers, media and legislators to view – show a timeline of rapidly ballooning costs as the original project of needed renovations of the state’s executive residence metastasized to include the ballroom facility.

The documents also show a shell game designed to mislead the public as to the source of funding for the ballroom, in total disregard for taxpayers who are just now learning that they’re paying millions for a project they knew nothing about as it was concocted in secret.

“Gov. and Mrs. Bredesen have claimed that the ballroom is being funded with private donations rather than tax dollars, but that’s not really true,” said Bill Hobbs, communications director for the TRP. “The Bredesens shifted nearly $3 million in private donations to the ballroom project that had been given for the renovation of the mansion itself – and then replaced that mansion renovation money with tax dollars.

(A 20-page PDF file of the documents can be found online at the Tennessee Republican Party website,
http://www.tngop.org/ballroom_SBC_documents.pdf .)

The State Building Commission documents show that the original project for renovation of the
governor’s mansion, described as a “maintenance” project and identified as SBC Project No. 460/028-01-2002, was first discussed by the SBC on October 10, 2002, three months before Gov. Bredesen took office. It had an estimated cost of $350,000.

The project – and its cost to taxpayers – soon grew like kudzu.

Kudzu, for those of you who are not familiar with the plant, kudzu is a plant native to Japan and Asia that was introduced to the United States in the 1800's, and when it was introduced to the Southeast it was determined that the climate made the plant grow uncontrollably. If you drive through the rural Southeast today, you're likely to see acres upon acres of the vine where it has overtaken the native vegetation.

The questions many are asking as the price tag for renovations balloons to nearly $20 million are why is the price tag continuing to sky rocket, who is going to be awarded the contract for doing the renovations, will there be "payback" involved in the price (a ballooned price tag to pay back political favors done for the Governor), and could the money not be better spent in building a new executive mansion rather than investing millions of dollars in a property that is not currently appraised at even $1 million? Many are also questioning why other State owned banquet facilities are not sufficient for hosting State sponsored events.

It should be noted that Governor Bredesen and Tennessee First Lady Andre Conte have not resided in the Oak Hills Governors Mansion during his two terms as Governor, but have maintained residence in their Forest Hills home.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man



.

The Fire in Fred's Belly

What Spree wants, Spree gets! Cross posted from Miss Beth's Victory Dance by request.


For a long time, a whole lot of us have liked the cut of Fred Thompson as a presidential candidate. So much so we BEGGED the man to jump into the race. Finally, FINALLY, he threw his hat in the ring and now, many of us (I'm admittedly an attention challenged, Type A personality who can't sit still for very long) question when we're going to "see" the fire of Fred "catch on".

While discussing Fred with my mentor during a break in study group one night, she asked me flat out why I liked Fred. At the time, I really couldn't answer with more than a gut feeling. She was correct in calling me out. That is one of the reason's I consider her my main mentor--she makes me stop and think. Then, she makes me go do my research and study. She may not like this comparison too much, but it's not meant to be offensive--in that regard, she is very similar to both my parents who insisted--prior to discussing ANYTHING--I and my siblings educate ourselves on any and all topics. Both my parents came from modest means to be significant forces in their respective fields, ultimately competing with each other for degrees (daddy won, but not by much); to them, education was the ONLY ticket to true freedom, independence and prosperity for without an education you could go nowhere. So, my mentor falls into the same category with my parents in this regard.

So, with my mentor's challenge spurring me on, I began to look into WHY I thought Fred would be the best candidate. I found a man surprisingly honest. A man who thought out his plans and outlined them in a coherent fashion. A man who offers no apologies for his past, yet who is unflinchingly honest about it. He says what he means. He doesn't beat around the bramble bush trying to be all things to all people.

For example, on the illegal immigration issue (since I live in a border state, this is something important to me), Fred has laid out a comprehensive, common sense plan for implementation.

From his site:

Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law

A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to secure the nation's borders and enforce the law. The following policies and initiatives will put the nation on a path to success:

1. No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.
   
   
2. Attrition through Enforcement . Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:

Read more here.

But wait! There's more!

Fred also has comprehensive ideas laid out for:

National Security; the Federal Budget and Spending/Budgetary Reform; Tax Reform; Healthcare; Government Effectiveness; Building Strong Families; Education; Appointing Judges Faithful to Our Constitution; Energy Security and the Second Amendment. He also offers a downloadable, side-by-side comparison of where the GOP candidates stand on Family Values Issues; 2nd Amendment Rights and Crimes; Securing America's Borders and Fiscal Responsibility.

The entry page for all of these issues can be found here.

Overall, while there are a few things I disagree with, I like Fred as a candidate. I like how he is clear and concise on the issues. I like how he appears to think carefully before opening his mouth. I think he has a personally pleasing appearance, which, through his acting skills and his past political background, he is able to use to advantage when negotiating across a table, either with a recalcitrant SoH or another country's leader. He doesn't come off as a wimp and image is important when dealing with extremist loons.

I don't like how he seems to be moseying along, strolling through this campaign. But then, as I mentioned above, I'm an attention challenged, can't sit still for a second, Type A personality. If I'm not juggling a kazillion things at once, I feel as if I'm missing out on something.

I also keep forgetting Fred is, at heart, a born Southerner and Southerner's do things their own way and in their own time.

That being said, because the MSM doesn't understand this basic truth about Southerner's, they have labeled Fred as lazy. Then, as per their usual sloppy reporting, they set up imaginary strawmen to knock down and only provide half quotes, purposely designed to make Fred look as bad as possible.

Such is the case here. From The Campaign Spot we see the headline: "Fred Thompson, Knifed by Half-Quotes Again". From this article we learn the following:

This time their grumbling is directed at this account in USA Today:

BURLINGTON, Iowa — Fred Thompson said Saturday he does not much like the modern form of presidential campaigning and that he "will not be devastated" if he doesn't win the election.

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president," Thompson said, but rather he feels called to serve his country.

Now, that sounds pretty damning, particularly with Iowa and New Hampshire looming. However, the rest of the quote is here:

"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson responded. "I'm offering myself up."

Given the volatile state of the world, the actor and former Tennessee senator said he was not "sure it is a good thing if a president has too much fire in his belly."

"I'm only consumed by a few things and politics is not one of them," he said.

Now, there's an old saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's also an old saying about being wary of those who desperately want to hold positions of power (HRC come to mind anyone?). Read the rest of the article here; it's an eye opener of egos in the MSM.

From what I'm seeing from Fred, he has stated he will run his campaign his way. He has also shown he is not absolutely desperate to hold the position of POTUS, but having been chosen by the people, implored by the people to run, he will do the very best job he can, if he is elected. He has sat down, thought out the most important issues facing this country, and established his platform in a well thought out manner. He has plodded along at his own pace, and answered questions posed to him. He has refused to play the schoolyard games engaged in during the so-called debates. He doesn't hesitate to call people on the carpet when he thinks they're being asinine and when someone steps over the line with a question too personal, he lets them know it. He doesn't flip flop around. He doesn't screech--but he does calmly state where he thinks this country needs improvement. Then he offers the means for that improvement.

Remember the story of the Tortoise and the Hare? Well, Fred just may be that tortoise--slow and steady and eventually, win the race.

That is if he can get past the idiotic MSM determined to derail him.

But then, what else would one expect from ego driven, pampered, whiny, treasonous liberals who want nothing more than to see the demise of this country? What else could you possibly expect from a "profession" that can't follow it's own standards of conduct, rules and ethics (these people need a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word ethics), a "profession" increasingly showing it can't--or won't--report the full story because it can't be bothered to do the legwork necessary. A "profession" riddled with the likes of TNR (Scott Thomas Beauchamp), TIME Magazine reporters who criminalize our Marines on the unsubstantiated word of an al-Quaida operative (Haditha), reporters who report "roadside graves full of decapitated bodies" (bodies and graves that never existed) and on and on.

Do we really expect honest, unbiased reporting? Oh--wait--silly me! That would require integrity--something we KNOW the MSM lacks. And they certainly do NOT want to give any kind of fair coverage to a man with integrity--he might force them to do the jobs they don't want to do--or prosecute them for their treason and sedition (NYT anyone?).

The MSM has a lot to lose if Fred wins. Perhaps THAT should be the real story--the MSM's motive in falsely reporting and cherry picking on ANY of the conservative campaigns.

Catch the Wave!

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell here.

Its Time To Vote for 2007 Most Self-hating Jew Awards

Ladies and Gentlemen---there you have it: the Nominations for 2007 Most Self Hating Jew Awards.

Below are the Nominees in all four categories:

1. Self Hating Jews of 2007-24 Nominees
   
2. Not Self Hating---JUST STUPID- 8 Nominees
   
3. Self Hating Ex-Jews-2 Nominees
   
4. Self Hating Media- 3 Nominees
   

click here to vote

Each Nominee has at least one hyper-linked article supporting their case--why they should win in their category. Its an incredibly diverse list--You folks really know your stuff.These links are from blogs across the Blogisphere..so read them all and then make your vote. VOTING INSTRUCTIONS ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

Self Hating Jews Of 2007:

• Eric Alterman: Eric Alterman and the Politics of Anti-Semitism

• Christiane Amanpour's Husband Christiane Amanpour Journalist -an Oxymoron

• Kate Raphael Bender of QUIT SF Chronicle article; SF Indybay entry; israeli judge silences jewish american activist

• Richard Cohen One Warped Jew

• Norman Finkelstein Finkelstein's Latest---Its All Dershowitz's Fault ---Jewish Week Gets it Right, NY Times Blows it Again

• Ira Forman of the National "Jewish" "Democratic" Council National Jewish Democratic Council: Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian Hate Organization

• Abe Greenhouse Rutgers Student Hits Israeli Minister Sharansky with Pie

• Jeff Halper An E-Mail From Jeff Halper, Anti-Israel Activist

• Amira Hass, Editor at Ha'aretz. If KRB were a working journalist that's AH - . According to her Wiki entry, she's lived among Palis continuously since 1993.

• Tony Judt Tony Judt, GO TO HELL!

• Rabbi" Michael Lerner, "politics of meaning," one-time Hillary adviser

• Barbara Lubin, founder of Middle East Children's Alliance

• Hannah Mermelstein Stealing a Good Name

• Moonbat Rabbis who wrote President Bush asking him to "engage" Hamas Is your rabbi on this list?

• Tal Nitzin, a PhD canditate at Hebrew University who claims that the
• IDF is Racist because they dont Rape Palestinian Women
• The world really is upside down sometimes

• Shimon Peres and the entire Olmert-led government Here and there Who Else But Peres?!

• Gerald Michael (Geraldo) Rivera GERALDO RIVERA DOES IT AGAIN! special kuddos to my daughter on this one, because it is her idea..of course I am a only a little prejudice.
  

• Ken Roth
• Human Rights Watch: One Lying NGO
• HRW Director Gets Caught "Fibbing"

• Richard Silverstein
• Antiunfalsifiabilitarianism
• Poor Richard Silverstein and Tikkun Hamas
• A Disturbance in the Force

• Adam Shapiro Adam Shapiro Gets a Guardian Tongue Bath

• George Soros Pelosi's Self Hating Jewish Puppeteer

• Cecilie Surasky What Muzzlewatch Doesn't Want You to Know

• Israeli prof Gary Sussman - who's also a self-hating South African, it seems.

• "Rabbi" Arthur Waskow Arthur Waskow--Bogus Rabbi and CAIR Lover

• The Rabbis on the KGIA (NY Madrassa) Advisory Board There’s Something Fishy about KGIA “Advisory Board” And the Rabbis who signed a statement supporting the school cisKGIA Statement: August 15, 2007
  

Not Self Hating-Just Stupid Award:

• Larry Choler Esses Larry Cohler-Esses Leaves his Journalistic Integrity at the Door

• Alan Combs Alan Combs Read My Lips-You are an idiot/ Steve Emerson vs Alan Combs Last night

• Abe Foxman
• The JNF Land is JEWISH--Its time to shift Donations from the ADL to the JNF
  
• Anti-Defamation League: A Sick Joke, Lie, and Fraud
• Does the ADL Sanitize Anti-Semites to Protect the Democrat Left?

• The Jewish National Fund JEWISH National Fund REJECTS SHOMER SHABBOS WORKER

• Founder Judith Malina and Co-Director Hanon Reznikov of self-described anarcho-pacifist The Living Theatre. Because The Beautiful Non-Violent Anarchist Revolution Needs A New York Chapter"

• Orthodox Anarchist" Daniel Sieradski, who forcibly injects post-avant garde and hip-hop influences into Orthodox Judiasm in an online format.

• Gary Rosenblatt( DIVIDED JERUSALEM INEVITABLE SAYS JEWISH WEEK PUBLISHER)

• Rabbi Yoffi-Head of the Reform Movement
• Why are The Jews Afraid of THE JEWS?
• Friend of CAIR
• Hanukkah for Dummies and Dhimmis

Self Hating Ex-Jews:

• Bob Novak (see Was Bob Novak Lying?)

• Daniel Sharon, gay Israeli, convert to Islam, arrested in Lebanon earlier this year

Self-Hating Media

• The New York Times NY TIMES LIFETIME ACHIEVMENT AWARD

• Ha'aretz
• Ha'aretz Joins the Self -Hating-Jew Hall-of-Fame
• David Landau Supports "Rape"
• Ha'aretz Editor to Condi: RAPE ISRAEL !

• Tikkun Magazine Lerner Dives Off Deep End

Voting instructions

1) Please make sure to vote in each of the four categories
2) I couldn't find polling software that would take 24 nominees (category one has 24 nominees) so I am going to ask you to vote by commenting on this post.click here to vote... YES I know its a pain..but think of me next Saturday night counting all the votes.
3) if you just want to vote and NOT have your vote comment posted...let me know and I will count it but not post it. At least Once A Day I will post a vote count.

Voting closes next Saturday at Midnight---God-willing winners will be posted next Sunday

Remember click here to vote

Fred Thompson Isn't Desperate

I have often said people keep saying Fred Thompson doesn't have a "fire in his belly" and I have maintained that it translates to Fred Thompson "doesn't reek with the stench of desperation" as well as saying that is one thing that particularly appeals to me.

He sticks to the issues instead of attacking opponents like a rabid dog, he doesn't flip flop on those issues and stays consistent with his message.

CNN manages to quote a small portion of comments made by Fred to make it appear as if he really doesn't want to run for president.

Republican Fred Thompson has long faced criticism he lacks motivation to be President of the United States, and the former Tennessee senator's latest comments Saturday may spark new criticism on that front.

The quotes CNN uses are:

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president," the former senator told voters at a campaign event in Burlington, Iowa when challenged by a an audience member over his desire to be commander-in-chief.

[...]

"But I think I'd make a good president," Thompson continued. "I have the background, capability, and concern to do this and I'm doing it for the right reasons."

[...]

I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson also said Saturday. "I'm offering myself up."

"I'm only consumed by a few things and politics is not one of them."

Fred Thompson, over on the Fred File is relieved that he doesn't have to depend on the media to accurately quote him because he can go directly to the public and lists the entire transcript of that exchange:

A Message from the Campaign Trail
Posted on December 29th, 2007
By Fred in On The Road

Every once in a while I am more thankful than ever for today’s technology which allows me to talk to you directly instead of having to go through the filter of the main stream media.

Some of them are intent on making the outcome of the campaign dependent upon their pre-conceived notions. Every once in a while their incomplete and slanted coverage makes this clear.

Today I had this story written about me regarding what I said at a Town Hall event in Burlington, Iowa by a reporter who wasn’t even at the event. Incidentally, I declined to be interviewed by this particular reporter yesterday for reasons which will soon be apparent.

In referring to me, she reported “he doesn’t like modern campaigning, isn’t interested in running for President, and will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win.

The following is a transcript of what I actually said in response to a question by a local Burlington resident which was the basis of the reporter’s story:

[THIS IS A BEST-EFFORT TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIFIC QUESTION AND ANSWER]
Q: My only problem with you and why I haven’t thrown all my support behind you is that I don’t know if you have the desire to be President. If I caucus for you next week, are you still going to be there two months from now?

…In the first place I got in the race about the time people normally get into it historically. The fact of the matter is that others started the process a lot earlier this time than they normally do. I think it was for some of them when they were juniors in high school.

APPLAUSE

That is a very good question, not because it’s difficult to answer, because, but I’m gonna answer it in a little different way than what you might expect.

In the first place, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I wouldn’t be doing this if i didn’t. I grew up very modest circumstances. I left government, I and my family have made sacrifices for me to be sitting here today. I haven’t had any income for a long time because I’m doing this. I figure that to be clean you’ve got to cut everything off. And I was doing speaking engagements and I had a contract to do a tv show, I had a contract with abc radio like I was talking about earlier and so forth. I guess a man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family which is not a joyful thing at all if he didn’t want to do it.

But I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don’t do it. I want the people to have the best president that they can have.

When this talk first started, it didn’t originate with me. There were a lot of people around the country both directly and through polls, liked the idea of me stepping up. And of course, you always look better at a distance, I guess.

But most of those people are still there and think its a good idea. But I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, it probably ain’t going to be a very good deal for either one of them. But if you mutually think that this is a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then you have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.

I’m offering myself up. I’m saying that I have the background, the capability, and the concern to do this and I’m doing it for the right reasons. But I’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I’d make a good president.

Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.

I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a terribly good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly. I approach life differently than a lot of people. People, I guess, wonder how I’ve been as successful as I’ve been in everything I’ve done. I won two races in TN by 20 point margins, a state that Bill Clinton carried twice. I’d never run for office before. I’ve never had an acting lesson and I guess that’s obvious by people who’ve watched me. But when they made a movie about a case that I had when I took on a corrupt state administration as a lawyer and beat them before a jury. They made a movie about it and I wound up playing myself in the movie and yeah I can do that.

And when I did it, I did it. Wasn’t just a lark. Anything that’s worth doing is worth doing well. But I’ve always been a little bit more laid back than most. I like to say that I’m only consumed by very, very few things and politics is not one of them. The welfare of our country and our kids and grandkids is one of them.

If people really want in their president a super type-a personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about for years how they could achieve the Presidency of the United States, someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning, I ain’t that guy. So I hope I’ve discussed that and hope I haven’t talked you out of anything. I honestly want - I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances than achieving the presidency under false pretenses. I go out of my way to be myself because I don’t want anybody to think they are getting something they are not getting. I’m not consumed by this process I’m not consumed with the notion of being President. I’m simply saying I’m willing to do what’s necessary to achieve it if I’m in sync with the people and if the people want me or somebody like me. I’ll do what I’ve always done in the rest of my life and I will take it on and do a good job and you’ll have the disadvantage of having someone who probably can’t jump up and click their heels three times but will tell you the truth and you’ll know where the President stands at all times.

It is clear that there are those in the media who will exact a high price for candor and from those whom they consider to be insufficiently ambitious. But it is with increasing amazement that we see that those who are willing to slant or leave out important parts of a story to make their point.

If a candidate succumbs to this he will be reduced to nothing more than a sound bite machine.

As for me I am going to continue to say exactly what is in my heart and is on my mind and give straight and honest answers to those who ask straight and honest questions.

Incidentally, the audience in Burlington broke into applause in the middle of my answer. The reporter wouldn’t know that because she wasn’t even there.

The reporter wasn't even there.

'nuff said.

[Addendum]


Perhaps CNN's reporter should have taken the lead of this reporter from ABC, who actually WAS there:

Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

The Passion of the Fred

December 30, 2007 10:36 AM

Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn, accused some of my colleagues of "journalistic malpractice" just now on Fox News Sunday.

He's referring to coverage implying that Thompson said he's "not particularly interested in running for president," like this story.

As our awesome ABC News off-air reporter with the Thompson campaign advised us last night, and as Jim Geraghty at National Review points out that may not be the fairest characterization of Thompson's complete remarks.

The larger point Thompson seems to have been trying to make is that he's not interested in the process of running for president, but he wants to be president and thinks he'd be a good one.

He also said -- and this isn't new -- that those who have had fire-in-the-belly for the job aren't necessarily the people who should be entrusted with the job.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson said. "I will not be devastated if I don't do it. I want the people to have the best president they can have…"

"I approach it from the standpoint of a deal," he said to a voter who wondered why he should caucus for Thompson, "of kind of a marriage. You know, if one side of the marriage has to be really talked into the marriage, you know, it's probably not going to be a very good deal for either one of them.

"But if you mutually think that this is a good thing — in this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, the you have the opportunity to do some wonderful things together. I'm offering myself up. I'm saying that if I have the background, the capability and the concern to do this and I'm doing this for the right reasons..."

[Update]

Check out Fred Thompson's message to Iowa voters:



.

Successful MSO Debut

موسيقى, عقاب موسيقى, عقاب
Saudi's Muslim Symphony Orchestra wraps up triumphant
First Season Tour


December 30, 2007
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Overwhelmed by jubilant throngs of eager fans, estimated to be in the tens of thousands, many of whom had been patiently waiting since early this morning, nearly one hundred exhausted but exuberant members of the Saudi's fledgling Muslim Symphony Orchestra, accompanied by a beaming maestro Sheik Ali Jadid Muhammed, deplaned from their silver SAA 747 and stepped onto the tarmac at Riyadh’s King Khaled International Airport this afternoon at 2:45 pm amid heavy police security. Unconfirmed reports of a planned attack by Israeli suicide bombers appeared to do little to dampen the festive atmosphere of this triumphant and long-awaited homecoming celebration.

Returning from their whirlwind first season Middle Eastern regional tour, the MSO’s renowned music director and founder, the venerable seventy-eight year old Sheik Ali, was greeted warmly by Crown Prince Faisal al Faisal, accompanied by his large retinue, comprised of various government officials, high-ranking military officers, and his own personal entourage of thirty-three of his forty-two wives and all but four of his fifty-seven sons. Speaking on behalf of the Royal Family, Crown Prince Faisal expressed his deep appreciation of the spectacular success of the Kingdom’s first pan-Arab Muslim symphony orchestra.

Following a short speech by the Crown Prince, conductor Ali Muhammed was presented with the coveted Royal Order of the Silver Palms for his exemplary service to the Kingdom. Immediately after the completion of the awards ceremony, Sheik Ali and the other members of the orchestra were whisked away in waiting limousines, under heavy police security, to the Golden Tulip Riyadh Palace Hotel, where they will have a chance to rest and freshen up in preparation for this evening’s planned gala festivities at the Royal Palace.

"It is our fervent hope", conductor Ali Muhammed opined in a short interview granted to Al-Jazerra TV upon his arrival at the luxurious and heavily-guarded Palace Hotel, "that through this universal language of music, we can bring our message of love and peace to this troubled region, and eventually perhaps to the rest of the world."

Born in the summer of 2005 from an informal conversation over tea and cakes between Maestro Ali Muhammed and the Saudi Minister of Culture, Prince Ibn al Faisal, this bold and innovative concept of an all-Arab Islamic symphony orchestra went from casual idea to full-fledged reality in just a little over one year. A dream fulfilled, the world-class MSO now boasts a full compliment of seventy-two accomplished musicians and almost two-dozen support staff.

In December 2006, plans were drawn up for the nascent orchestra's ambitious Middle Eastern Regional Premier Tour. Encompassing seven cities in six separate countries, the MSO's First Season inaugural began on March 15, 2007, with their debut performance at the glittering Prince Ali Palace in the ancient Saudi coastal city of Jeddah. Over the next nine months, the MSO would perform a continuing series of concerts to sell-out crowds in Cairo, Gaza City, Mogadishu, Kuwait City and Baghdad, finally wrapping up their wildly successful First Season sojourn with an extraordinary command performance for Syria's youthful and enthusiastic President Dr. Bashar al-Assad and family at the beautiful and historic Azem Palace in the capital city of Damascus.

Restricted by Shari'a law to an all-Islamic venue, the MSO's inaugural series none the less boasted an impressive array of talented Muslim composers and performers from throughout the Middle East and beyond.

To lead off Thursday evening's dazzling command performance, Maestro Ali chose that magnificent but seldom performed Muslim masterpiece, Saudi composer Mahmoud al-Kahlani's monumental Symphony in G, better known as the Saladin Symphony, written to commemorate the famous 1187 Battle of Hattin, when Saladin defeated the Christian King of Jerusalem and reclaimed the holy city for Islam.

The symphony's ominous and somber first movement, centering on a contentious dialogue between the strong sonorous strains of the string section, representing the courageous Muslim warriors, in opposition to the blaring dissonance of the Christian trombones is left intentionally unresolved. The fiery second movement, expressing the violence of the actual battle scene, overflows with the discordant sounds of an embattled orchestra; until finally this swirling maelstrom is magnificently resolved in a rousing crescendo of the final movement, culminating in the triumphant fanfare of the victorious Muslim trumpets.

Before the final note had sounded, overcome by emotion, the predominately male audience leaped to their feet and erupted in tumultuous applause, shouting fervent Encores and Bravos and Allah ak'bars, while from their separated section in the rear of the auditorium, one could hear the rapturous ululations of the women's traditional zaghareet.

Following a short interregnum, during which the audience had an opportunity to regain its composure and settle back down into their seats, the houselights gradually dimmed and an expectant hush fell over the crowd. Silently emerging from the shadows, the solitary regal burqa-clad figure of the legendary Samarra al Jihadi stepped into the spotlight at the center of the stage. At the sight of the beloved, world-renowned Iraqi Mezzo-Soprano, once again the largely Syrian male audience erupted into enthusiastic applause.

Bowing gracefully in acknowledgment of her warm reception, Madame al Jihadi patiently waited for the ovation to subside, then, with great nobility of soul, she subtly motioned to conductor Ali Muhammed, who raised his baton and proceeded to guide the waiting orchestra into those first familiar strains of Abdul Fawzi's poignant and lyrical Islam O' Islam aria from his ambitious 1979 three-act opera Muhammed Slays the Infidel.

Needless to say, Samarra al Jihadi's rich and soulful rendition of Fawzi's famous aria brought yet another riotous standing ovation from the ecstatic audience, many of whom were in tears. The acclaimed Iraqi Diva eventually received no less that twelve curtain calls that evening, before the house lights finally came back on for the Intermission.

After the thirty minute interlude, an excited and reinvigorated audience returned promptly to their seats and eagerly awaited the start the second half of the program, which promised to be even more thrilling than the first.

Finally, after what seemed like ages, once again the lights in the great Azem Palace hall dimmed; then, heralded by a sudden stirring blast of military trumpets, proudly marching in from stage left, dressed in gleaming white robes, signifying their purity, especially flown in the previous day from their humble homes in the wild tribal regions of Waziristan, the much-anticipated, world-famous Mullah Omar Madrassa Boys Choir, formed up at center stage amidst rounds of exuberant applause.

Under the able direction of their enthusiastic and accomplished music director, Sheik Hussein al Zaid, the thirty-two young immaculate Afghan boys, ranging in age from nine to fifteen years, enthusiastically began their a cappella concert with a lively and spirited interpretation of al Jizri's ever-popular folk song "Blood of the filthy Zionists", following this up with a rousing rendition of that perennial Syrian favorite "Lebanon is ours forever!" After an exhilarating twelve song recital, the Madrassa Boys Choir rounded out their wildly successful debut performance for the evening with the fiery Mujaheddin fighting anthem, "Death to the Jews! Death to the sons of apes and pigs!"

Following this evening's spectacular performance, and after a well-deserved rest, the M.O.M. boys would spend the rest of the week as honored guests of President and First Lady Assad, touring the many historic and religious sites of Damascus, before leaving Sunday morning for their long flight home.

Good job boys!

However, by far the most anticipated, and ultimately successful offering of this entire gala command performance was to be the final event of the evening: the special guest appearance of that incredibly popular singing sensation from Gaza City, Gaza Strip, that precocious 11-year-old singing host of Gaza City's most famous children's TV show, "Tomorrow's Pioneers", the vivacious and talented Saraa Barhoum, singing her latest Islamic hit, "We will meet our death with no hesitation!" As expected, the tiny but irrepressible Saraa, wearing her colorful hijab and trademark pink jeans, brought the ebullient audience to their feet. The inevitable curtain calls would have gone on throughout the long night, if little Saraa had not been whisked away by concerned security officials well before the wild applause had subsided.


All in all, one can say without doubt, that the newborn MSO can be justly proud of its unquestionably successful Inaugural Tour. Having, in the words of its eminent founder, Sheik Ali Jidad Muhammed, "through this universal language of music, brought this Saudi message of love and peace to this troubled region". And, one can only hope, "eventually perhaps to the rest of the world".

Bon voyage, our brave little MSO!
موسيقى, عقاب موسيقى, عقاب

Ron Paul Excluded from Fox Debate? Nope, NOT a debate....it is a FORUM, people should learn the difference.

[Update] Note----The DEBATE is on the 10th, the Fox "event" is a forum, not a debate so all of this has been a hyped up, trumped up lie from the beginning that has done nothing but make Paul and his supporters look very bad.

[Update] 1/1/08- Follow up on this piece can be found here.

According to an AP report, on January 6, 2008, the New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates.

It will be a 90 minute forum, airing live at 8 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and on Fox News Radio, and unlike a debate the candidates, which have been listed as Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, will be answering questions from Chris Wallace around a table in a studio on the campus of St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H.

Fox, and the New Hampshire Republican Party, has not announced why Ron Paul is not on that list from the AP report.

Ron Paul has collected massive amounts of money as shown here and here, but according to Rasmussen, that has not translated into double digit polling numbers as money sometimes does.

With just days to go before the unpredictable Iowa caucuses, it’s Rudy Giuliani 19% , Mike Huckabee 17%, Mitt Romney 14%, John McCain 14%, and Fred Thompson at 13% (see recent daily numbers). Ron Paul currently attracts 6% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide.

This leaves key questions for Fox and the New Hampshire Republican Party to answer publicly.

Did they exclude Paul?

If so, why did they exclude Ron Paul from the forum?

If it is because of his polling numbers being in the single digits despite his monetary gains from his supporters, it would, perhaps be understandable.

The Ron Paul website has issued a press release stating:

According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.

“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”

Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”

Other sites supporting Ron Paul are trying to organize efforts to protest this decision although barring any communication with the New Hampshire Republican Party and Fox, no one but the AP has listed those attending the forum.

One of the ideas being thrown around on Daily Paul is to non violently "sabotage" the forum.

NON VIOLENT sabotage of the debate: Have people planted in the audience to disrupt proceedings. If we have 10 or so supporters in the hall - they could pipe up one at a time - one every six minutes or so - right while one of the others is speaking. Imagine, while Rudy is speaking, someone from the audience piping up: "Where is Ron Paul?" There would be commotion. The supporter would likely be arrested and thrown out of the hall. The proceedings would be disrupted. And just as things settle down, and a new question is asked, someone else does the same thing. It would bring proceedings to a standstill and make the point. This would have to be coordinated before hand. Protesters would have to be PEACEFUL and NON-VIOLENT, and willing to be arrested and take all consequences.

Other posters on Daily Paul seem to have cooler heads and are making it clear that Paul's supporters reflect on the candidate.

Remember the last time Dr. Paul was excluded from an event in Iowa? We were able to turn it to our advantage. There is a way to turn this to our advantage once again - we just have to figure out how. Stay calm and keep your composure. Before you do anything, think of how Dr. Paul would respond, and of how your actions will reflect on him, the campaign and all of us.

Freedom's Phoenix says that through "unnamed Republican sources", they have found out that the New Hampshire Republican Party is not responsible for Ron Paul being excluded as they encourage people to stop calling them by stating "However, the New Hampshire GOP and its Chairman Fergus Cullen, is getting targeted by Ron Paul supporters and IT IS NOT THEIR DOING. You have crashed their servers and melted their phone lines, and they are not responsible. Please stop immediately!"

Looking through the NHGOP press releases, I see no mention of any of this and nothing on the Fox site either.

The original AP report does not list any source, named or unnamed and the only mention of this from any official site is from the Ron Paul site itself, although the internet is full of the news on blogs in support of Ron Paul, forums and other websites.

This will be updated tomorrow as more word comes out.

Perhaps by then some official word will have come out one way or another.

.

Bush Signs Extension of SCHIP into Law

Short and sweet, the President signed the extension of SCHIP into law today and despite the best efforts of the Politicians to make it a shorter extension so that it could be "used" in the 2008 elections, this bill will cover the SCHIP program until March 31, 2009.

The legislation also provides a 0.5 percent increase for Medicare doctors for six months, delaying a scheduled 10 percent pay cut.

Bush twice vetoed more ambitious earlier bills that would have expanded the children's health program to cover about 10 million children in low and moderate income families, despite bipartisan support.

Bush and Democrats have been locked in a fight over budget and spending and the president said the previous bills were too costly and would push more children into government-run health care instead of private plans.

Bush also objected to raising tobacco taxes to pay for the proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program known as SCHIP.

Democrats had hoped for a short-term extension so they could reopen the battle before the November 2008 presidential and congressional elections, but Republicans forced them to extend it through March 2009.

Amazing to me how some politicians would have rather made it a short extension, risking the low incomes childrens health insurance in upcoming battles, simply to "use" the children as a political tool in the 2008 elections.

How sick is that?

This is what politics have become.

.

Kristol's New Gig at NYT Has Heads Exploding Across The Blogosphere

I open memeorandum this morning and what do I see?

That Bill Kristol is getting a weekly column at New York Times and I have to admit, my head almost exploded also, but for very different reasons.

The heads on the left side of the blogosphere are exploding because god forbid, the extremely liberal Times is going to have another conservative voice and free speech and political viewpoints should only be free if it matches the lefts viewpoint, in their minds.

My head is ready to explode for the opposite reason.

How can Kristol lower himself like that?

Has he forgotten that the New York Times actually showed a video of an American soldier dying before his family had even been informed, or that they are constantly reporting leaked information that puts our troops lives in danger, or what about the fantastic deal they gave MoveOn.org for a full page smear ad against General Petraeus?

Need I go on?

The amusing part of this whole thing though is reading through the reactions from the other side of the blogosphere as they completely lose what little mind they had left over this.

The posts alone are bad enough, but some of the comments in the comment section show these people for exactly what they are and I will show you a few here.

A comment from getoffmeds over at Huffington post, where the story originated.

satyriasis - Kristol does not deserve a job, he deserves a prisoner number.

Reading through them, most will (maybe) cancel their subscription to NYT because Kristol will have one column a week, the antisemitism is also running rampant and one of their commenters mentions it to them as well using the term fascism regarding their rhetoric.

Next up is Vox Popoli and this was the post itself:

This is EXACTLY what the New York Times needs, a second Jewish faux conservative to provide balance to the Jewish liberal, the other Jewish liberal, the other other Jewish liberal, the black liberal and the woman liberal. Which makes me wonder, where's the Hispanic liberal and the gay liberal needed to complete the set? Instead of a credibility-challenged neocon, you'd think they could have found a gay Judeo-Hispanic liberal woman and killed five birds with one hire.

That one speaks for itself.

The American Street:

Following Newsweek’s decision to hire Karl Rove, this demonstrates clearly that the corporate media is more interested in circuses and profits than in meaningful debate.

I point that one out because of the thinking process used. In case they don't understand what business is about, it IS about making money or the paper cannot stay IN business.

An op-ed column is there to give a different point of view about the current news of that day or week, NOT debate.

That kind of backwards thinking is why people cannot separate opinion from fact and howl at the moon about the NYT decision which dares give someone a column to express their opinion if it doesn't match the opinion of those condemning this move.

Then we come to a blog called driftglass:

Because the New York Times just announced that, as far as it's concerned, being a mendacious prick is no longer a bad thing.

Being a slaughterporn whore is no longer shameful.

Apparently being a walking advertisement for every single thing that is wrong with the blood-caked, sociopathic Neocon Right is no longer even an impediment to extremely lucrative employment at the apex of the "liberal" NYT.

TBogg goes for the most tasteless, classless post of the day with this:

For some reason that can only be explained by a deeply held belief that someone somewhere is in possession of pictures of Arthur Sulzberger Jr, fucking a chicken, the New York Times has decided to give up some weekly editorial space to Bill "Completely Fucking Wrong Even When He Orders Breakfast" Kristol.

I will mention this one simply because the title proves MY title correct... that being " The post in which my head explodes"...

HEH

Just a small sample of reactions to start you off, you really should go to each of these and read the comment sections for yourself.

Quite enlightening.

.

Judicial Watch's Top Ten Most Corrupt Politicians

Hat tip to Weekly Standard which after reading it led me to the Judicial Watch's article naming the "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2007.

The list mentions Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Conyers (D-MI), Larry Craig (R-ID), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Rudy Giuliani (R-NY), Mike Huckabee (R-AR), I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, (D-IL) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Harry Reid (D-NV).

Judicial Watch is a conservative, non partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in Government, politics and law. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations and public outreach.

Overall, Judicial Watch spokespersons have made hundreds of appearances on virtually every major news network, and have participated in hundreds of interviews on radio stations nationwide. Judicial Watch investigations and legal actions have been covered in every major print publication.

Although they call themselves conservative, as you can see from the list above, they go after both Republican and Democratic politicians with equal intensity if they see corruption, to hold them accountable.

Number one on their list this year is Hillary Clinton:

In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

The portions in bold above, I am providing links to the news articles (which Judicial Watch did not provide, relating to those claims.

Ethics Complaint about financial disclosures:

According to the Washington Post, Hillary and Bill Clinton both run the family charity since 2001 and she has failed to report it in her Senate financial disclosures on five occasions.

The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact.

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

Clinton's spokesman claims the failure to list this was an "oversight".

Norman Hsu:

Mr. Hsu was one of the top Clinton "bundlers" (gathers contributions and sends them to the campaign).

In late August, Norman Hsu came to everyones attention in connection with the Paw family, who donated $45,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign, where reporters dug up the fact that their residence was also used by Norman Hsu as a home address, according to public records.

From there reports came in showing that Norman Hsu was a fugitive from the law for 15 yrs, which prompted politicians to start returning his contributions in an attempt to distance themselves from him.

On December 4, 2007 it was reported that Norman Hsu was indicted from a federal grand jury for cheating investors out of $20 million in a ponzi scheme as well as violating campaign finance laws.

You can read his full indictment here.

Next on Judicial Watch's list is John Conyers:

Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll. While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

In 2004 complaints were filed against Conyers which caused an informal investigation which suddenly stopped and was reopened in 2006, for the reasons listed above, but the Ethics Committe closed the investigation, simply making him agree to "clarify work rules with his staff to ensure his office complies with ethics regulations."

Third on Judicial Watch's list is Larry Craig:

In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer. Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'” When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?” The power play didn’t work. Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea. Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

At the end of August, reports hit the news of Larry Craig pleading guilty to disorderly conduct, which resulted in him resigning from Mitt Romney's campaign, announcing his own resignation, then changing his mind, because of an arrest for allegedly making sexual advances in a mens room at a Minneapolis airport.

Sgt. Dave Karsnia stated in the police report "At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area."

The Idaho Statesman wrote an article with the results of a five month investigation, which can be found here.

Fox has also provided the PDF of the full police report on Craig's arrest.

Fourth on Judicial Watch's list is Dianne Feinstein:

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.

The San Francisco Chronicle did an in depth article into this situation, in 2003, discussing how Feinstein's spouse, Blum, did benefit from military related contracts.

In January of 2007, MetroActive weighed in with some more relevant information about Feinstein, Blum and her position on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee where she was voting for contracts that benefited her husbands companies.

As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

She lobbied Pentagon officials in public hearings to support defense projects that she favored, some of which already were or subsequently became URS or Perini contracts. From 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by MILCON; Perini earned $759 million from such MILCON projects.

That appears to be a serious conflict of interest and in March of 2007, after MetroActive's exposé, Dianne Feinstein resigned as chair of a powerful military construction committee after reports that for years she abused her position to award her husband's companies billions of dollars in government contracts.

Number 5 on Judicial Watch's top ten list is Rudy Giuliani:

Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

Billing obscure agencies:

In November of 2007 reports came to light that Rudy Giuliani had previously billed "obscure" agencies tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses while starting his affair with Judith Nathan, via The Politico and Boston.com.

Under New York's Freedom of Information Law, The Politico was able to obtain documents showing "that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants."

The Politico had also obtained American Express bills, and a letter written by City Comptroller William Thompson wrote of the expenses from fiscal year 2000, which covers parts of 1999 and 2000.

Police Vehicle provided to Judith Nathan:

ABC's The Blotter first reported that Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan and that she used the Police Department as her "personal taxi service".

Giuliani did not answer questions asked of him by the Daily News about that.

Bernard Kerik corruption charges:

November 10, 2007, Washington Post reported that Bernard Kerik was indicted on corruption charges which he plead not guilty to.

Here is the PDF for Kerik's indictment.

Number six on Judicial Watch's top ten corrupt politicians is Mike Huckabee:

Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

Some of those ethics complaints were highlighted by many media organizations, one of which was MSNBC and another The Politico.

The ethics commission fined Huckabee $1,000 for failing to report that he paid himself $14,000 from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign and $43,000 from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign.

Huckabee also failed to disclose $23,500 he received from a nonprofit organization set up to handle his speaking engagements.

According to Huckabee’s disclosure reports, he accepted more than 300 gifts worth at least $130,000, ranging from $3,700 cowboy boots to a $600 chainsaw and $250 worth of dental care.

Those are just a small sample of some of the ethics complaints listed against Huckabee.

Other complaints involve Action America, more undisclosed gifts, his Governors Mansion, his wedding registry, and computer drivers.

Number seven on the Judicial Watch's list was Scooter Libby and considering the news influx that surrounded his trial, I think that one is self explanatory.

Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. Libby was found guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice – all serious crimes. Unfortunately, Libby was largely let off the hook. In an appalling lack of judgment, President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to Libby and commuted the sentence.

Number eight on Judicial Watch's corrupt politicians list is Barack Obama:

In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

Antoin Rezko:

According to the New York Times, Antoin Rezko's company was one of the first campaign donors to Barack Obama as well as holding fund-raisers and rallying support for Obama.

After Rezko was indicted on federal charges of business fraud and influence peddling involving the administration of Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois,Barack Obama has given over $21,000 to charity from Rezko's donations from Rezko associates. He also gave away $11,500 from Mr. Rezko himself last fall.

Also reported by the New York Times:

Records show that when Mr. Obama needed cash in the waning days of his losing 2000 Congressional campaign, Mr. Rezko rounded up thousands of dollars from business contacts. In 2003, Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama expand his fund-raising for the Senate primary by being host of a dinner at his Mediterranean-style home for 150 people, including some whose names have since come up in the influence scandal.

And when Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a house in 2005, Mr. Rezko stepped in again. Even though his finances were deteriorating, Mr. Rezko arranged for his wife to buy an adjacent lot, and she later sold the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land that expanded their yard.

The land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation. That awkward fact prompted Mr. Obama, who has cast himself as largely free from the normal influences of politics, to express regret over what he called his own bad judgment.

$50,000 worth of stock:

In another New York Times article it was reported that Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

He also bought $50,000 woth of stock in a satellite communications business whose backers include four friends and donors of Obama's and they had raised over $150,000 for his political committees.

Obama's spokesperson claims that his broker had purchased the stocks without consulting Obama.

Number nine of Judicial Watch's list is Nancy Pelosi:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.

Everyone remembers Nancy Pelosi's "drain the swamp" comment when she promised to end corruption in Washington, so lets move to the $25 million gift to her husband, which was reported, in May, from the National Ledger and other media sources.

The earmark Pelosi inserted and voted for was a project involving "renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi’s home base of San Francisco. Paul Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi’s earmark."

Last but not least we come to the last name on the Judicial Watch's list, Harry Reid.

Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.” Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

Nevada land deal:

The Associated Press broke this story back in back in 2006 with extensive research into the Nevada Land deal that brought Reid $1.1 million dollars, where he did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The whole AP story can be found at Breitbart.

Judicial Watch doesn't even get into the Reid/Abramoff connection and when dealing with corruption and politicians, that is one area which there is enough documentation that it should have been included but perhaps wasn't because investigations are still ongoing.

.

Bumped & UPDATED with Reactions:Benazir Bhutto Reported Dead

[Updates below] Reactions & Al-Qaeda tries to take credit for Bhutto's death.

NYT, SkyNews, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and Washington Post are all reporting that Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated and a deadly suicide bombing attack that has killed at least 20 people.

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, a party aide and a military official said.

"At 6:16 p.m. she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital where she was taken after the attack.

Evidently she was shot in the neck and chest and as she was getting in a car to leave the rally, the initial reports are claiming. Her husband later told media she was in surgery.

Pakistan is already in a state of emergency declared by Musharaff earlier in the year and there had already been an assassination attempts on Bhutto at a rally in October and again yesterday, police stopped a would-be bomber with explosives around his neck.. There is also speculation that this assassination might postpone the parliamentary elections scheduled for January.

According to ABC, early reports were that Bhutto was safe, but reports have now come out that she is dead.

The Washington Post is reporting that at a different rally, a sniper opened fire on supporters of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, leaving four dead and five injured.

MSNBC reports that Musharaff had forced Bhutto to cancel a previous rally, citing security fears and that security at this rally was tight, "hundreds of riot police manning security checkpoints with metal detectors around what was Bhutto's first campaign rally since returning from exile two months ago."

Not tight enough obviously.

The New York Times give a bit of history regarding Benazir Bhutto:

Ms. Bhutto, 54, returned to Pakistan to present herself as the answer to the nation’s troubles: a tribune of democracy in a state that has been under military rule for eight years, and the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party, founded by her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, one of Pakistan’s most flamboyant and democratically inclined prime ministers.

But her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return -- one moment standing up to General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions -- has stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis.

A graduate of Harvard and Oxford, she brought the backing of Washington and London, where she impresses with her political lineage, her considerable charm and her persona as a female Muslim leader.

But with these accomplishments, Ms. Bhutto also brought controversy, and a legacy among Pakistanis as a polarizing figure who during her two turbulent tenures as prime minister, first from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996, often acted imperiously and impulsively.

She faced deep questions about her personal probity in public office, which led to corruption cases against her in Switzerland, Spain and Britain, as well as in Pakistan.

Daily Mail has pictures of Bhutto right before the attack and many photos of the carnage afterwards.

This will do nothing to stabilize Pakistan and will, in fact, destabilize it further as accusations fly and fingers start pointing.

The Pakistan Spectator is reporting clashes between police and supporters:

In Rawalpindi, right in front of Rawalpindi General Hospital where Late Benazir Bhutto died and her dead body is present right now, workers of People's Party are sitting and weeping loudly. In other areas of Rawalpindi like Faizabad, Saddar and Murree Road, angry crowd is burning shops and vehicles and shouting slogans against the terorists.

On Dusht Road, Peshawar, angry crowd has blocked the main road.

All the roads leading to capital Islamabad have been barricaded and blocked and there are reports of collision of police with protesters.

More photos can be found at Getty Images.

Pakistan is a nuclear power which makes this type of instability a very dangerous situation for the international community as a whole. This also could spark a complete civil war in Pakistan.

Photos of the streets on television news shows protests, rioting and they are saying Bush has been informed and more than 40 other people are being reported as injured.

These are just initial numbers from multiple reports and I will update as more news comes out.

[Update]

Reactions from Presidential Candidates:

Guiliani:

"assassination of Benazir Bhutto underscores a need for the U.S. to increase its efforts to combat terrorism."

"Her murderers must be brought to justice, and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. "Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere _ whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi _ is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the terrorists' war on us."

Huckabee from his website:

“I am deeply troubled by the news accounts this morning of Pakistani opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in a suicide attack. This is devastating news for the people of Pakistan, and my prayers go out to them as we follow developments regarding this dire situation.

”The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan’s upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution. On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government.”

McCain email release:

"I was deeply saddened today to learn about the death of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto."

"My deepest condolences go out to the family and supporters of this remarkable woman, an individual who paid the ultimate price for her embrace of moderation and rejection of extremism.

"The death of Benazir Bhutto underscores yet again the grave dangers we face in the world today and particularly in countries like Pakistan, where the forces of moderation are arrayed in a fierce battle against those who embrace violent Islamic extremism.

"Given Pakistan's strategic location, the international terrorist groups that operate from its soil, and its nuclear arsenal, the future of that country has deep implications for the security of the United States and its allies. America must stand on the right side of this ongoing struggle.

"In my numerous visits to Pakistan -- to Islamabad, to Peshawar, even to the tribal areas of Waziristan -- I have seen first hand the many challenges that face the political leadership there, challenges so graphically portrayed by today's tragedy. There are, in Pakistan, brave individuals who seek to lead their country away from extremism and instability and into the light of a better day. America, I believe, must do all we can to support them."

Romney email release:

"We are still learning the details of today's tragic events in Pakistan, but this is a stark reminder that America must not only stay on high alert, but remain actively engaged across the globe."

"Pakistan has long been a key part in the war against extremism and radical jihadists. For those who think Iraq is the sole front in the war on terror, one must look no further than what has happened today. America must show its commitment to stand with all moderate forces across the Islamic world and together face the defining challenge of our generation –- the struggle against violent, radical jihadists.

"At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers go to the family of Benazir Bhutto, and to all the people of Pakistan who are fighting against extremist forces that would commit such heinous acts as the whole world has witnessed today."

From the White House Website, President Bush's reaction:

Laura and I extend our deepest condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto, to her friends, to her supporters. We send our condolences to the families of the others who were killed in today's violence. And we send our condolences to all the people of Pakistan on this tragic occasion.

The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy. Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice. Mrs. Bhutto served her nation twice as Prime Minister and she knew that her return to Pakistan earlier this year put her life at risk. Yet she refused to allow assassins to dictate the course of her country.

We stand with the people of Pakistan in their struggle against the forces of terror and extremism. We urge them to honor Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life.

One has to wonder what this type of tragedy will mean for our own primaries and caucuses coming up, because it does highlight the need for strength on National Security.

[Update #2] Hat tip to Hot Air for pointing us toward this article reporting that al-Qaeda is tying to lay claim to Bhutto's murder.

A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.

[Update] Fred Thompson's reaction:



Via Fred File:

Fred spoke about Benazir Bhutto’s assassination on Fox News today:

HARRIS FAULKNER: Senator, your reaction, first, to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

FRED THOMPSON: It is a tragedy, of course. It reminds us that things can happen in faraway places of the world that can affect the United States. I think this should be of great concern to us. It is almost a perfect storm in a very bad sense because two forces are operating against each other that are both desirable. One is democracy: they were making progress in that regard in that country. Former prime minister Bhutto was an important part of that process. But the other is stability. Pakistan is a nuclear country, and we cannot afford to let nukes fall into the hands of dangerous Muslim radicals. We are hoping those two things can be balanced out. We can see the continued progress toward a democratic society but also maintain stability in the country, which seems to be very much in doubt right now.

FAULKNER: I know you are running for the White House, so I don’t want to put you in a position to second guess the president. But I’m interested in your opinion. President Bush is due to talk with Pervez Musharraf shortly. What do you anticipate that conversation should be like?

THOMPSON: Those two things that I mention probably would be high on the agenda. What could be done to not impose martial law, to not crack down, but be mindful of the fact that there are radical elements in that country, and perhaps even within the government, that would like to see instability and chaos and see those weapons fall into the wrong hands. This is part of a bigger problem. We need to understand that this is not a criminal investigation any more - so we find the bad guys and bring them to justice - it’s a war.

This proves again the mindset of the radical elements that we are dealing with. We are seeing this all across Northern Africa and various places. We’re seeing it across the Middle East and in parts of Asia including Indonesia and other places. We have to come to terms with that and do the things necessary to prevail. One of the things we need to be talking about is what Musharraf can do, additionally, to crack down on the Taliban. I think they have been insufficient in that respect.

FAULKNER: Taliban also supporters of al Qaeda in that country. Pakistan has been an important ally in the war on terror, so have do you walk that line?

THOMPSON: You just walk it. No one said it has been easy and simple. Pakistan has never been easy or simple. I had a chance a few years ago to talk to Musharraf before things got quite as complex as they are now. But it has always been an important part of the world. They’re next door to India. They’ve had a crisis after crisis with regard to them. They’re next door to Afghanistan, and they’re important to us. They’ve been helpful to us. But we’ re going to have to walk that line between democracy on the one hand and stability on the other. But I think it’s possible.

Needless to say there is a firestorm of buzz on the blogs which you can go through over at memeorandum.

Other news reports from Fox, Wapo and commentary from The Politico, Captain's Quarters, and National Review, just name a small fraction of links.


[UPDATE]

Killed Bhutto's body flown home

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) -- The body of Pakistan's assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was being flown home Friday, as sporadic violence was reported in cities across the country.

Bhutto was killed Thursday leaving an election rally in Rawalpindi. The Interior Ministry said she died from a gun shot wound to the neck, fired by an attacker who then detonated a bomb killing 22 other people.

Angry mobs took to the streets, blocking roads, torching cars and pelting rocks at police, local television footage showed.

Police fired on a crowd, killing two people, in the city of Khairpur in the Sindh province, GEO TV reported. In Peshawar, officers used tear gas and batons to break up a demonstration, the station said.

Authorities called for calm and police asked residents to stay inside.

Many obliged, shuttering shops or rushing home from work, and surrendering the streets to protesters who set fire to banks, shops, gas stations and more, Pakistani media reported.

It's all mayhem everywhere," Shehryar Ahmad, an investment banker in Karachi, told CNN by telephone. "There's absolutely no order of any kind. No army on the streets. No curfew."

Center For Media and Public Affairs Finds Fox News Most Balanced

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Election Study finds Hillary Clinton hit the hardest in the media. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabeee fare the best and Fox News Channel provides the most balance.... they even clarify that with (Not a Typo).

TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), formed in 1985, is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media. CMPA election studies have played a major role in the ongoing debate over improving the election process.

Founded by Drs. Robert and Linda Lichter, CMPA has become an acknowledged source of expertise in media analysis.

The PDF of the complete press release is here.

These results are from CMPA's 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of all 481 election news stories. (15 hrs, 40 minutes of airtime) that aired on flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox (the first 30 minutes of "Special Report with Brit Hume") from October 1 through December 15, 2007.

The report shows that evaluations of Hillary Clinton were nearly 3 to 2 negative (48% positive and 52% negative).

It also shows that reports on Barack Obama were better than 3 to 2 positive (61% positive and 39% negative).

Clinton was also evaluated more than all the Democratic opponents combined.

Four of the ten most heavily covered candidate related issues concerned Clinton, with #1, 47 stories covering her campaign strategy and tactics, #7 with 18 stories covering her electability, #8, 14 stories about her flip flopping, and #9, 12 stories on her honesty/integrity.

On the GOP side, Huckabee fared the best with 50% to 50% positive and negative and Fred Thompson at 44% positive comments.

Then they have the question of who was more fair and balanced?

Fox News Channel's coverage was more balanced towards both parties that the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split evenly- 51% positive vs 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates- 49% positive vs 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative- 40% positive vs 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive and 59% negative.

There have been many public opinion polls conducted by reliable polling groups, Rasmussen has done a few that all show that the public is critical of news organizations and find them to be liberally biased, MSNBC took it a step farther and compiled a list of 143 journalists and who they contributed to in political campaigns, Zogby in March of 2007, showed that the vast majority of Americans feel media bias is alive and well.

The polls go on and on showing what the public believes.

Harvard has also done a study on the "tone" of media coverage and found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The debate rages on and FOX is accused of not being fair and balanced but this latest study puts that myth to bed because even Fox News has managed, by 2%, to report more positives stories on Democrats than they do Republicans.

.

BlogBurst for Fred Thompson: Updated, The Ottumwa Endorses Fred

New Thompson Ad found at YouTube and shown below:

[Update] The Ottumwa has endorsed Fred Thompson:

Fred Thompson is the unlikely candidate. Perfectly content with his status as a former senator and Hollywood actor, Thompson says he happy in his private life.

But despite the pitfalls of the rough and tumble world of politics, the Republican says Washington, D.C. needs a “consistent” conservative to lead the United States into a new direction.

Thompson is unapologetic on his views and is a straight-shooter.

“These are clearly challenging times. I don’t think we’ve fully come to terms with the kind of world we live in,” he told members of the Courier editorial board recently.

Indeed, Thompson believes work must continue in Iraq despite growing concerns American troops should return home.

We have to “finish what we’re doing,” he said, adding the United States must continue the fight there and in Afghanistan.

Thompson said the United States can no longer ignore the instability in Afghanistan and in nearby Pakistan because of issues ranging from the Taliban to the country’s economic dependence on the opium trade.

When it comes to domestic issues, Thompson again admits there are no simple answers.

On energy concerns, he believes in “a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.”

He also seeks “an energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.”

But the answers are not readily available.

“Oil independence, in the near future, is not to be had,” Thompson concedes, adding he thinks Americans are “willing to trade some discomfort to get some honesty.”

On economic issues, Thompson is blunt. The time is now to reform the American economy.

He says the country needs “market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes.”

Thompson said “it is a moral imperative that requires action now” and he wants a full account of the government’s fiscal books for “all to see and understand.”

[End Update]



Via an email from Stop the ACLU, I see Rick Moran over at Right Wing Nut House has started a blogburst for Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson is about the only candidate that doesn't appear "desperate" to win. Many call it laziness, I see it as someone that wants to do the job, but that lack of desperation is very appealing to me as I watch everyone else going for each others throats while Thompson simply plugs away stating his positions clearly, standing on principle and his values are in tune with conservatives.

Fred Thompson, in my opinion, would make a wonderful president.

With that said.......

Word is that approximately 300 bloggers have already joined in, so, we might as well make it 301.

Dear Friends,

I am writing to ask for your help.

All of us know the long odds faced by Fred Thompson in his efforts to win the GOP nomination for president. I’m sure you are all aware that Fred has undertaken pretty much of a do or die bus tour of Iowa in order to finish strongly in the Caucuses on January 3.

Many of you have already taken steps to support the Thompson campaign in a tangible way by placing fundraising widgets on your sidebar and writing about the campaign. In this way, each of us alone has done whatever we can to support Fred in his efforts.

But at this, the 11th hour of the campaign in Iowa, I think it would be a very effective fundraising tool if as many of us as possible were to participate in an old-fashioned Blogburst, writing a post asking readers to donate to the campaign while embedding a fundraising widget in the post for convenience.

I propose Thursday, December 27 for the Blogburst. If you have an email list, I would urge you to ask your subscribers to donate. If you know of other bloggers who support Fred, please forward this email and ask them to participate as well.

Not expecting a “money bomb” but even a few tens of thousands of dollars would help, I’m sure. Given the number of readers represented in the blogs listed here (where I got all of your email addresses) and your cooperation, I feel confident we can give a real shot in the arm to the campaign.

I don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.

No need to respond to this email. Just do it.

Merry Christmas,

Rick Moran
Right Wing Nuthouse

If you are a blogger who supports Fred, please participate in this Blogburst. If you know of a blogger who supports Fred, I urge you to contact them and ask them to participate.

For me, it comes down to this. If Fred isn’t nominated, I doubt very much that I will show up at the polls next November. Not to punish the party but simply because there is no one in the race who would be representing my views or who I could in good conscience, support for president.

This is why despite his long shot status, every effort must be made to help Fred Thompson continue the campaign by contributing to his efforts in Iowa. I’m going to give on Thursday and I hope you do too.

From Moran's post today:

To be brutally frank in appraising the situation realistically, Fred Thompson’s chances of winning the nomination are not good. I will not attempt to snow you, gentle readers, with the idea that the Thompson campaign is anything but a hope and a prayer at this point. But where there is a will to fight, so there is a will to win. It doesn’t matter how many pundits, pollsters, and assorted “experts” have written off Fred Thompson. What matters is that there is still a chance, still life in the campaign, and still a belief that the race can be won. Your support is absolutely crucial to propel the campaign forward, to build on the momentum generated by Thompson’s bus tour through Iowa by giving as much as you possibly can.

The campaign has set a goal of raising $248,000 by sundown on Friday so that they can run a new ad in Iowa. This ad could make the difference and allow Thompson to make a surprise showing in the Iowa Caucuses a week from tomorrow. Exceeding expectations is the game now and this media buy could very well put Fred in a very strong position coming out of Iowa.

So climb aboard and grab an oar. Join the Marbleheaders for Fred and contribute as much as you possibly can to make this Blogburst a big success. Use the widget below or go directly to the contributions page here.

Marbleheaders huh?

Oh well, I have been called worse...lol

Donate if you can, if you cannot, then pass this along on your blog, email your friends and lets see what we can do to help Fred.


.

Benazir Bhutto Reported Dead: UPDATED with Reactions

[Updates below] Reactions & Al-Qaeda tries to take credit for Bhutto's death.

NYT, SkyNews, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and Washington Post are all reporting that Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated and a deadly suicide bombing attack that has killed at least 20 people.

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, a party aide and a military official said.

"At 6:16 p.m. she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital where she was taken after the attack.

Evidently she was shot in the neck and chest and as she was getting in a car to leave the rally, the initial reports are claiming. Her husband later told media she was in surgery.

Pakistan is already in a state of emergency declared by Musharaff earlier in the year and there had already been an assassination attempts on Bhutto at a rally in October and again yesterday, police stopped a would-be bomber with explosives around his neck.. There is also speculation that this assassination might postpone the parliamentary elections scheduled for January.

According to ABC, early reports were that Bhutto was safe, but reports have now come out that she is dead.

The Washington Post is reporting that at a different rally, a sniper opened fire on supporters of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, leaving four dead and five injured.

MSNBC reports that Musharaff had forced Bhutto to cancel a previous rally, citing security fears and that security at this rally was tight, "hundreds of riot police manning security checkpoints with metal detectors around what was Bhutto's first campaign rally since returning from exile two months ago."

Not tight enough obviously.

The New York Times give a bit of history regarding Benazir Bhutto:

Ms. Bhutto, 54, returned to Pakistan to present herself as the answer to the nation’s troubles: a tribune of democracy in a state that has been under military rule for eight years, and the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party, founded by her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, one of Pakistan’s most flamboyant and democratically inclined prime ministers.

But her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return -- one moment standing up to General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions -- has stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis.

A graduate of Harvard and Oxford, she brought the backing of Washington and London, where she impresses with her political lineage, her considerable charm and her persona as a female Muslim leader.

But with these accomplishments, Ms. Bhutto also brought controversy, and a legacy among Pakistanis as a polarizing figure who during her two turbulent tenures as prime minister, first from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996, often acted imperiously and impulsively.

She faced deep questions about her personal probity in public office, which led to corruption cases against her in Switzerland, Spain and Britain, as well as in Pakistan.

Daily Mail has pictures of Bhutto right before the attack and many photos of the carnage afterwards.

This will do nothing to stabilize Pakistan and will, in fact, destabilize it further as accusations fly and fingers start pointing.

The Pakistan Spectator is reporting clashes between police and supporters:

In Rawalpindi, right in front of Rawalpindi General Hospital where Late Benazir Bhutto died and her dead body is present right now, workers of People's Party are sitting and weeping loudly. In other areas of Rawalpindi like Faizabad, Saddar and Murree Road, angry crowd is burning shops and vehicles and shouting slogans against the terorists.

On Dusht Road, Peshawar, angry crowd has blocked the main road.

All the roads leading to capital Islamabad have been barricaded and blocked and there are reports of collision of police with protesters.

More photos can be found at Getty Images.

Pakistan is a nuclear power which makes this type of instability a very dangerous situation for the international community as a whole. This also could spark a complete civil war in Pakistan.

Photos of the streets on television news shows protests, rioting and they are saying Bush has been informed and more than 40 other people are being reported as injured.

These are just initial numbers from multiple reports and I will update as more news comes out.

[Update]

Reactions from Presidential Candidates:

Guiliani:

"assassination of Benazir Bhutto underscores a need for the U.S. to increase its efforts to combat terrorism."

"Her murderers must be brought to justice, and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. "Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere _ whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi _ is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the terrorists' war on us."

Huckabee from his website:

“I am deeply troubled by the news accounts this morning of Pakistani opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in a suicide attack. This is devastating news for the people of Pakistan, and my prayers go out to them as we follow developments regarding this dire situation.

”The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan’s upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution. On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government.”

McCain email release:

"I was deeply saddened today to learn about the death of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto."

"My deepest condolences go out to the family and supporters of this remarkable woman, an individual who paid the ultimate price for her embrace of moderation and rejection of extremism.

"The death of Benazir Bhutto underscores yet again the grave dangers we face in the world today and particularly in countries like Pakistan, where the forces of moderation are arrayed in a fierce battle against those who embrace violent Islamic extremism.

"Given Pakistan's strategic location, the international terrorist groups that operate from its soil, and its nuclear arsenal, the future of that country has deep implications for the security of the United States and its allies. America must stand on the right side of this ongoing struggle.

"In my numerous visits to Pakistan -- to Islamabad, to Peshawar, even to the tribal areas of Waziristan -- I have seen first hand the many challenges that face the political leadership there, challenges so graphically portrayed by today's tragedy. There are, in Pakistan, brave individuals who seek to lead their country away from extremism and instability and into the light of a better day. America, I believe, must do all we can to support them."

Romney email release:

"We are still learning the details of today's tragic events in Pakistan, but this is a stark reminder that America must not only stay on high alert, but remain actively engaged across the globe."

"Pakistan has long been a key part in the war against extremism and radical jihadists. For those who think Iraq is the sole front in the war on terror, one must look no further than what has happened today. America must show its commitment to stand with all moderate forces across the Islamic world and together face the defining challenge of our generation –- the struggle against violent, radical jihadists.

"At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers go to the family of Benazir Bhutto, and to all the people of Pakistan who are fighting against extremist forces that would commit such heinous acts as the whole world has witnessed today."

From the White House Website, President Bush's reaction:

Laura and I extend our deepest condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto, to her friends, to her supporters. We send our condolences to the families of the others who were killed in today's violence. And we send our condolences to all the people of Pakistan on this tragic occasion.

The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy. Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice. Mrs. Bhutto served her nation twice as Prime Minister and she knew that her return to Pakistan earlier this year put her life at risk. Yet she refused to allow assassins to dictate the course of her country.

We stand with the people of Pakistan in their struggle against the forces of terror and extremism. We urge them to honor Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life.

One has to wonder what this type of tragedy will mean for our own primaries and caucuses coming up, because it does highlight the need for strength on National Security.

[Update #2] Hat tip to Hot Air for pointing us toward this article reporting that al-Qaeda is tying to lay claim to Bhutto's murder.

A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.

Updated with Thompson's reaction and bumped here.



.

Death On Christmas Eve

At a time when families are having parties, preparing to cook big meals the next day for Christmas, singing carols and opening gifts, or simply wrapping last minute gifts to be opened the next day, one family wasn't doing any of things because all six of them, two children, ages approximately 3 and 6, a man and woman in their 30's and a man and woman in their 50's or 60's, believed to be three generations of one family, were murdered on Christmas Eve, in a home in a rural part of King County, Carnation, Seattle.

Michele Anderson, and Joseph McEnroe have been arrested for the death of Michele's family, and the homicides are being investigated, autopsies will officially determine the cause of death but the bodies all had gunshots which are believed to be the cause.

911 says a call came into them early evening on Christmas Eve but when the police arrived they were stopped at a locked gate.

New York Times reports that the local news media spoke with neighbors that said the property owner worked for Boeing and his wife was a postal worker and investigators showed up after a colleague of the wife stopped by on Wednesday, saw the bodies and called the police.

According to public records, the property was owned by Wayne Anderson, 60, and Judy Anderson, 61.

Quick update: The Seattle Times is reporting that a financial dispute might be connected to these murders and that the victims, besides the suspects parents were her brother and his wife and their two children, who were visiting from Black Diamond

The suspects were living in a mobile home adjacent to Anderson's parents' house.

People who knew the family said Judy and Wayne Anderson had lived in the home since the early 1980s and later purchased the adjacent property, where the mobile home is located. A family friend said the couple had three adult children, including the suspect Michele Anderson — who recently moved into the mobile home with McEnroe — and Scott Anderson. Another daughter, Mary, lives in North Bend.

Family friend Mark Bennett, 58, talked to the Andersons on Christmas Eve and made plans to get together the following day. But when Bennett called on Christmas Day, his call went to voice mail. He told reporters he went to the property Wednesday morning after seeing the home on television news.

"I didn't want to believe what I heard and saw," he said, "so I drove over."

Carnation is a little town with a population of just under 2,000 people about 25 miles east of Seattle and the residents and as Nikki Larson, manager of a local pub and grill states "Everybody is in a state of shock".

.

Bush Most Admired Man, Clinton Most Admired Woman in 2007

On the one hand, it says a lot about how many people actually hate George W. Bush. We have discussed in detail the phenomenon known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised at Hillary Clinton's showing in this year's survey.

Hillary Edges Out Oprah as Most Admired Woman in ‘07
George W. Bush most admired man

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- For the sixth year in a row, President George W. Bush is the most admired man and Sen. Hillary Clinton the most admired woman in Gallup's annual survey. But neither winner had a very decisive win this year, with former President Bill Clinton nearly tying Bush and Hillary Clinton barely topping talk-show host Oprah Winfrey. This is the seventh time Bush has been most admired man and the 12th time Clinton has been most admired woman.

These results are based on the Dec. 14-16 USA Today/Gallup poll, which asked Americans, without prompting, to say what man and woman "living today in any part of the world, do [they] admire most?" Gallup has asked the most admired man and woman questions in this format in all but two years since 1948.

Now, honestly, Oprah I can understand. I can't necessarily say that I agree with a great many of Oprah's views, but she's a likable lady, from all indications and from what I know from hearing things about her from people who know her. "Likable," however, isn't really something that comes readily to the lips when describing Hillary Clinton.

With 16% of total mentions for most admired woman, Winfrey had her strongest showing to date in the current poll. But Clinton also had a stronger-than-usual score in 2007 -- the 18% who mention the former first lady is the highest since 2000 (19%). Clinton's best performance was in 1998, when 28% said they most admired her, just as her husband was being impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in the Monica Lewinsky matter.

Winfrey has now finished second on the most admired woman list every year since 1997 with the exception of 2001, when she was third (to Laura Bush and Clinton). During that time, she has come within two percentage points of Clinton for the top spot on one other occasion (2004) and within one point on two occasions (2002 and 2005).

After Clinton and Winfrey, the remainder of the top 10 most admired women are Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (5%), actress and humanitarian Angelina Jolie (3%), first lady Laura Bush (3%), former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (2%), former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (2%), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, author Maya Angelou, and Queen Elizabeth II (all at 1%).

Eight of the top 10 women this year also made the list last year. Bhutto, who recently returned to Pakistan after several years in exile, finished in the top 10 for the first time, and Queen Elizabeth returned to the top 10 for the first time since 2004.

Simply fascinating. My most obvious question is "why?" What has Hillary Clinton done that has earned such admiration?

Absolutely amazing.

Once and Always, an (extremely bewildered) American Fighting Man



.

Nancy Boyda: The buds of a political solution are starting to form.”

One of my favorite things about memeorandum is seeing what I like to call "Dueling Headlines", where one headline shows an op-ed from someone trying to portray their wishes as fact, side by side with actual news making mincemeat of the first op-ed.

Quite amusing.

The op-ed is from leftist Juan Cole who lists what he calls the top ten myths about Iraq, which Dr. Sanity goes through one by one showing Cole for the liar he is and providing the actual news links to back up those facts.

Cole's myth #9 is what caught my eye with the dueling headline theme:

9. Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.

Right under that we see this headline from Reuters, " Iraqi cabinet approves draft general pardon law".

"The cabinet has passed the general pardon law, which will define who is eligible to be freed from all prisons, both Iraqi and American," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters.

As Ed Morrisey points out, last year Congress "demanded a determination of prisoner status as a benchmark of political reconciliation."

Another little tidbit that hasn't been widely reported is that according to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who spent Christmas with the troops, on a conference call with the media which Ed Morrisey participated in:

the National Assembly passed a pension bill, a critical step in reconciliation. That did not get much mention in the American media, but the Sunnis now have government pensions denied them after the fall of Saddam, which should alleviate much of the hostility.

Then Cole goes on to try to beat the civil war drum, which he seems to be the only person left that still thinks Iraq is in the midst of a civil war.

The Iraqi's, Sunni and Shiite, are pushing to have the Baghdad bridge reopened.

Araji said his office had contacted influential Sunni religious leader Sheikh Abdul Ghafur al-Samarai during the current Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, adding the reopening of the bridge would be highly "symbolic".

The bridge which spans the Tigris River was closed in February 2005, even before the stampede disaster, after tensions between Iraq's two main Muslim and became a symbol of the divisions within the country.

"Kadhimiyah represents the Shiites of Baghdad and Adhimiyah represents the Sunnis. We must reopen the bridge. It is the people who want it. There is a will from both sides to reopen the bridge," said Araji.

Muslim clerics, Shiite and Sunni are also showing the spirit of unity with the Iraqi Christians, as shown by Breitbart, where they all joined together at church for Christmas.

Muslim clerics—both Sunni and Shiite—also attended the service in a sign of unity.

"May Iraq be safe every year, and may our Christian brothers be safe every year," Shiite cleric Hadi al-Jazail told AP Television News outside the church. "We came to celebrate with them and to reassure them."

Further showing how "uninformed" Cole's civil war facts are is the reports of Sunni's and Shiite's fighting side by side together to protect their streets as well as Sunni's moving back into Shiite neighborhoods and being guaranteed safety by the Shiite's and vice versa.

Not so long ago Sunni and Shia gunmen were fighting for control of the suburb, near the road to Baghdad's airport. As a result, the once religiously mixed housing projects that lie either side of al-Amil's main street soon separated into Shia or Sunni enclaves.

But Muhammad, a Sunni Arab, and his Shia colleagues in the neighbourhood watch group are determined to reverse the ethnic cleansing. Last month, the group agreed to protect a Sunni mosque in his street from local Shia militias. They have also been mediating between the divided communities either side of the highway.

The result was an understanding: Sunni families would return to their former homes in the heavily Shia areas, while Shia families crossed back into the mainly Sunni streets. The two communities agreed to guarantee the safety of the returnees. Such was the popular backing for the deal that even the local Mahdi army commander had to acquiesce.

"We've been neighbours for 25 years and we feel like brothers," said Muhammad. "We will help them to guard and respect their mosques, and they won't harm me or my family."

All across Iraq political and religious reconciliation is happening and op-ed's by leftists like Cole that cannot accept the fact that Iraq is turning around for the better, simply show that they are so heavily invested in defeat that they cannot see what is right in front of their faces.

Progress.

Now to my headline about Nancy Boyda.... remember, this is the woman that walked out when retired General , Keane, was testifying regarding progress in Iraq.

“There was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while,” Boyda said after she returned, according to a transcript of the hearing. “So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things — after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.”

Many people, including myself suggested at that time that she, who has zero military experience, should perhaps get up off her ass and visit Iraq for herself since she wouldn't believe the experts that did have experience.

She finally has and guess what she says now? (Hat Tip to Right Wing News)

U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan., who has been a vocal critic of President Bush’s policy in the war in Iraq, on Monday visited troops in Iraq and said the situation appears to be improving.

“It’s headed in a much better direction but everything is very tentative,” Boyda said after receiving briefings from war commander Army Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and others.

She said that violence has decreased significantly in the region but that U.S. military and civilian officials don’t want to raise hopes yet.

“What is happening on the ground tactically is very good, and everyone is hopeful that it will continue, but no one is taking anything for granted and they don’t want to overstate things,” she said.

Then she said basically what General Keane was saying when she so rudely walked out on him because she couldn't handle the same truth she has just now admitted.

“Our troops have done an incredibly good job,” she said. “The buds of a political solution are starting to form.”

Here is what Keane had said back in August:

"What you see is a stark contrast. All the schools are open. The markets are teeming with people...There is an attempt to provide essential services to the population where in '06 there were none."

Boyda's response then?

"Those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem," Rep. Boyda said. "And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue."

Perhaps Boyda would like to deal with the "reality" of the fact that she owes General Keane an apology.

.

A Christmas Present for our Troops

We can't give you individual gifts, we can't be there to see you in person and tell you, each and every one of you, thank you and Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukka, BUT we can tell you here how very much we appreciate you and what you do, and give you a little give in the way that we CAN give it, here.

For our troops:
















From all of us at Wake Up America, MERRY CHRISTMAS!


.

The Festival of Lights

Although this is probably late in being addressed, we also wish to wish a Happy Hanukka to our Jewish readers, and to explore, as we did with Christmas, the meaning behind the holiday.

Overview: Hanukkah History

Hanukkah is one of the few Jewish holidays not mentioned in the Bible. The story of how Hanukkah came to be is contained in the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, which are not part of the Jewish canon of the Hebrew Bible.

These books tell the story of the Maccabees, a small band of Jewish fighters who liberated the Land of Israel from the Syrian Greeks who occupied it. Under the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Syrian Greeks sought to impose their Hellenistic culture, which many Jews found attractive. By 167 BCE, Antiochus intensified his campaign by defiling the Temple in Jerusalem and banning Jewish practice. The Maccabees--led by the five sons of the priest Mattathias, especially Judah--waged a three-year campaign that culminated in the cleaning and rededication of the Temple.



Since they were unable to celebrate the holiday of Sukkot at its proper time in early autumn, the victorious Maccabees decided that Sukkot should be celebrated once they rededicated the Temple, which they did on the 25th of the month of Kislev in the year 164 BCE. Since Sukkot lasts eight days, this became the timeframe adopted for Hanukkah.

About 250 years after these events, the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote his account of the origins of the holiday. Josephus referred to the holiday as the Festival of Lights and not as Hanukkah. Josephus seems to be connecting the newfound liberty that resulted from the events with the image of light, and the holiday is still often referred to by the title Josephus gave it.

By the early rabbinic period about a century later--at the time that the Mishnah (the first compilation of oral rabbinic law included in the Talmud) was redacted--the holiday had become known by the name of Hanukkah (“Dedication”). However, the Mishnah does not give us any details concerning the rules and customs associated with the holiday.

It is in the Gemara (a commentary on the Mishnah) of the Babylonian Talmud that we are given more details and can clearly see the development of both the holiday and the stories associated with it. The discussion of Hanukkah is mentioned in Tractate Shabbat. Only three lines are devoted to the events of Hanukkah while three pages detail when, where, and how the Hanukkah lights should be lit.

Completed approximately 600 years after the events of the Maccabees, the Talmud contains the extant version of the famous story of the miraculous jar of oil that burned for eight days. The Talmud relates this stories in the context of a discussion about the fact that fasting and grieving are not allowed on Hanukkah. In order to understand why the observance of Hanukkah is so important, the Rabbis recount the story of the miraculous jar of oil.

Perhaps the Amoraim--the sages of the Talmud--were retelling an old oral legend in order to associate the holiday with what they believed to be a blatant, supernatural miracle. Although the seemingly miraculous victory of the Maccabees over the Syrian Greeks was certainly part of the holiday narrative, this event still lies within the natural human realm. The Rabbis may have felt this to be insufficient justification for the holiday’s gaining the legal stature that would prohibit fasting and include the saying of certain festival prayers. Therefore the story of a supernatural event centering on the oil--a miracle--would unquestionably answer any concerns about the legitimacy of celebrating the holiday.

Hanukkah gained new meaning with the rise of Zionism. As the early pioneers in Israel found themselves fighting to defend against attacks, they began to connect with the ancient Jewish fighters who stood their ground in the same place. The holiday of Hanukkah, with its positive portrayal of the Jewish fighter, spoke to the reality of the early Zionists who felt particularly connected to the message of freedom and liberty.

Hanukkah began to find new expression in the years leading up to the founding of the modern state of Israel. In the post-Holocaust world, Jews are acutely aware of the issues raised by Hanukkah: oppression, identity, religious freedom and expression, and the need to fight for national independence. Hanukkah has developed into a holiday rich with historical significance, physical and supernatural miracle narratives, and a dialogue with Jewish history.

Shalom, and Happy Hanukka, from an American Fighting Man


.

Oh Little Town of Bethlehem

The shopping is done, the hustle and bustle is behind, and the cool night air blows across the still winter's landscape. Friends and families gather, moods are light, hearts are warm.

Christmas Day looms on the morrow.

What brings us to this season of sharing, of bright packages and ribbons and bows, of tinsel and glitter and lights? What brings us this traditional season of peace on Earth, and good will towards man?

Some two thousand years have passed since the birth of one small child in a stable, most likely a cave in a hillside, during a season of taxation and census in a small town in Israel, the city of Bethlehem. Hardly the place one would expect to see as the birthplace of the heir of the throne of David, the rightful King of Israel, but it was in this humble place that such child was born.

It is the birth of this child, a child who grew up to be arguably the most influential man in history, a man whose life has affected the lives of millions around the world since his time on Earth, for whom we celebrate this season.

Let us take just a few moments to reflect upon the birth of Jesus Christ, for whom Christmas is proclaimed as a holy day, or what we call now a holiday.

The Christmas Story

As told by Matthew

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: "'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'" Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.

On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."

So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."

So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

--Matthew 1:18 - 2:23 New International Version

A very Merry Christmas to all, from an American Fighting Man


.

Merry Christmas Eve

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVE EVERYONE


THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS
by Clement Clarke Moore


'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;



The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;



The children were nestled all snug in their beds,

While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;

And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,

Had just settled down for a long winter's nap,

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash,

Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow

Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,



But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.

More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,

And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;

"Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!

On, Comet! on Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!

To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!

Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!"

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky,

So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,

With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too.



And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.

As I drew in my hand, and was turning around,

Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,

And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;

A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,

And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.

His eyes -- how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!

His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,

And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,

And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath;

He had a broad face and a little round belly,

That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,

And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,

Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,

And laying his finger aside of his nose,

And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.



But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,

"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night."

Doomsday Scenario: Iran, Israel and Nuclear War

Due to the lack of verified knowledge in some areas - specifically in terms of Israel's nuclear capability -the document paints various scenarios and attempts to predict the strategies of regional powers, as well as the US.

The Report itself can be downloaded from the CSIS site, right here, it is a 77 page report.

A new study compiled by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), headed by former Pentagon analyst Anthony H. Cordesman, explored just such a nightmare scenario, noting that it could lead to the death of between 16- 28 million Iranian civilians, and 200-800 thousand Israelis.

Theoretically that is.

It is called Iran, Israel and Nuclear War, sub title, Acquire, Deploy, Fight, Impact:
Future "What If" Options.

Page 4 is titled "Key Actors in 2010-2020", which lists Iran, Israel, U.S., Gulf, Syria and Non Actor with a question mark after "Loose Nuke" as well the capability of each country in this hypothetical.

The Introductory Cautions" state:

•Rational actors do not fight nuclear wars, but history is not
written about rational actors behaving in a rational manner.

•Scenarios that follow are designed to test possible
contingencies in warfighting, not create predictions or test the politics that could lead to war.

•Data are very nominal. Dealing with forces that may exist, of
unknown capability.

•Nuclear and weapons effects data are extremely uncertain.
Extrapolated from very limited and outdated examples.

•Direct killing effects are far better estimated than impact on
long-term death rate and indirect casualty, political, and
economic effects.

It isn't until you get to page 31 that they deal with the hypothetical and theoretical Iranian-Israeli Exchange.

They take preemption, which is a topic they discuss at length before page 31, off the table as not an option.

On the Iranian side, they determine that there would be a low fission yield, less accurate force into cluster targeting on Israel’s two largest urban complexes, there would be a volley strike with all assets, they would have to seek to saturate or bypass Arrow and Israeli defenses, and target to maximize casualties, clear attention to fall out, lasting effects and would most likely strike Haifa and Ashdod-Tel Aviv-Yafoaxis.

(Note: Haifa is the largest city in Northern Israel and the third-largest city in the country, with a population of about 267,800.)

The publication also states that any Nuclear war between Israel and Iran would last approximately three weeks.

On the Israeli side, they determine that there are higher yields, more accurate force allow to strike all major Iranian cities, they would launch on a confirmed warning from satellites, they would reserve striking capabilities to first make sure that no one else was going to capitalize on Iran's strike on them and they too would target to maximize casualties, clear attention to fall out, lasting effects.

Long term effects could not be calculated but they have calculated the immediate effects of such a three week nuclear war scenario.

The Iranian strike against Israel would inflict 200,000 to 800,000 prompt to 21-day dead.

An Israeli strike against Iran would inflict 16,000,000 to 28,000,000 prompt to 21-day dead.

Iranian recovery not possible in normal sense of term.

Israeli recovery theoretically possible in population and economic terms.

The publication also goes into detail about the possibility of Syria and/or Egypt joined the fray.

The report cites Israel's Arrow missile defense system as an obstacle facing a possible Iranian strike and says that it could shoot down most of the missiles. Israel, on the other hand, would be capable of hitting most of the Iranian cities with pinpoint accuracy due to the high resolution satellite imagery systems at its disposal.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)seeks to advance global security and prosperity in an era of economic and political transformation by providing strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS serves as a strategic planning partner for the government by conducting research and analysis and developing policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change.

Founded in 1962 by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. with more than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated experts. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J. Hamre has led CSIS as its president and chief executive officer since April 2000.

CSIS was launched at the height of the Cold War, dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. During the following four decades, CSIS has grown to become one of the nation’s and the world’s preeminent public policy institutions on U.S. and international security.

From its beginning, CSIS has been committed to bipartisan problem solving. While partisan competition advances ideas, America prospers when policy leaders develop a consensus across the political spectrum. CSIS actively unites leaders from both parties to join in shared problem solving.

.

The Idiocy Of Ron Paul Earns Him The Rubber Chicken Award

Hat tip to Hot Air who has the video.

No way could I let this idiotic statement go without mention.

Via the transcript from Meet The Press, December 23, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?

REP. PAUL: Well, they’re not going to. That is like saying “Iran is about to invade Mars.” I mean, they have nothing. They don’t have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, “You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war.” But presidents don’t have the authority to go to war.

Unbelievably ignorant.

Inconceivably stupid.

This man wants to run our country when he isn't even capable of using a search engine to obtain facts before spewing forth such nonsense?

That statement has earned Ron Paul the Rubber Chicken Award.




That comment alone shows how ignorant Ron Paul is of reality or an extreme denial of basic factual knowledge as pointed out by Captain's Quarters, where the CIA, in their Factbook, shows that Iran not only has an army and navy but they have two of each:

Military branches:

Islamic Republic of Iran Regular Forces (Artesh): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force of the Military of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Niru-ye Hava'i-ye Artesh-e Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran; includes air defense); Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, IRGC): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force, Qods Force (special operations), and Basij Force (Popular Mobilization Army); Law Enforcement Forces (2007)

Bryan over at Hot Air says:

Ron Paul, quite incredibly, thinks Iran has no army, no navy and no air force at all and therefore would never attack Israel. Evidently Paul doesn’t realize the utility that ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons would offer an Iran whose president has repeatedly declared his personal desire to wipe Israel off the map. A couple of well-placed nukes could in fact do that, whether Iran has an army or not. Which, by the way, it does. Really. Iran does have an army. A navy and an air force, too, with an indigenously constructed fighter airplane leading the latter into the skies. Paul might want to bone up on that a bit. He’d do well to Google the Shahab series of missiles while he’s at it.

Michael van der Galien, from the PoliGazette:

How anyone can pretend that Iran doesn’t have an army, etc. is beyond me. People seem to forget for some reason that, until Saddam was removed from power, Iran and Iraq were the regions two superpowers, so to speak. In the 1980s the two fought a tremendously bloody war.

I would answer Michael by saying that I don't think he is pretending, I think he actually IS that stupid and simply didn't know Iran had an Army, Navy and Air Force as his comments prove without a doubt.

Don't forget to click the Hot Air link above and watch the video for yourself.

Then head over to Right Truth, Debbie has once again, put together a wonderful Sunday Reading List.

Note To Ron Paul supporters: This post is about the comment quoted above. It came out of Ron Paul's mouth and it is the topic at hand, so unless you have something that is relevant to THAT particular quote about Iran's Military, then do not bother commenting at all because it will be deleted without warning. THIS is your only warning.

No shilling, I don't want to hear about any other subject or his stands on other topics, save that for appropriate threads, and if you do decide to make comments that have nothing to do with the issue of that quote, they will be gone in a second flat.

If you cannot handle the basic fact that he made a completely false statement, then that is your problem, not mine, nor my readers.

.

Move America Forward is in Iraq

The daily blog file is where news from members of Move America Forward is being posted as they can, so keep up with that page to see the news as it comes out.

I am only showing a small portion of their dispatch where Lt. Col Crider explained to them what they faced and how they managed such a drastic turnaround in neighborhoods in Iraq.

So how exactly is progress this drastic possible? How did this relatively small unit take one of Al Qaeda’s strongest neighborhoods and completely turn it around, and expel the terrorists from the neighborhoods? I asked Lt. Col Crider, and to answer me, he wanted to explain not just the solution, but the problem they had faced when they got to Baghdad.

To fight Al Qaeda, you have to know how they operate and what their strategy was. Basically, Al Qaeda was simply attempting to keep Baghdad as unsafe as possible and thus exacerbate sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia. These neighborhoods, which were largely Shia dominated, had seen their Sunni populations fleeing in huge numbers to Syria. Al Qaeda came in and began extorting the local population, intimidating them, threatening them into not cooperating with the US Military. Lt. Col Crider told me how Al Qaeda had beheaded several locals who had tried to cooperate and had been informants to the US. Early patrols had found the severed heads of these unfortunates on the sidewalks. Al Qaeda funded its operations through kidnapping and ransoming people, and extorting them by making people pay for protection. They also had a monopoly on black market fuel. Many people around here need gasoline or propane to power vehicles or generators for their houses, and Al Qaeda had made the streets so dangerous that it was far too risky to get in your vehicle and drive to a gas station, so the terrorists would come in and sell the fuel that locals needed at insane prices. They also went into houses and stole furniture or valuables to be sold for financing more terrorist activities. Al Qaeda was also trying to move their families into some of the abandoned houses in order to try and take over the neighborhoods.

Crider told me that their response came directly from the counterinsurgency textbook. In fact, before deployment here, he said, everyone had to actually read a textbook on counterinsurgency. The response itself is actually very simple, and that is to put soldiers on the ground on streets and neighborhoods 24 hours a day. We really had to make the soldiers a part of the community like they never had been before. One part of this strategy was knocking on doors and asking to come into peoples houses to just sit and talk with them for a while, to ask who they are, what their lives are like and what the military could do to make things better. The locals just wanted to feel like someone was actually listening to their problems, which the current Iraqi government and National Police were not doing. The National Police was also taken off the streets because the locals did not trust them, and replaced by constant US military presence. We were also taking pictures of everyone we were talking to, and building a database on the local population.

Crider said that the overriding principle behind everything in the new strategy was to ‘care for the local people unconditionally’ that means even if there was an IED exploding somewhere or someone had been hit by sniper fire that day, not to get angry at the neighborhood but to understand that the locals themselves were victims just like the victims of sniper fire or a roadside bomb.

There was also a high level of humanitarian outreach. The military came in with soccer balls, blankets, electric heaters, and began selling gasoline, kerosene, and propane at market prices to undercut the black market. They also had engineers come in to replace the electrical systems, clean up the streets from the massive mounds of trash that littered everything and improve the sewer management system that were often overextended, causing disgusting sewage waste to empty out into the streets and causing sickness in the local population. The military upgraded several local medical clinics and build parks, new sidewalks, and put up new walls to stop Al Qaeda from entering the neighborhoods from outside. All of the manpower to complete these projects came from the locals as the military wanted to keep all the money in the community and provide jobs for locals. They also provided small grants to foster businesses and delivered the money personally to the resident’s homes or businesses. On one street there were previously 11 stores and businesses where there are presently 150 on the same street.

To control the population – and thus Al Qaeda’s access to the neighborhoods, they put up walls near the freeways so that terrorists could not easily cross in and out of the neighborhoods. That meant that it was harder for them to escape once they were identified as hostiles by our men, and it was harder for them to come in from neighboring rural areas to intimidate the locals. The walls themselves, while they started out as eyesores, are actually beautiful now, as the military hired a local resident to paint murals on them. To control the incidences of Al Qaeda moving families in and squatting on abandoned properties, they started putting locks on empty houses and asking for proof of ownership and asking locals about their neighbors. Crider said some people would say ‘yeah, I know that guy he’s been my neighbor for 14 years’ and others would say ‘no, I don’t know who that family is, they just came in one day and they don’t talk to anyone and keep to themselves’ so that gave our guys a lot of leads, and it was only through visiting Iraqis in their homes and gaining their trust that the locals started to open up with that kind of information.

Basically we won these neighborhoods back not by shooting the enemy and doing house to house clearing…although there were initially lots of firefights and IED explosions…these streets were paid for in blood, but that’s only because they were so dangerous to begin with. The neighborhoods were won over by winning the hearts and minds of the local residents, by being there for them, and being a compassionate provider. The US Army has basically been the only government out here it now administers everything from electricity to water, sewage, parks and recreating, everything. And they’re doing so very effectively. Now, the locals that our guys talk to are happy and cooperative, and when a stranger or someone up to no good moves into the neighborhood they get multiple reports of suspicious activity.

The last IED incident that occurred in this area of Baghdad was October 16th. There was a HUMMV driving along a road and they noticed some kids jumping up and down from a rooftop yelling “mister, no! mister no!” The truck stopped and the kids pointed down to the dirt road right in front of the HUMMV and said that they had seen three men come and bury something there. It turned out to be an IED which blew up several minutes later, no one harmed.

Crider said that last May, those same kids probably would have just stood there and watched the whole crew of that HUMMV get blown apart and laughed at the scene, but today the kids and the community know that working with the US Military is a winning solution, and a way to guarantee safety and stability for their communities.

So after that eye opening briefing, Crider said that we could go out on patrol and actually see the progress for ourselves. So he gave us an hour for chow and at 12:30 we were back with out Kevlar and our gear on, loaded up into four HUMMVs and we took off to go see these neighborhoods we had heard about earlier, one called Doura.

These folks from Move America Forward are spending the holidays with our troops on Christmas and bless them for doing so and reporting to us regularly.

There is much more before and after this portion I have shown you, so click over to the Daily Blog File and read it all for yourself and look at those pictures.

.

Modern Day Slavery

A Long Island couple, Varsha (age 45) and Mahender Sabhnani, (age 51) were convicted earlier this week for imprisoning and torturing two Indonesian housekeepers in what prosecutors called a case of modern-day slavery.

The case came to light when one of the Indonesian women, in desperation, ran away and was found, wearing only pants and a towel, outside of a Dunkin Donuts shop, where an employee bought her inside and called the police.

That was when the crimes committed in a home on Coachman Place were investigated, leading to the arrest and conviction of both the husband and wife. After the conviction, the husband, Mahender, was allowed to remain free on a $4.5 million bail, but is under house arrest, until sentencing on March 28, 2007.

Because the jury determined it was the wife, Varsha, that inflicted physical torture on the two Indonesian slaves, her bail was revoked, despite pleading by her husband and children.

Prosecuters accused the Sabhnani of working the women 18 hours a day, beat them, slashed, burned with cigarettes and scalding water, and forced to choke down hot chili peppers and vomit.

The couple were convicted of all charges in a 12-count indictment that included forced labor, conspiracy and involuntary servitude.

When the verdict came in on Monday, the wife fainted and had to be hospitalized.

New York State passed an anti-trafficking law this year to counter modern day slavery, making it a felony to force immigrants into prostitution or other labor, and provides victims with emergency housing and health care and other services, to make it easier for them to come forward.

It is new and cases like this are important to let the immigrants know they will be listened to and their captors or tormentors will be convicted, which hopefully will encourage more to speak out against crimes committed against them.

According to North Country Gazette, other things the two women were subjected to include, but are not limited to, beatings with brooms and umbrellas, scalding water thrown on them, forced to repeatedly climb stairs and take as many as 30 freezing showers in three hours.

The Sabhnani's could face up to 40 years in prison upon sentencing. The jury also said that the couples 5,898-square-foot home could be seized because it was used in the commission of a crime.

Slavery in America and human trafficking is not a new story but each case that is prosecuted helps and a little research finds many stories similar to these two Indonesian women.

In February 2005, two girls confided in a customer at a strip club where they were being forced to work and were brought to ICE and the FBI, which resulted in the arrest of Alex Maksimenko and Michael Aronov, both of whom pleaded guilty and are serving time in federal prison for their crimes.

The girls stories are not unique but tell the tale of how big of a problem this is in America.

In 2004, the two girls, like many foreign exchange university students were looking for a summer job and arrived at Dulles Airport from the Ukraine, where they were met by a fellow countryman that spoke Russian who told them that they were reassigned from the job that was supposed to be in Virgina to a job in Detroit, where they would be waitresses and perfect their English.

They were put on a bus and sent to Detroit where their nightmare began.

The arrived at their hotel were given clothes and told they would be working in a strip club called Cheetahs,

According to immigration customs agent Angus Lowe, the men controlled the women through intimidation with guns and threats to hurt family members back home, and forced the girls to work 12-hour shifts stripping for local Detroit men’s clubs.

March 2007, another report made national headlines, the case of Emily Nicely, was forced to quit school, deliver papers for free, beaten with broom handles, a metal pipe, belts and wooden boards.

Another report from June 2007 tells of three other young women from Mexico that were smuggled to the United States in mid-May and sold in an underground world for prostitution.

Justice Department records show such cases are a fraction of the thousands of overall immigrant smuggling cases. Between 2001 and 2005, federal prosecutors handled 555 "matters" involving human trafficking.

May 2007, the DOJ issued a release announcing that a Chinese national, Shengji Wang, plead guilty in Hawaii "to one count of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of women who were smuggled into the U.S. Territory of American Samoa. According to the plea agreement, Wang, along with several co-defendants, was involved in a scheme to recruit and import Chinese women and hold them in prostitution in nightclubs and brothels in American Samoa. Fu Sheng Kuo, another Chinese national, pleaded guilty to the same offense on May 10, 2007."

Next to the illegal trades in drugs and arms, human trafficking is the third-largest and fastest-growing criminal enterprise in the world, according to government figures. The departments of Justice and State, as well as anti-trafficking groups, estimate there are about 27 million people worldwide in modern-day slavery.

While doing research into this, one site, called Human Trafficking and Modern Day Slavery, lists dozens of cases from 1999 to 2005 as well as more recent stories found throughout the media.

From Rhode Island to Texas, in Tennessee and New York, Maryland and Minnesota, we find story after story, convictions, guilty pleas, investigations and from all accounts, this problem is getting worse, not better, as people are selling and abusing human beings across America.

Modern day slavery is alive and thriving, right here in America and convictions like one I started this article with will encourage those being abused to step forward and be heard, be counted and to be treated like a human being.

.

The Bend Over Election

The latest Rasmussen poll finds that all the presidential candidates have high unfavorable ratings or "core opposition" and I am seeing from the buzz over at memeorandum that some have their own nicknames for it.

Captain Ed calls it the "None of the Above" election and Jules Crittenden called it the "Over my Dead Body election or his preference of "Hold My Nose".

So, in the spirit of things, my two cents.

The Bend Over election.

We start with the Rasmussen poll (linked above):

Among the leading Presidential candidates, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have the highest level of core opposition among voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) say they will vote against each of these candidates no matter who else is on the ballot.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Arizona Senator John McCain. For the second straight month, McCain finds himself with the smallest level of core opposition--just 33% say they will definitely vote against him. That figure is unchanged from a month ago, down from 39% a two months ago and a peak of 42% in June. These results are just one part of the reason that it is a good time to be John McCain.

From Captain's Quarters:

Skip the lede of this story and check the numbers at the link. Even the best showing for the candidates, Barack Obama (-6%) and John McCain (-11%) have bigger negatives than positives among all voters. This doesn't bode well for the 2008 campaign in either the primaries or the general election. Not only has no one really caught fire, but no one has managed to convert more voters than they've driven off.

From Jules Crittenden:

On the positive side of the ledger, Rasmussen puts Hillary, Giuliani and Romney in a general election dead heat, which confirms partisanship is alive and well, and it’s really more “Over My Dead Body” than “None of the Above.” Trying to stay positive, I’m more inclined to call it a “Hold Your Nose” election and glad to see coronation of the other Clinton is anything but the foregone conclusion so many people seem to think it is:

I see from Boston.com that in New Hampshire, McCain is closing in on Romney (GOP) and Obama has taken the lead from Clinton (Dem).

My two cents is this. I hear quite a bit about voting for someone that can "reach across the aisle" and work with the opposite party, but that, in politic speak, means somebody that will bend over so that bad legislation can be jammed through the two houses and then signed by a president.

We all lose.

Yes the partisanship is horrible and no one is happy with the constant bickering and no, nothing is wrong with compromise....to a point.

That point is when people start selling out their own party and their core values and principles, just to be able to say "we passed" this or that bill. We know Hillary will bend over for that "next vote", she will tell one audience what they want to hear, then head down the road and tell another audience the opposite thing because it is what they want to hear, so if it is truly is a bend over election, Hillary has it hands down. John McCain, on the other hand, is good about working with the opposition and yet standing on principle and yet those that endorse him, like the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe, both write more about where he transcends partisanship that they do about his core principles.Don't get me wrong, I like John McCain, but the GOP does not need someone that will bend over, they need someone that will stand up for us, their supporters, and fight the battles that are the most important to us.With that said, the only person I believe will work with the opposition party without betraying our core principles in the process, is Fred Thompson.

Check out Fred Thompson's Christmas video (hat tip to Stop the ACLU).

Personally, I DON'T see Fred bending over for anyone.



.

Pew Research: 2007 Media Coverage was Pessimistic in Iraq

Bottom Line Up Front: Journalists in Iraq this year preferred bad news or no news at all.

The Pew Research Center is reporting on a study on how the press has covered events on the ground in Iraq in 2007. Here are some of the findings:

Through the first 10 months of the year, the picture of Iraq that Americans received from the news media was, in considerable measure, a grim one. Roughly half of the reporting has consisted of accounts of daily violence. And stories that explicitly assessed the direction of the war have tended toward pessimism, according to a new study of press coverage of events on the ground in Iraq from January through October of 2007.

As the year went on, the narrative from Iraq brightened in some ways.
The drumbeat of reports about daily attacks declined in late summer and fall, and with that came a decline in the amount of coverage from Iraq overall.

This shift in coverage beginning in June, in turn, coincided with a
rising sense among the American public that military efforts in Iraq were going "very" or "fairly well."

The bigger question may be not how the press interprets events but what
kinds of events get covered, especially by a press corps whose movements are
severely restricted in Iraq by the threat of attack and who are most mobile when
embedded with U.S. troops.

Essentially, as public opinion of the war shifted from a negative opinion to a more positive one by September 2007, the overall media coverage declined along with terrorist attacks.

You would expect the opposite to happen. That is, with a safer environment, more embedded reporters would be able to travel with the troops and more reporting made available to the public, whereas a volatile environment would accomodate fewer embedded journalists resulting in fewer stories. In reality, the opposite occurred.

The press itself believed it painted an accurate picture of Iraq, according to 70% of journalists. It's fair to say that many journalists are blind to their own bias.

The Counterinsurgency Manual co-written by GEN Petraeus says this about the media in counterinsurgency:

5-34. The media are ever present and influence perceptions of the COIN
environment.

1-12. The information environment is a critical dimension of such
internal wars, and insurgents attempt to shape it to their advantage. One way
they do this is by carrying out activities, such as suicide attacks, that may
have little military value but create fear and uncertainty within the populace
and government institutions. These actions are executed to attract high-profile
media coverage or local publicity and inflate perceptions of insurgent
capabilities. Resulting stories often include insurgent fabrications designed to
undermine the government’s legitimacy.

We can only hope the U.S. media overall didn't purposely try to assist the insurgents in their mission.

Cross-posted @: Bottom Line Up Front

The Use of Biometrics has the Left Atwitter Yet Again

The Washington Post is reporting that the FBI is preparing a vast database of biometrics, a $1 billion effort, for identification purposes, to be called Next Generation Identification, which would include, faces, fingerprints and palm patterns and in the coming years is expected to utilize iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes and identify criminals and terrorists.

The use of biometric data is increasing throughout the government. For the past two years, the Defense Department has been storing in a database images of fingerprints, irises and faces of more than 1.5 million Iraqi and Afghan detainees, Iraqi citizens and foreigners who need access to U.S. military bases. The Pentagon also collects DNA samples from some Iraqi detainees, which are stored separately.

The Department of Homeland Security has been using iris scans at some airports to verify the identity of travelers who have passed background checks and who want to move through lines quickly. The department is also looking to apply iris- and face-recognition techniques to other programs. The DHS already has a database of millions of sets of fingerprints, which includes records collected from U.S. and foreign travelers stopped at borders for criminal violations, from U.S. citizens adopting children overseas, and from visa applicants abroad. There could be multiple records of one person's prints.

"It's going to be an essential component of tracking," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's enabling the Always On Surveillance Society."

The FBI is building its system according to standards shared by Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Wapo goes on to report that a request reaches the FBI servers, housed in a facility the size of two football fields, every second from somewhere in the U.S. or Canada, comparing a set of digital fingerprints against the FBI's database of 55 million sets of electronic fingerprints. A possible match is made -- or ruled out--as many as 100,000 times a day."

Soon, the server at CJIS headquarters will also compare palm prints and, eventually, iris images and face-shape data such as the shape of an earlobe. If all goes as planned, a police officer making a traffic stop or a border agent at an airport could run a 10-fingerprint check on a suspect and within seconds know if the person is on a database of the most wanted criminals and terrorists. An analyst could take palm prints lifted from a crime scene and run them against the expanded database. Intelligence agents could exchange biometric information worldwide.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already been using iris scans at airports to verify the identity of individuals that have already passed their background checks to move them through the lines quicker.

The FBI's database includes criminal history records, communicates with the Terrorist Screening Center's database of suspects and the National Crime Information Center database, which is the FBI's master criminal database of felons, fugitives and terrorism suspects.

There are still kinks in the technology but as it advances, this promises to be another tool to protect ourselves against criminals and terrorists and of course anything that is aimed at protecting our citizens and our country automatically gets the left all atwitter.

.

Earmarks: Will Bush Or Won't Bush Issue an Executive Order

"Can Bush issue an executive order to instruct all Federal agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks tucked into committee reports and statements of managers?"

If the answer is no, it is a moot point.

If the answer is yes, then the question becomes, will he?

Let's start with The Examiner, Mark Tapscott's article, which caught my eye, showing that a number of groups sent an open letter to the president, citing a December 18, legal opinion of the Congressional Research Service (CSR) "because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution -- specifically, bicameralism and presentment - they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies."

The rushed way in which Congress passed the omnibus - one of the largest pieces of legislation ever considered - made a mockery of our legislative process, and Congress itself bears the responsibility and shame for that. But you have the power to send a message both to Congress and the American people that the waste and corrupting influence of earmarks will not be tolerated. A December 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service concluded that "because the language of committee reports do not meet the procedural requirements of Article I of the Constitution -- specifically, bicameralism and presentment - they are not laws and, therefore, are not legally binding on executive agencies... Given both the implied legal and constitutional authority as well as the long-standing accepted process of Presidents, it appears that a President can, if he so chooses, issue an executive order with respect to earmarks contained solely in committee reports and not in any way incorporated into the legislative text."

The signatories of that letter were:

Alabama Policy Institute
American Conservative Union
American Values
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Calvert Institute for Policy Research
Citizens Against Government Waste
Club for Growth
Commonwealth Foundation
Eagle Forum
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Family Research Council
Freedom Works
Illinois Policy Institute
Larry Kudlow, Kudlow & Company, LLC
The National Tax Limitation Committee
National Taxpayers Union
Porkbusters.org
Taxpayers for Common Sense

In President Bush's December 20th, 2007, press conference, he said " Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks that Congress included in a massive spending bill. Earmarks are special interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one -- often at the last hour, without discussion or debate. Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks. And they made some progress and there's more transparency in the process, but they have not made enough progress. The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I'm instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

Who is the CSR and how serious can their "legal analysis" be taken? From their website we find this out.

In 1914, Congress passed legislation to establish a separate department within the Library of Congress. President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill into law, and CRS, then called the Legislative Reference Service, was born to serve the legislative needs of the Congress.

With the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Congress renamed the agency the Congressional Research Service and significantly expanded its statutory obligations. The services provided today by CRS are a direct result of congressional directives and guidance.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) serves shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process — from the early considerations that precede bill drafting, through committee hearings and floor debate, to the oversight of enacted laws and various agency activities.

According to the Washington Post, a vast majority of earmarks are included only in conference reports rather than in the appropriations bill itself. Although traditionally honored, language in such reports is not legally binding.

Most earmarks are not written into the actual appropriations bills that are signed into law. Rather, they are included in conference reports, which are explanatory statements that accompany the legislation to the President's desk. Because they are not technically part of the bill, the Executive Branch is not legally bound to implement conference reports. The President could simply direct agencies to ignore the earmarks listed in the conference reports. The funds would still be spent, but the agencies would have the discretion to distribute the funds by merit rather than congressional diktat. (Source)

The National Taxpayers Union names just a couple out of the 9,000-plus earmarks that were "airdropped" into the bill but are not written into the actual appropriations bill nor considered by either chamber.

"Congress's procrastination led to a reprehensible free-for-all," said Moylan, who noted that over 300 of the 9,000-plus earmarks in the final omnibus package had never been previously considered by either chamber. Some of the earmark lowlights include a $1.95 million project honoring Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) to help build the "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" at City College of New York. The bill also includes $213,000 for olive fruit fly research in France, and $200,000 for a hunting and fishing museum in Pennsylvania.

They also claim that although some of the earmarks in the latest omnibus bill are "embedded in statutory language", many others can be canceled with an executive order.

Bush has allowed far too much pork in bills during his terms, angering fiscal conservatives that want less corruption and waste from our government and more accountability for where and how tax dollars are being spent.

He and the Republican party have promised to get back to fiscal conservatism and now is the time to either do so or stop talking about it.

The question at the beginning of this article is the one we end it with, will President Bush sign an executive order regarding earmarks that were air dropped into conference but are not written into the appropriations bill itself?

.

Clinton's Overlapping Donors Raises Potential Confict

The new York Times has compiled the first list of 97 donors that gave or pledged $69 million for the Clinton presidential library in the final years of the Clinton administration. Hillary Clinton has tapped at least two dozen of them, as "Hillraisers".

The New York Times findings are based on tax documents from the Clinton foundation and groups that have contributed to it, federal government records, analysis of campaign finance data and interviews with donors and people with direct knowledge of the foundations activities.

In raising record sums for her campaign, Mrs. Clinton has tapped many of the foundation’s donors. At least two dozen have become “Hillraisers,” each bundling $100,000 or more for her presidential bid. The early library donors, combined with their families and political action committees, have contributed at least $784,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate and presidential coffers.

The potential conflict is apparent as evidenced by Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat that introduced a bill, in March, passed the House, 390-34, but stalled in the Senate, to force disclosure of presidential foundation donors. Waxman stated at the time "The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse."

Clinton rivals make the argument that donors could use presidential foundations to bypass campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence of any single donor. Federal election law prohibits foreign donations to presidential campaigns as well as limiting Americans to $2,300 per election.

Presidential foundations have no such limit nor rules about foreign donations, as evidenced by the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates, and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar, all who have made donations to the Clinton Foundation of unknown amounts.

The New York Times examination also found that some of the $1 million contributors to the Clinton library in the final years of Clinton's term were seeking policy changes from the administration as well as two that had pledged a million dollars were under investigation at the time by the Justice Department.

Additionally the Times reports that other donations were from supporters who were involved in the campaign finance scandal that surrounded Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign.

The Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign have been connected in other ways also.

Terry McAuliffe, is on Hillary's campaign as chairman and chief fund-raiser as well as sitting on the board of the Clinton Foundation and led in fund-raising for the foundation.

Cheryl Mills serves as general counsel to the Hillary Clinton campaign and also sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation.

Jay Carson is Hillary's campaign press secretary and recently gave up his communications position for the Clinton Foundation.

Other suspicious donations made to the Clinton library can be found here, which include, but is not limited to:

"William A. Brandt Jr., a bankruptcy lawyer in Chicago and prolific Democratic fund-raiser, pledged $1 million in May 1999. At the time, the Justice Department was investigating Mr. Brandt’s testimony to Congress about a $10,000 per couple fund-raiser he had held for the president’s 1996 re-election campaign."

In August 1999, the Justice Department determined that “prosecution is not warranted.”

Mr. Brandt, is now a "Hillraiser".

"Bernard L. Schwartz, another major Democratic contributor who was then chief executive of Loral Space and Communications, gave $250,000 and pledged $750,000 more in 2000. At the time, investigators were trying to determine if Loral had improperly provided satellite technology to China. Under the Bush administration, Loral agreed to pay a civil fine of $14 million to settle the case. "

Mr. Schwartz, is also a "Hillraiser" now.

Nine of the original library donors received presidential appointments, two of which, Mark S. Weiner and Vinod Gupta, in his final days in office.

.

Trusting the word of our enemies

There is an old saying that goes "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." It's far past time that we started doing exactly that.

Syria, Iran, and North Korea need to be officially put on notice that we will not sit idly by and allow them to sit and lie to us and the world about their weapons development programs, especially in regards to nuclear weaponry. Just a couple of months ago Israel conducted air strikes in Syria that were quickly covered up by the Syrians, who did not retaliate against Israel for the attacks. The speculation has been that the facility that was hit was involved in some sort of nuclear weapons development. Now we have this from North Korea:

North Korean Tubes Found to Be Contaminated With Uranium Traces

Friday, December 21, 2007

By James Rosen


WASHINGTON — North Korea recently turned over to the United States equipment found to be contaminated with traces of highly enriched uranium — HEU — apparently contradicting the country's stance that it never had such a program, FOX News has confirmed.

The equipment was described as a set of "smelted aluminum tubes" suitable for an HEU centrifuge program, a step necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

"They got some 'splainin' to do," one U.S. arms control official said when first told of the discovery about a month ago, he recalled to FOX.

However, North Korea claims the tubes were intended for use in the development of a conventional "artillery" weapon, sources told FOX News.

As part of a six-nation disarmament deal, North Korea is disabling its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and related nuclear facilities, and is obligated to provide a "complete and correct" declaration of all their nuclear programs, weapons, and materiel by Dec. 31.

American officials anxiously have been waiting to see whether, and to what extent, the North Koreans will acknowledge the existence of their HEU program, about which the United States first confronted Pyongyang in October 2002.

We have learned nothing, as a nation. As individuals, perhaps, but too few and far between. Pearl Harbor was attacked in the middle of "peace negotiations" with the Japanese. We leave our nations borders open for anyone to come across them carrying who knows what, with the left screaming about the "rights" of those who come here illegally. We already know that a number of terrorists have entered the country via the wide open Mexican border. What is it going to take for us, as a nation, to realize that other countries hate us and wish to see our national demise?

Enough is enough, we have got to stop pandering to these little tin gods in other parts of the world when they promise peace with their right hands extended and their fingers crossed behind their backs like school children.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

It Is a Race for New Hampshire

New polls are coming out almost every day now and the latest buzz is about the USA Today/Gallup poll showing that Barack Obama has caught up with Hillary as she continues to slide.

8. (Asked of Democrats and Democratic leaners without a candidate preference) Which Democratic candidate do you lean toward the most?

32% for Obama and 32% for Clinton.

Republicans and Republican leaners chose Mitt Romney with 34% and John McCain at 27%.

Just as interesting though is when Democrats and Democratic leaners were asked who is more in touch with the average American, Obama received 37%, Edwards 28% and Clinton only 19%.

When asked who would stand up for what they believed in, Obama again took Clinton with 32% to 26%.

Shared values also gave Obama the lead over Clinton with 29% to 25%.

Has new ideas that would help solve the country’s problems also lists Clinton in third behind Obama (42%) and Edwards (20%) with Clinton trailing them at 19%.

The only categories Clinton came out ahead was in who they thought could beat a Republican candidate and who could get things done in Washington.

Which brings us to the question that basically negates the only two areas she came out ahead.

Question 11 (Asked of Democratic voters) "Which type of candidate are you more likely to vote for in the primary -- a candidate who agrees with you on almost all of the issues you care about or a candidate who has the best chance of beating the Republican?"

65% say the will vote for the person that agrees on issues and only 30% says they will vote for the person that has the best chance of beating a Republican.

This is just the latest in a number of polls showing Hillary Clinton losing the lead she had over Obama.

Her baggage may finally be catching up with her.

This USA Today article explains it this way:

•Democrats view Clinton as the candidate who knows how to get things done and is most likely to win the general election. But the New York senator ranks third, behind Illinois Sen. Obama and former North Carolina senator Edwards, as someone who offers new ideas and is "in touch with the average American."

Obama is seen as most likely to share voters' values and be willing to stand up for what he believes.

.

400 Scientists Dispute Man Made Global Warming Claims

400 Scientists Dispute Man Made Global Warming Claims

Let me start with what caught my eye first.

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, stating that there was a "consensus" that determined that global warming was man made and yet 400 scientists disagree.

This was just released from the U.S. Senate Committee Environment and Public Works.

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

It gets worse, or better, depending on your beliefs.

Any time anyone affiliated with the government tells you "the debate is over," hang on to your wallet. Taxes (i.e, theft of your money by your government) are about to be imposed.

One of the first things they teach you in science classes is that there is no such thing as something being proven as a fact. There are only hypotheses that have been tested and stand as the basis of what we know unless and until they are disproved.

What we DO know, from the data and evidence collected, is what I have been harping on and saying and spouting for longer ago than I wish to remember. The Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling. There are times when it is WARMER (such as when T-Rex and the gang roamed the Earth) and times when it is COOLER (this would be the time period that Ug the caveman lived with his wife Ugli, and he spent the day hunting woolly mammoths so that she could cook a mammoth steak for dinner and make woolly mammoth clothes for the Uglings).

Warm periods...and COLD periods...

Right now we're between two cold periods, so that would lead us where, by using logic as our guide in developing a rational argument that isn't based on political hype and media hysteria? Yes, Johnny, that would lead us into a WARM period.

I theorized long ago while sitting in philosophy class in college (and probably concentrating more on the hot little brunette behind me than on the lecture, but that's just my mind rambling so let's just pretend I didn't mention that) that everything in the Universe operates on frequency ranges (as a telecommunications contractor, frequency is something I deal with from time to time). It hit me like a thunderbolt from a clear blue sky. My professor could tell I had had an epiphany, evidently, because he looked at me with this rather odd smile on his face that said "you've just stumbled on to one of the great truths of the Universe." I'm still waiting for someone with a bit more mathematical skill (OK, a lot more mathematical skill) to validate my hypothesis, but that was the thought that sprang into my mind.

Let me explain in a little more coherent way. Suppose you drew a straight line and then superimposed a sine wave over the line. It would look something like this:

Now, at the top of the wave, you could put "hot period," and at the bottom part of the wave, you could put "cold period," adjust the wavelength to represent the correct number of years, and voila, you have a frequency chart showing the Earth going through cycles of global warming and global cooling. As you look over the number of CENTURIES involved in the global cycles of warming and cooling, it would be logical to conclude that Man has made about as much difference on the temperature of Planet Earth as dinosaur farts did. In fact, I'm not the only one who thinks this way:

The bottom line is this: If you want to do something real about Global Warming, let's begin with removing politics from science. We can't continue to demand that scientists produce something by specific deadlines in order to justify their research. When we put that kind of political pressure on our scientists, we wind up with information that is geared toward telling the politicians what they want to hear rather than allowing the data and research to bear the true fruit of what the evidence shows. We wind up with scam artists like Al Gore preaching gloom and doom to us in order to have us buy "carbon credits" so that he can make a profit from it when people go out and buy trees from the companies he and other doomsday prophets are invested in.

Is this a politically correct way of thinking? No. It's a realistic way of thinking. Political correctness is an indoctrination into thinking like a group of people want you to think, rather than using your own rational mind to come to a conclusion based upon fact rather than feeling. If you think I'm wrong about how politics influences science, I'm going to leave you with this little reminder from Newsweek about global COOLING from 1975:

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Feel free to use your own minds to think about this, rationally. Just remember, as you do, that 400 scientists have come out denouncing Al Gore's 52 scientists and their "Inconvenient Truth."

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Has Southwestern Oklahoma State University banned Christmas?

The controversy allegedly began when the University's Director of Human Resources, John Misak, recently visited various departments and said that decorations featuring the word "Christ" or Christmas" in any areas of the University must be immediately removed.

Liberty Counsel became involved after receiving a complaint from a University affiliate.

Hat tip to Faultline USA and Stop the ACLU for the emails that led me to this article over at The Examiner.

Now the Okie Napoleon is banning Christmas!

I am not making this up (because I am from Oklahoma and this guy is an embarrassment).

Edmondson issued an advisory opinion to officials at Southwestern Oklahoma State University in Weatherford advising them that the word "Christmas" should not be spoken by any employee of the state school, not written in any official holiday decorations.

The Liberty Counsel has issued a news release about the Southwestern Oklahoma State University in Weatherford where they state "The announcements made by Misak are in direct violation of the United States Constitution and other federal law. The First Amendment prohibits government from being hostile to religion. Selecting one legal holiday for negative treatment and special restrictions solely because it has religious aspects clearly demonstrates hostility toward religion. Moreover, the free speech rights of employees at the university are infringed when their speech is censored solely because of a religious viewpoint or perceived religious viewpoint. A public employer like SWOSU also violates the Civil Rights Act when it prohibits its employees from using the words "Merry Christmas."

Tapscott over at the Examiner and the Liberty Counsel has both published the University President John M. Hays' phone number:

Contact information for University President John M. Hays: Telephone (580) 774-3766, Fax (580) 774-7101, email president@swosu.edu

Please be kind and respectful when you call or email.

Stop the ACLU reacts:

Make sure to wish him a Merry Christmas while you are on the phone. Make sure to let him know just how ridiculous his politically correct scrooge crap is….politely if possible.

For the sake of fairness, some are reporting that callers to the Southwestern Oklahoma State University are being told the story is false.

Their website has Christmas decorations on the front page, but does say Happy Holidays, which was changed from Merry Christmas, and was last modified today, December 20, 2007.

The questions that stem from this is:

#1. Who was the University affiliate that lodged a complaint with Liberty Counsel?

#2. Is there anything in writing proving the University's Director of Human Resources, John Misak, actually made the directive banning any mention of Christmas or the word Christ?

#3. Have decorations featuring the words Christ or Christmas been removed?

#4. Why was their website changed today taking the words Merry Christmas off and replacing them with Happy Holidays?

#5. Will anybody step forward to confirm that they were told "that decorations featuring the word "Christ" or Christmas" in any areas of the University must be immediately removed?"

I will update this post with any further news or if any of those questions get answered.

More Christmas news from Hot Air.

[Update] Commenter David Kirby over at Red State had this to say about his phone call to the University:

Hmmm. I called and asked the lady why he banned Christmas.
Conversation went something like:

AGSecretary (AGS): "Oh, I don't think he banned Christmas." Touche.
DK: "Then why ban using the word Christmas?"
AGS: (stutter)
DK: "According to the details I have..."
AGS: (cuts me off) "DETAILS?? You have details? You're going to need to speak to our public relations department." (transfers call)

Apparently, the fact I was mildly informed and had "details" made her a bit uncomfortable. As expected, the PR people didn't pick up the phone.

Future callers, please be advised that bringing up details will abruptly end the call.

HEH.


.

Hillary Clinton Attack Sites

ABC is reporting in an exclusive that the Hillary Clinton campaign has registered the names of two websites created to attack Barack Obama.

Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.

The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.

In this day and age of the internet, this presidential campaign is proving to have even more negative attacks, than previously seen, against rivals with Hillary Clinton leading the way forward using the world wide web.

Clinton has attacked Obama for having voted "present" as an Illinois state legislator when it came to contentious legislation.

Clinton told Iowans earlier "I don't think people want a lot of talk about change, I think they want someone with a real record -- a doer, not a talker. After eight years of incompetence, they don't want false hope, they want real results."

ABC also reports tht the Clinton campaign has also, quietly, introduced another website called Attacktimeline.com, chronicling a time line of criticisms from Obama and Edwards.

One has to wonder if this new strategy, these attack sites, is in response to her dwindling lead in the latest polls.

.

Illegal Immigrants: Enforcement Does Work in AZ

Time and again I have said immigrants are welcome in this country, when they come legally, and for those that break the first law of entering our country, we need to enforce the laws we have on the books and make them leave and come back through the front door, so to speak.

I have seen many debates, with people accusing those that want our borders secured and our laws enforced, of being racists or bigots, from others that simply refuse to acknowledge that legal immigration and illegal immigration are, indeed, two very different things and are incapable of distinguishing between the two.

For those that can and do understand that difference and have fought to get our government to start enforcing the laws and stiffening penalties on employers that hire illegal immigrants, this article from the Tucson Citizen shows that enforcement does work.

NOGALES, Sonora - It's a common scene this time of year: streams of overloaded cars, pickups and vans with U.S. license plates crossing into Mexico for the holidays.

Most are filled with Hispanic families from Arizona and other states on their way to visit relatives south of the border for a few weeks before heading back to the U.S. But this year, the holiday travelers are being joined by scores of families such as Jorge and Liliana Franco, who are driving to Mexico not to visit but to stay - permanently.

The Franco's, among others no longer find America "hospitable" to illegal immigrants in AZ, for multiple reasons, one of which is that Congress could not pass the immigration reform, another is because of Arizona's new employer-sanction laws and recent illegal immigration crackdowns throughout this state.

The Arizona sanction law, known as Legal Arizona Workers Act, is expected to take effect in January, provided it survives a last minute challenge and illegal immigrants are preparing for that eventuality.

It's intended purpose is to ensure that no businesses in Arizona knowingly or intentionally hire or employ illegal immigrants. The business owners risk losing their state and local licenses if they knowingly or intentionally - the law makes a distinction between "knowingly" and "intentionally" - hire illegal immigrants after Jan. 1, 2008.

The law also enhances the punishment for identity theft, a crime frequently associated with illegal workers.

For those that claim that illegal immigrants do not steal or falsify social security and other documents, the family that was interviewed, the Franco's, are the perfect example.

In November, their employer checked and found out that the Franco's had used false documents to get their jobs and they were both terminated and could not get hired elsewhere.

Liliana Franco states "Everyone wants a good Social Security number now."

The Mexican consulate in Phoenix is seeing a dramatic increase of applications for Mexican birth certificates, passports and other documents these families will need to go home to Mexico and they are reporting the number of applications are three times the amount from this month last year.

The consulate also has processed more than 16,500 applications for Mexican passports this year, nearly twice as many as last year.

Rosendo Hernandez, president of the advocacy group Immigrants Without Borders, states "If people can't find work, they won't be able to pay their bills, so they will leave."

This family is the perfect example of how stricter laws against the employers that encourage people to enter our country illegally, knowing they will be hired, and cracking down on illegal immigrants, does have the desired effect.

For those that do not think illegal immigration or illegal aliens are a problem, one only needs to look at the news releases over at the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement site, to put to rest that false misconception.

Yesterday, 20 Southern California gang members awaiting release from area jails and state prisons are facing new criminal charges today as a part of "Operation Winter Warning," an expanded effort to target incarcerated foreign national gang members for federal prosecution.

Since the operation began three weeks ago, a total of 23 criminal alien gang members have been charged with re-entry after deportation, a felony violation that carries a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

On December 17, 2007, three brothers were sentenced on charges of smuggling illegal workers into the U.S.

December 12, 2007, Twenty-four people were arrested Tuesday on complaints associated with identification document fraud and immigration violations in the Eastern District of Texas.

The examples go on and on and provide further proof that illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be dealt with and Arizona provides a good example of the methods that are working.

Come legally or do not come at all.

[Update]

Another very interesting post is found at Right Truth, about the Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the US.

Read the whole thing.

.

Busy Night in the Senate: War Funding Approved

The Washington Post has the sub headline of "Antiwar Democrats Rebuffed in 70-25 Vote" and in the article itself it goes through some of the votes that were agreed to and rejected last night on the Senate floor.

(Note: I will link to the Senate roll calls for the items as we go through them)

The Senate last night approved a $555 billion omnibus spending bill to fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year, shortly after bowing to President Bush's demand for $70 billion in unrestricted funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Democrats had vowed only weeks ago to withhold any Iraq-specific money unless strict timelines for troop withdrawal were established, but they instead chose, on a 70 to 25 vote, to remove what appeared to be the final obstacle to sending the spending bill to the White House, where Bush has indicated he will sign it. Senators then passed the omnibus bill, 76 to 17.

76 yeahs, 17 nays, Hatch(R-UT) voted present and there were six not voting, those were, Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Feinstein (D-CA), McCain (R-AZ,) Obama (D-IL).

Roll call on the final $555 billion omnibus bill is here and the bill itself, should you wish to read it can be found here.

As Ed Morrisey points out, this $555 billion omnibus bill contains about 9,000 earmarks, hundreds of which were airdropped into it in conference and that the Democrats are hoping the pork will serve as a consolation prize to their anti-war activists that have once again been rebuffed.

In a last ditch effort (this time around) to surrender once again, an amendment offered by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis), provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq, was rejected with a vote of 24 to 71 and 5 not voting.

Roll call on that bill is here.

The text of that amendment (SA 3875) states:

SEC. __. SAFE REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES TROOPS FROM IRAQ.

(a) Transition of Mission.--The President shall promptly transition the mission of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq to the limited and temporary purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq.--The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the limited and temporary purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall be carried out in a manner that protects the safety and security of United States troops.

(c) Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after the date that is nine months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Except for Limited and Temporary Purposes.--The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the following limited and temporary purposes:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States Government personnel and infrastructure.

(3) To provide training to members of the Iraqi Security Forces who have not been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks upon the United States Armed Forces, provided that such training does not involve members of the United States Armed Forces taking part in combat operations or being embedded with Iraqi forces.

(4) To provide training, equipment, or other materiel to members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.

That was followed by an amendment from Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), to express the sense of Congress on the transition of the missions of United States Forces in Iraq to a more limited set of missions as specified by the President on September 13, 2007, which was also rejected because with a 50 to 45 vote with 5 not voting it was 10 votes short of the 60 vote threshold needed to pass it without a filibuster.

The text of that amendment (SA 3876) states:

SEC. __. It is the sense of Congress that the missions of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq should be transitioned to the more limited set of missions laid out by the President in his September 13, 2007, address to the Nation, that is, to counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces, in addition to the necessary mission of force protection, with the goal of completing that transition by the end of 2008.

Back to the Wapo article:

Republicans then moved to pass an amendment that would take $31 billion for Afghanistan operations -- the only war-related funding in the House bill approved Monday -- and add almost $40 billion. The entire sum would be allocated for Pentagon use for any operation in its anti-terrorism efforts.

On that vote, 48 Republicans were joined by 21 Democrats and one independent in supporting Iraq funds, with 23 Democrats, one independent and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) opposed.

Roll call for that vote is here.

Those were not the only votes taken last night, at 11 pm they confirmed John Daniel Tinder, of Indiana, to be U.S. Circuit Judge with a vote of 93 to 0 with 7 not voting.

Reid also failed to get the votes needed in his last ditch attempt on a for the tax fix for the AMT, and the House has a vote scheduled for today to vote on a proposal to patch the AMT without paying for it, which would break the Democrats' Pay-Go pledge not to approve any tax measure or mandatory spending increase that adds to the federal budget deficit.

In regards to the AMT, they could just reduce spending, Don Surber shows them how, but I guess that is a less acceptable option than breaking their Pay-Go promise.

Jay from Stop the ACLU says "Surrendercrats Surrender" and Merry Christmas.

.

Felonious Slicing of Steak

Yup.

You guessed it.

It's rant time.

The back story first.

Knife At Lunch Gets 10-Year-Old Girl Arrested At School

OCALA, Fla. -- A 10-year old Ocala girl brought her lunch to school and a small kitchen knife to cut it. She now faces a felony charge after being arrested. The school and the sheriff's office disagree on the reason for the arrest.

School officials say the 5th grader was brown-bagging it. She brought a piece of steak for her lunch, but she also brought a steak knife. That's when deputies were called.

It happened in the cafeteria at Sunrise Elementary School. The 10-year-old used the knife to cut the meat.

"She did not use it inappropriately. She did not threaten anyone with it. She didn't pull it out and brandish it. Nothing of that nature," explained Marion County School Spokesman Kevin Christian.

I can imagine it looked a LOT like THIS (click here if you subscribe via email):



Zero Tolerance policies are an excuse for school administrations to be lazy. Zero Tolerance is an excuse for school administrations not to have to think. It requires no thought process, no looking into a situation, no BRAINS, to sit and cry "Zero Tolerance Violation."

NAIL clippers fall under Zero Tolerance policies. Drawing pictures of guns can get you suspended under Zero Tolerance.

This little girl was TEN YEARS OLD and just trying to eat her lunch. She was ARRESTED, at the age of TEN YEARS OLD, for trying to eat her lunch. Now, I can understand her being arrested had she been brandishing the knife in a threatening way, eyes glazed over, and holding people at bay threatening to cut them if they did whatever. SHE WAS EATING HER LUNCH AND WAS ARRESTED FOR IT. And they're talking about charging her with a felony for it?

The question I have to ask is if the steak felt overly threatened in any way? WAS there also a felonious use of A-1 sauce as well? Perhaps maybe just a misdemeanor offense of using Heinz 57 instead.

Ten years old and looking at a felony charge JUST because she was trying to eat her lunch.

This is INVERTED. We have reached a point where common sense has gone out the window. THINKING is becoming a lost art and a lost practice. School administrations have taken the lazy route of REFUSAL to think, to contemplate, to investigate, when situations such as this arise. When a LITTLE GIRL can't brown bag her lunch and eat it at lunch time with her little friends without being carted off by sheriff's deputies, we have lost touch with reality in our school systems. WE CAN NOT continue to go down this road where little girls are arrested for doing nothing more hazardous than eating their lunches.

I can hear the nay-sayers now, "Oh, but, you don't under STAND. She brought a WEAPON to school." Let me tell you that a pencil can be just as much a lethal weapon as a knife. I personally know more than a couple of ways to kill a person using nothing more than a wooden number 2 pencil like you'll find in any school in this country. What makes a pencil a weapon? Intent. What makes a steak knife a weapon? Intent. I would dare say that the only thing being THREATENED was the piece of steak that this child was trying to eat for her lunch.

I want to hear from you, America. I want those of you who feel like I do about this to leave your comments. I want those of you who read this site regularly to pass this around to everyone you know. Email it to people. Spread the word. At the end of this week I would LOVE to have a SIGNIFICANT number of comments supporting this child so that I can forward this piece to the Ocala school district demanding that this stupidity be dropped. I want us all to begin taking a stand RIGHT NOW that this "Zero Tolerance" mentality be scrapped in favor of the use of REASON in our school systems.

Zero Tolerance equals Zero Thought Process.

Enough is enough. Arresting a little girl for eating her lunch is one toke over the line.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Help Defeat and Trounce Murtha...

~Snooper~

Seeing that it is election season for Murtha, he has changed directions due to wind change, and has stated that the Surge is working. Whoever and wherever the enemies of our Troops are or may be, we will trounce them if at all possible. Trouncing Murtha is an extreme case of Must Do.

I received the following in my email:

I'd like to ask you a big favor: would you please put the attached on your blog or, alternatively, send it to people on your e-mail list. The Russell Campaign against Murtha has a very good chance of succeeding, but in politics there are "three M's": get your message across, mobilize your supporters, and raise enough money to achieve the first two points.

The Russell Campaign has already forced John Murtha to change his "position" on the Surge in Iraq. And it's only December. By next November, John Murtha will be making retirement plans, but that will only happen if you help. Thanks in advance.

(Note: If you don't want to put the entire message up, link to one of my sites below, both of which feature Russell's request.)

Stephen R. Maloney

camp2008victory

stevemaloney

Friends:

The holidays are in full swing, and we're all making lists and shopping for gifts for our friends and family. Add Bill to your list and make sure that he has a Merry Christmas and a happy election season! We are counting down the 7 days leading to Christmas with a variety of important items the campaign needs to roll full steam ahead into the 2008 election season.

Your gift will be the difference in how the 2008 election season starts for Bill. His campaign needs the resources to travel, run ads on TV, host rallies and contact voters directly. The contribution you make to Bill's campaign will buy tangible things that will go a long way towards making Bill's bid for Congress successful. Your gift of $1000 will make a day on the bus possible. $500 today will allow the campaign to run four television ads in the 12th Congressional District. Even your gift of $50 or $25 can make a big difference in what we're doing. These are things that Bill's campaign needs and this is your opportunity to give Bill a gift that will really help him in his bid for Congress.

Bill has a vision for a secure, unified and prosperous 12th Congressional District and America, but we can only make it real if his campaign has the funds to win. Making a contribution to Bill's campaign in the 7 days leading to Christmas will ensure that. Give his campaign a Christmas present that will help carry Bill to victory!

"You know, I am a strong consistent common sense conservative, but the most important issue facing our country and will be for a long time, is national security, and the safety of our people. I've spent a lot of time both in and out of the 12th Congressional District traveling, and talking to leaders. I know the country and the community we live in and I know what we need to do. I know that it's going to require strong leadership."

Thanks for your help.

Bill Russell

PS: Give Bill a Christmas gift of $1000; $500; $100 or even $50 or $25 to help him beat Mr. Murtha.

Larry Stiles, USMC-Vietnam Veteran

Campaign Manager

William Russell for Congress

Help us help William Russell! Murtha must go!

FCC Relaxes Cross Media Ownership Rules

The The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted today to relax media ownership restrictions despite objections from some consumer groups and threats from some U.S. Senators to revoke the action.

The FCC vote, 3-2, along party lines will relax restrictions on a 32 yr. old ban on ownership of a print and broadcast outlets (cross-media) in a single market.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin approved the controversial rule change which was made at the agency's monthly public meeting, stating "We cannot ignore the fact that the media marketplace is considerably different than it was when the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership was put in place more than 30 years ago."

Since 1975, the FCC has banned the common ownership of a daily newspaper and TV or radio station in the same local market. The rule had prospective effect, meaning combinations in existence were grandfathered by the agency.

Other changes in the rule would allow allow a company in the 20 largest markets to own both newspaper and a television or radio stations.

Restrictions: For a company to own both newspaper and television or radio station, there must be at least 8 media outlets in that market and if it involves a television station it cannot be one of the four largest stations in that market.

The rules as they apply now do not allow cross-ownership, although many companies have a waiver from that ban which allows them to do so.

On Monday, December 14, 2007, 26 Senators signed a letter that was sent to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, which stated "It is customary to provide a reasonable period for comment when proposing rule changes in order to allow the American people an opportunity to review, understand and comment."

The Senate Commerce Committee had previously passed legislation asking Martin to defer the December 18, 2007 action.

The further go on to state in the aforementioned letter " We believe you have shortchanged the comment process and you have not completed a full review of localism prior to forcing a vote on a rule change dealing with media ownership limits."

The letter also informs Martin they will move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed action.

The FCC has background on this issue, titled the 2006 Review of the Media Ownership Rules, where they show that in June of 2006, the sent out a news release (PDF file), "FCC Opens Media Ownership Proceeding for Public Comment", seeking public comment on the "Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (Referred to as "Further Notice"), explaining that they were seeking public comment on how to address the issues raised by the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus v. FCC, (PDF file of the courts opinion) and also to start the comprehensive quadrennial review of all the media ownership rules, as required by statute.

(Side Note: Congress in 2004 amended the frequency of these periodic ownership reviews from once every two years to once every four years.)

Since 2007, the Commission has held six public hearings in geographically diverse locations around the country, the last of which was held in Seattle, Washington on Friday, November 9, 2007.

Topics included but were not limited to: Localism; Competition; Diversity; Minority ownership; Children’s and family-friendly programming; Senior citizens; Religious programming; Independent programming; Campaign and community event coverage; Music and the creative arts; The growth of the internet; Jobs and the economy; Advertisers; Rural America; The disabled community.

In a February 2002 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with media companies, including Fox, NBC, Viacom, and the National Association of Broadcasters, against the FCC. The organizations had claimed the FCC exceeded its own authority and violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act; the court agreed, saying "We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We remand the national television station ownership rule to the Commission for further consideration, and we vacate the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule because we think it un- likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it."

A few months later, in April 2002, the same appeals court reached a similar conclusion in the Sinclair Broadcast Group v. FCC case. In that case as well, the court tossed the old rules back to the FCC, saying: "We hold that the commission has failed to demonstrate that (the rule) is not arbitrary and capricious."

This history is to show that this is not a new battle, not the first nor will it be the last time this controversial issue will be discussed.
.

Hoyer Says One Thing and Rangel Says Another?

One has to wonder if these politicians even talk to each other at all.

Earlier it was reported that Steny Hoyer said that Congress may not be able to pass the AMT patch that would hit 23 million Americans with higher taxes, reported by The Hill.

His remark came as a surprise, since it has widely been assumed that Democrats will give up their effort to “pay for” the AMT patch and go with the Senate plan to load the cost onto the deficit.

Hoyer’s statement came the morning after nearly 30 conservative Blue Dog Democrats signaled their discontent with the Senate AMT plan by voting with Republicans against an adjournment resolution.

Hoyer was asked about efforts to resolve the dispute. He said he had come to the 11 a.m. briefing directly from the meeting to resolve the impasse and did not know the “state of play on AMT.”

“There’s no deal” with the Blue Dogs, he said.

A few hours later we see another article from CQ Politics that says Charlie Rangel says that he cares more about “patching” the alternative minimum tax than following the pay-as-you-go budget rule, signaling an end to a months-long standoff over a year-end tax bill.

The New York Democrat’s statement to reporters paved the way for the House to take up a Senate-passed bill that would prevent the AMT from hitting as many as 25 million taxpayers in 2007, up from 4 million last year.

The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative House Democrats, has vowed to vote against any bill without offsets. But Rangel, who had backed their position until now, said, “I would rather get the people not hit by the AMT, then come back again” to resurrect pay-as-you-go rules on future bills.

Note to the Blue Dogs: You can reduce spending to offset the cost, there is no need to raise anyones taxes or take take cuts from anyone either.

By the way, as I mentioned here, according to the letter that the Department of Treasury sent to Congress (read it), in late October, because of their bickering and insistence on taxes taxes taxes instead reducing spending as an offset, millions of people may still not be getting their refunds without a delay.

....the enactment of a patch beyond early November could also significantly delay processing of the taxpayers' (25 million) returns and payments of any refunds.

Don Surber shows how easily this could have been done without risking the delay to millions of taxpayers.

So cut $50 billion out of the $2.9 Trillion budget.

That is a trim of a mere 1.7%.

This could be done with an across-the-board cut of all spending.

Congressmen who make just under $170,000 a year could take a one-time pay cut of $2,931.04 just to show that they are on the side of fiscal responsibility.

Hell, Nancy Pelosi spends 5 times that on flowers every year. Well, not out of her pocket, mind you, but out of the House speaker’s budget, which is paid for by taxpayers.

Morons, the lot of them.

Steny Hoyer, meet Charlie Rangel, perhaps you two should communicate before making further fools of yourself in the news.

.

We Already KNOW Hillary Clinton is Unpopular

In a new Fox 5-The Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports survey, 64 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of third-party or independent voters, and 17 percent of Democrats said the candidate they most want to keep from the White House is Mrs. Clinton.

She is not very popular, is anyone surprised?

While Mrs. Clinton performed poorly among most demographics, younger male voters were particularly cold. More than half of the adult men younger than 40 said they would use their vote to keep Mrs. Clinton from returning to the White House.

The question itself was clear "Sometimes people vote for a candidate mainly because they're voting against someone else. Which of the leading presidential candidates would you most want to prevent from becoming president?"

Hillary has baggage, her husbands, her own campaign finance problems and she just isn't liked as evidenced by every poll done on the subject.

According to USA Today latest figures she is at a 48% unfavorable rating.

Unfavorable ratings for everyone else listed is lower, Huckabee 24% unfavorable, Edwards 33%, Thompson 34%, McCain 30%, Obama 30%, Romney 35% and Giuliani 41%.

The woman is unlikable. No two ways about it and that may just be the understatement of the year.

With that said, there is a picture floating around, which I first saw from Jammie Wearing Fools over the weekend and I have a few thoughts about that.



Drudge picked up the photo, Rush Limbaugh is talking about it, and I have to say from a womans standpoint, there are many reasons I dislike Hillary Clinton, but her looks, especially this photo isn't one of them.

How many woman see a picture of themselves and instantly want to tear it up, a photo caught with no makeup, bedhead, or just a bad day in general?

I wouldn't want my photo taken on a cold day, bundled up, walking through snow and on ice, then again, she did put herself out there in politics, so she has to expect things like this to happen.

If you want to pick on a photo, take one in fair circumstances, like while she is at work, and should care about her appearance.



THAT is a better example of a woman that just doesn't care, not one taken when any normal person would be wishing they were in a heated room and not freezing their butt off.

But if you want to judge her likability or unfavorable ratings, look to her agenda for common good, her horrible healthcare ideas, her campaign finance fraud problems, her flip flopping and refusing to give a straight answer, look to the real policy reasons of why she would be bad for our country.... not her looks on a cold day, walking on ice and in snow and probably rightfully, wishing she was anywhere but where she really was, which was going door to door to garner votes.

Unfettered "Mainstream Journalism" Much Riskier Than Citizen Journalism

David Hazinski writes that citizen journalists should be monitored and regulated and says "Major news organizations" must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity.

Mr.Hazinski writes:

Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.

The question should be, who will ensure than "traditional journalists" aka the mainstream media (MSM), adhere to their own code of ethics?

The Society of Professional Journalists states that the code of ethics are voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.

The main titles are the Preamble, Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently and Be Accountable.

Lets start with this from Mr. Hazinski "Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip."

One has to wonder if Mr. Hazinski has been keeping up with the news of his own counterparts in the media and whether they pass this test themselves.

For example, AP and Reuters, followed by MSNBC, AFP and dozens of other media outlets reported a story about 20 beheaded bodies found in Iraq back in late October, blasting the story across the world.

The problem?

There were no beheaded bodies and it was a blogger, a "citizen journalist" named Bob Owens, from Confederate Yankee, that followed up, did the fact checking that the MSM didn't bother to do and ultimately certain media outlets like AP and Reuters, days later, finally issued a correction, with far less fanfare than the original false story received.

The AP, via MSNBC's correction:

BAGHDAD - Reports of 20 beheaded bodies found south of Baghdad earlier this week were untrue and may have been fabricated by insurgents aiming to incite violence and revenge killings, the U.S. military said Saturday.

Reuters excuse was:

Verifying reports in Iraq is very hard for journalists, who have been systematically targeted by different militant groups and rely extensively on local sources for information.

Reporting a rumor as a news story and as a fact, then blasting it across the world, while their "corrections" are filled with excuses, seen by far less of the population, and leave the majority with the impression that the original story is true.

Back to those Journalistic Ethics, under the title of Seek Truth and Report It, the first caveat states "Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information."

Journalists should:

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

Moving right along, another "citizen journalist" , Gateway Pundit, brings examples of 5 additional stories, in the last 6 weeks that have been proven wrong and shows us that Time never did issue a correction on their report of the beheaded bodies that never were.

The Be Accountable portion of the journalistic ethics clear states:

— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

Another example comes from TimesOnline which brought the news of some unwelcome surprises for BBC when its executive board gathered for one of their weekly meetings.

Much to the apparent surprise of Bennett and Abramsky, two experienced and highly respected corporation bureaucrats, a procession of contrite and nervous producers came forward to ’fess up. The public, it seemed, had been deceived with unnerving consistency, particularly over programmes with phone-in polls and competitions. And on the corporation’s most noble flagship enterprises, too. Comic Relief and Children in Need, for example.

“We just sat there absolutely stunned,” one executive board member told me, “shocked beyond belief. Nobody had any idea that this was going on on such a scale.”

Another clear violation of the journalistic code of ethics is to use photos that misrepresent the news.

— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

The Autonomist captured a picture provided by AFP with this caption:

" An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her
house [emphasis added] following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City."

As The Autonomist said "The only way those bullets hit her house was if someone threw them at her house.

You see, they've never been fired."

The examples go on and on and this would be a 10 page article if I were to list all of those that I have been writing about in the last year, so this will be enough for now to make my point.

Mr. Hazinski should worry more about regulating the tradition media because their stories are seen by more people and their reporting rumors as news is far more dangerous, such as, doctored photos by so-called professionals like, Adnan Hajj, the ex-Reuters photographer, and out right lies, (see The New Republic's Baghdad Diarist, Scott Thomas Beauchamp), where it took TNR 4 and half months and 14 pages of excuses before they admit that they could "not stand behind" the stories. It was milibloggers and the Weekly Standard that discovered those lies that were reported as truth.

It is the "traditional media" that over half the American public states it does not trust and rightly so and 47% of Europeans do not trust, according to Harris Interactive and Eurobarometer survey.

So when Mr. Harzinski speaks of standards, perhaps he should look within his own profession.

In a very good counter article to Hazinski's, Leonard Witt, owner of URL CitizenJournalism.org, felt obligated to respond to David Hazinski's opinion piece.

He makes the following points:

• 59 percent of print journalists who won Pulitzer Prizes never studied journalism;

• 58 percent of journalists awarded Nieman Fellowships never studied journalism, and;

• 51 percent of journalists awarded Knight Fellowships at Stanford University never studied journalism.

Considering that in every example listed above, it was a "citizen journalist" that did the work, fact checked, verified, debunked and, in some cases, forced the "traditional journalists" to issue corrections to their false stories.... Mr. Hazinski might have just opened a can of worms that he might end up preferring he didn't.

Unfettered "mainstream journalism" is far more riskier than citizen journalists and one has to wonder if Mr. Hazinski is simply worried that at the rate that citizen journalism is growing, perhaps the need for traditional media is lessening.

The Dinosaur media no longer has the market on truth, news and researching facts.

[Update from Miss Beth]:

I mentioned to Spree let's not forget Time Magazine's "esteemed" journalist Joe Klein and his "expose" of the Haditha "Massacre"--that, after extensive investigation, ruined lives of our Marines, a US Representative making false statements from the steps of Congress (Murtha's comments regarding the Marines were "cold blooded killers"--comments made prior to any completed investigation or trial, thus violating said Marines Constitutional rights to a fair trial and innocent until PROVEN guilty)--and now being sued for those statements AND one Marine's fate still hanging in the balance (Lt. Col. Chessani)-were proven WHOLLY UNTRUE. Time and Klein have yet to issue a retraction.

.

CBS3 News Anchorwoman Arrested for Punching NYC Cop

Alycia Lane, emmy-winning anchorwoman for CBS3 has been arrested for assault on a plainclothes female police officer in Manhattan at approximately 2 am Sunday morning, allegedly she punched the officer in the face.

According to the police complaint, PDF file found here, Police Officer Richard Lawrence, of the 010 precinct states that on December 16, 2007, about 02:00 (2:00am), at 9th avenue and West 17th street, in the County and State of New York, the Defendant committed the offenses of 1. PL120.05(3) One count of assault in the second degree, the defendant, with intent to prevent a peace officer from performing a lawful duty, caused physical injury to such officer.

The offenses was committed under the following circumstances:

Deponent states that deponent was approaching an intoxicated male and directing said male to a taxi when defendant placed a camera against deponent's face. Deponent observed (name blanked out) of the 10th precinct, grab defendant's arm (holding the camera) in an attempt to move it away from deponent's face. Deponent states that the defendant said in substance to PO (name blanked out) I DON'T GIVE A (expletive) WHO YOU ARE, I AM A REPORTER YOU (expletive) DYKE. Deponent further states that deponent observed defendant strike (name blanked out) about the face. Deponent states that defendant's strike caused PO (name blanked out) to sustain two lacerations to PO (name blanked out) face and caused swelling.

This news was first reported by by Daily News reporter Regina Medina on PhillyGossip.com.

The officer was treated and released from a hospital for a facial cut while Lane pleaded not guilty to the felony charge of assaulting a police officer

Lane was released on her own recognizance by 5 p.m. yesterday. No bail was set. A hearing was scheduled for April 3.

Lanes lawyer, Manhattan based David Smith defended his client:

"Miss Lane never hit or ever said any derogatory comments to anyone," he told the Daily News.

Lane was "accosted by several individuals wearing plainclothes," Smith said. "They attempted to grab her camera to prevent her from taking photographs of an altercation they [plainclothes people] were involved in. Miss Lane was shocked to learn after the fact that these individuals were police officers."

The high-profile anchor, who has been with CBS3 since 2003, "respects police officers and has done several positive profiles of them in the Philadelphia area," Smith said.

Lane and Smith "are confident" that after a full investigation, she will be cleared of the charges," he said.

PhillyGossip.com further reports that CBS3 has confirmed that Lane "won’t return to the CBS3 airwaves until 2008" and that she will be edited out of the CBS 3 holiday special "Celebrate the Season," scheduled to air at 7 p.m. tomorrow and several more times.

CBS 3 spokeswoman Joanne Calabria makes the official statement for CBS3.

"We have been in touch with both Alycia and her attorney. Both emphatically state that when all of the facts are made public, she will be exonerated. Alycia says that she never struck anyone nor made the disparaging remarks that have been attributed to her. She was scheduled to begin two weeks of planned vacation time beginning next Monday. Given the circumstances, she and station management agreed that it would be best if she begin her time off today so that she can handle this pressing situation."

The New York Post points out that this is not the first time Lane has been the news herself instead of simply reporting it.

In May of 2007, it was reported that Lane had sent a series of private e-mails and saucy snapshots ( seven e-mails and several bikini photos) to NFL Network anchorman Rich Eisen that were intercepted by his wife.

.

Send The ACLU a Christmas Card

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Its become a popular yearly tradition now to send the Anti-Christian Liars Union grinches a Christmas card. I personally think its ineffective, and that the money you waste on a stamp for the organization to toss in the shredder would be better served towards a good cause. So, I encourage you to save that money, dig a little deeper, and contribute to an organization that fights the ACLU and defends Christmas. The Alliance Defense Fund, and the ACLJ are both great organizations that defend Christmas each year. The Alliance Defense Fund does it for free. Why not help groups like that out this year?

However, from experience last year...I know that many will insist on sending the ACLU a Christmas card. Afterall, it is tradition. If that is how you want to make your message...we have some great greeting cards and postcards available at our online store. Plenty of other great Christmas gifts too.

Send your Christmas card to the ACLU at:

ACLU

125 Broad Street

18th Floor

New York , NY 10004

.

Surprise for Romney, Congressman Steve King Endorses Fred Thompson

Looks like MSNBC jumped the gun when they announced that Rep. Steve King was endorsing Mitt Romney, then as an update showed that the endorsement went to Fred Thompson.

*** UPDATE *** King just announced that he's supporting Thompson. Team Romney is in the back of the room looking bewildered. They were all here, leading all the press to conclude that it was an endorsement for Romney.

Stand by for more.

From Blogs for Fred Thompson we have Thompson's statement on Steve King's endorsement:

"Congressman King's leadership in support of the sanctity of life and his efforts in the fight against illegal immigration have made him one of Iowa's great Republican leaders. He's a tireless fighter for the 5th district of Iowa and I'm honored by his support. I look forward to working with Congressman King over the next three weeks and into 2008 in support of the traditional conservative values he and I share."

Michelle Malkin mentions Romney's "Clintonian" answers about Amnesty on Meet The press yesterday... that definitely wouldn't have gone over well with King.

Everyone seemed to think that King's endorsement was going to go to Mitt Romney, especially the Romney team.

Radio Iowa describes the scene as it unfolds, from Romney's people showing up to Thompson's people showing up and then Steve Kings announcement:

"It is a very heavy decision, among the hardest decisions that I have ever made in my life....I want to say this about Rudy Giuliani, the America's mayor...I differ with him on a few issues...(mentions sanctuary cities)....that's where I part company at least for the time being....John McCain has served America every day of his adult life....this is a very solid, patriotic man...(but King cites immigration & ethanol as stumbling blocks)...I am a great admirer of John McCain...then I'm down to the remaining three and I will tell you that Mike Huckabee, you can't not like Mike Huckabee...He brings a lot of tools to the table, along with a great sense of humor....(but King questions his immigration policies in Ark)...I have to draw the bright line on the rule of law....So I'm down to, of course, Romney and Thompson and in the end I have to come down on the side of this -- who am I most comfortable with on the issues that I believe in....When I see someone who believes in their core....when they make a decision, if they're where I am philosophically....so after really, I didn't sleep last night but I come here to the podium to tell you that I have great respect for all the candidates."

King now veers into a discussion of faith -- an apparent reference to Romney's Mormonism. King suggests no one should be denied the presidency because of their personal faith.

Now, he's talking about "fire in his belly" and concludes with this, calling his pick, "the person who I believe destiny has called to be the president of the United States. I will be working for...Fred Thompson for president."

They say a week can be a lifetime in politics and since we are just weeks away from the first primaries, it looks like that old adage is true and as fast as the news comes out, it changes.

With McCain receiving two papers endorsements yesterday and well as having the Union Leaders endorsement and the announcement of Joseph Lieberman endorsing McCain, and now this for Thompson... the race is on for Iowa.

.

Lieberman to Endorse McCain

After my previous piece showing the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe following up with the Union Leader, all endorsing John McCain for the GOP nomination, I take a break, come back and find out that Joseph Lieberman is also going to be announcing his support of McCain.

Many, including myself, have floated the idea that should McCain win the Republican nomination, it might not be a stretch to see a McCain/Lieberman ticket and this does nothing to dispel that thought process.

Word is the two will appear on NBC's Today Show as well as at a New Hampshire townhall meeting where Lieberman will officially give his endorsement to John McCain.

An aide to Lieberman tells CNN he decided to endorse McCain because he considers him "the most capable to be commander in chief on day one of his administration, and the most capable of uniting the country so that we can prevail against Islamic extremism."

The Lieberman aide insists the senator does not see this as a "commentary on or an endorsement of the Republican party, only the person."

Lieberman had not planned to endorse anyone until after the primary season, but McCain asked Lieberman for his endorsement a few days after the two men returned from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq together, and Lieberman decided to do it, according to the same Lieberman aide.

All in all, not a bad weekend for John McCain.

.

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

For lack of any other explanation than I feel totally random today, we're going to take a look at some headlines that make you sit back and go "hmmmmmm," with a brief commentary on what I find (YES, I know I do this once in a while already, but at least today I'm giving the REASON behind why I do this. Sheesh, everyone's a critic).

First up is one that all of those with BDS are going to be frothing at the mouth about saying "you just KNOW those people at Wake Up America are going to be all FOR this because Bush can do no WRONG (insert appropriate levels of frothing and snarling, foaming at the mouth, and wild, crazed looks here). WRONG. First the bits of the article and then my thoughts on it.

Control sought on military lawyers
Bush wants power over promotions

By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 15, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is pushing to take control of the promotions of military lawyers, escalating a conflict over the independence of uniformed attorneys who have repeatedly raised objections to the White House's policies toward prisoners in the war on terrorism.

The administration has proposed a regulation requiring "coordination" with politically appointed Pentagon lawyers before any member of the Judge Advocate General corps - the military's 4,000-member uniformed legal force - can be promoted.

A Pentagon spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the reasoning behind the proposed regulations. But the requirement of coordination - which many former JAGs say would give the administration veto power over any JAG promotion or appointment - is consistent with past administration efforts to impose greater control over the military lawyers.

The former JAG officers say the regulation would end the uniformed lawyers' role as a check-and-balance on presidential power, because politically appointed lawyers could block the promotion of JAGs who they believe would speak up if they think a White House policy is illegal.

Okay, BAD idea. You can't take one corps of the military and change the rules and it not affect the other corps adversely. From my own experiences with the Graham-Rudman budget cuts on into the Clinton fiasco of hatred for our armed forces through until today, we've finally gotten our military back into a place where it's able to do what it needs to do more effectively and efficiently than at any time in our nation's history (that's my opinion, and is so stated as such, so DON'T start in with all your left leaning statistics and anti-military frothing and snarling, ok? good). In any event, there is already a system in place for the promotion of military lawyers, as they ARE military officers. There is no need for a separate system of promotions for JAG than for, say, the Corps of Engineers, the Infantry Corps, of the Armored Corps.

Next we move to Bolivia where we see that not all is well in relations between state and industry.

Four Bolivian regions declare autonomy from government

From Helena DeMoura
CNN

Tensions were rising in Bolivia on Saturday as members of the country's four highest natural gas-producing regions declared autonomy from the central government.

Thousands waved the Santa Cruz region's green-and-white flags in the streets as council members of the Santa Cruz, Tarija, Beni and Pando districts made the public announcement.

The officials displayed a green-bound document containing a set of statutes paving the way to a permanent separation from the Bolivian government.

Council representatives vowed to legitimize the so-called autonomy statutes through a referendum that would legally separate the natural-gas rich districts from President Evo Morales' government.

The move also aims to separate the states from Bolivia's new constitution, which calls for, among other things, a heavier taxation on the four regions to help finance more social programs.

"The statutes will be ratified," said Oscar Ortiz, Santa Cruz senator. "With a public referendum, the people of our region will legitimize their will."

About 35 percent of Bolivia's 9.5 million people live in the four states, according to The Associated Press.

Democratic Presidential candidates take particular notice at why these four regions are moving to secede from Bolivia; "a heavier taxation on the four regions to help finance more social programs." Taxing the productive to benefit the non-productive PISSES OFF the productive. In Ayn Rand's terms, this is what you call "looting." WE don't like that happening to us in THIS country, either.

Here's a story that should have all you Huckayucks out there reexamining your support of the former governor from Arkansas (like we really NEED another former Arkansas governor in the White House any time soon, oy vey).

Huckabee's theology degree? Now says ain't necessarily so
Campaign admits candidate doesn't have claimed religious credential
Posted: December 14, 2007
7:20 p.m. Eastern

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told the Christian Broadcasting Network he had a theology degree, he told voters in Iowa he had a theology degree, he repeated the claim in last month's CNN YouTube debate ... but, his campaign now says, it was not true.

Huckabee's claim began unraveling following his offhanded comment about Mormonism in a New York Times interview last weekend.

Reporter Zev Chafets wrote: "I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. 'I think it's a religion,' he said. 'I really don't know much about it.'

"I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: 'Don't Mormons,' he asked in an innocent voice, 'believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?'"

In the interview, Huckabee's account of his education made no mention of his having earned a theology degree.
was ever rebellious or difficult, there's no record of it. He preached his first sermon as a teenager, married his high-school sweetheart and went off to Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia. There he majored in speech and communications, worked at a radio station and earned his B.A. in a little more than two years. He spent a year at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Tex., before dropping out to work for the televangelist James Robison, who bought him his first decent wardrobe and showed him how to use television."
Chafets wrote: "If young Mike Huckabee was ever rebellious or difficult, there's no record of it. He preached his first sermon as a teenager, married his high-school sweetheart and went off to Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia. There he majored in speech and communications, worked at a radio station and earned his B.A. in a little more than two years. He spent a year at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Tex., before dropping out to work for the televangelist James Robison, who bought him his first decent wardrobe and showed him how to use television."

The problem is, if he's willing to lie about something of such major importance as this...

Just a few thoughts from a pondering wandering man.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man



.

Interesting Endorsements, McCain, Obama and Clinton

Two weeks ago to the day, the Union Leader, the largest and only statewide paper in New Hampshire, officially endorsed John McCain and listed their reasons for doing so.

Today we see two more papers endorsing candidates, one from each side of the aisle.

The Des Moines Register endorses John McCain for the GOP and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats.

The reasoning for McCain can be found here and the reasoning for Clinton can be found here.

McCain:

In endorsing McCain, who was tied for fifth in the Register’s November Iowa Poll of likely caucus-goers, the newspaper’s editorial board wrote:

“Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public. He has criticized crop and ethanol subsidies during two presidential campaigns in Iowa. He bucked his party and president by opposing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A year ago, in the face of growing criticism, he staunchly supported President Bush’s decision to increase troop strength in Iraq.

“McCain would enter the White House with deep knowledge of national-security and foreign-policy issues. He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one. He’s also a fierce defender of civil liberties. As a survivor of torture, he has stood resolutely against it. He pledges to start rebuilding America’s image abroad. …

“The force of John McCain’s moral authority could go a long way toward restoring Americans’ trust in government and inspiring new generations to believe in the goodness and greatness of America.”

They seem to ignore that the U.S. and Germany have very good relations, France has just voted in a very Pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy, Brown may be no Blair, but we still have good relations with them as well as Denmark.

Our image abroad stems from our strength and our determination to stand by our allies.

Nothing against McCain, but the Registers reasoning is hollow on that point.

Clinton:

The Register’s endorsement of Clinton comes at a time when polls show she has slipped behind Sen. Barack Obama in Iowa.

“Readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president,” the newspaper’s endorsement editorial concludes. “When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.”

This shows a complete amount of dishonesty because Clinton's "experience" is that of a First Lady and on things she was directly responsible for, such as the healthcare disaster during Bill's terms, she failed miserably.

Not only that, but Obama has held an elective office seat for longer than Clinton has, so in terms of "experience", he actually has more of it in elected office.

If I were still a Democrat I would be looking at their careers to make my judgments accordingly.

Obama, State Legislature, and Obama Senate Career, Obama 109th Congress and then 110th Congress.

Clinton, Senate Career, Clinton first term, , Clinton second term.

Make the comparisons yourself.

Again, the reasoning from the Des Moines Register is hollow and shows nothing more than a justification to themselves for choosing the least experienced candidate, which is Hillary Clinton.

Which brings us to the next paper that officially announced endorsements this weekend.

The Boston Globe, which endorsed, John McCain for the GOP and Barack Obama for the Democrats.

McCain:

'McCain’s views differ from those of this editorial page in a variety of ways. Yet McCain’s honesty has served him well,'' the board wrote. "As a lawmaker and as a candidate, he has done more than his share to transcend partisanship and promote an honest discussion of the problems facing the United States. He deserves the opportunity to represent his party in November’s election.'

Obama:

'The board, noting that Obama would be the country's first post-Baby Boom president if elected, addressed his relative lack of Washington experience compared to several of his Democratic rivals. ''It is true that all the other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes, and have spent more time in Washington,'' the board wrote. "But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government’s constraints. Obama is more open to its possibilities.'

Although they chose Obama, they also seem to declare when saying that all the other contenders have spent "more time in Washington", that somehow the position of First Lady should count as "experience".

One has to wonder how they would define experience.

The Union Leader also has another piece out on McCain today.

The common factor in the Union Leader, Des Moine Register, and Boston Globe's endorsements, is John McCain for the GOP, even if their reasoning is skewered, and once again Clinton and Obama seems to split the media establishment as well as the Democratic supporters that will be voting.

.

Gathering of Eagles Update-Christmas Cheer For Our Warriors

Via email from GOE, which brings me to this Gathering of Eagles Page: