USA Mega

Lottery Places

The time is now 7:52 pm

You last visited
June 5, 2026, 12:00 pm

All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Home › Blogs › konane's Blog

konane's Blog

Page 544 of 587

"Government in Time of War

"Government in Time of War

By Josh Manchester

Source Tech Central Station Daily

"Recently President Bush met with a select group of opinion columnists. Their reports paint an image of a White House that is operating at a very different level than most news stories and Democratic critics have otherwise intimated. Even though the majority of the country still leads peacetime lives, and the majority of the opposition does not comport itself as though we are at war, President Bush is unmistakably fighting a war, day in and day out.

 

Daniel Henninger quoted Bush and described the atmosphere in his weekly column for the Wall Street Journal:

 

"I'm campaigning like mad, and I'm looking at people in the eye and saying, you better have a government that does everything in its power to protect you from attack. You're right here in the office where I get briefed every morning and I'm telling you it's on my mind, and I can't keep it off my mind. I was affected deeply by the attacks of September the 11th. It became clear to me that day that we were at war. I know we're at war . . ."

 

Admittedly, it is difficult to convey in public the urgency about the war on terror that Mr. Bush conveys in private. But it is obvious that he regards the threat to the American people as palpable.

 

"My biggest issue that I think about all the time," Mr. Bush says, "is the next attack on America, because I am fully aware that there are people out there that would like nothing more than to have another spectacular moment by killing American people. And they're coming. And we've got to do everything we can to stop them. That's why we need to be on offense all the time." This, he insists, is the justification for the terrorist wiretaps, the Patriot Act, the interrogations and the Iraq war.

 

Both the Republican Congress and President Bush have long been condemned for not living up to their conservative credentials, or for other errors that just didn't sit right: by letting spending grow; by not getting a Social Security reform bill passed; for nominating Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court; and so on. Perhaps such critiques, well-founded though they might be, are a little too swift to ignore the central feature of this Presidency: it's at war, and in such times, other considerations quite frequently fall to the wayside.

 

Some would probably place the blame for this at Bush's feet himself. "After all," they might argue, "he didn't take the entire nation to war. He asked us to go on shopping as usual." Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that in any endeavor and in any organization, leadership can only grasp hold of so many goals at a time, whether attempting to maintain situational awareness, developing a policy and creating a consensus around it, or rallying the public to a cause. In short, it is not absurd to think that one reason for the GOP Congress' seeming malaise is that the Presidential leadership, which often plays a very important role in congressional goal-setting and consensus-building, is entirely consumed with preventing the next attack on America.

 

Will anyone really care about Social Security reform the day after the next attack? Or how big the federal budget deficit is? Capable politicians, of whom the president is one, realize that such considerations, while important, will sink to the bottom the moment the next bombs detonate. Marine General Al Gray was once asked why he spent so much of the Corps' money on training, and not on quality-of-life initiatives like better housing. To paraphrase him, "the best quality-of-life is having one," - meant to imply that training keeps men alive.

 

Is it too much to think that Bush and most key members of his cabinet are so focused on preventing attacks and prosecuting the war that all other functions of government are on auto-pilot? Bureaucracies have an inertia of their own that allows them to function for a good bit of time even without detailed guidance. And Congress can certainly keep itself occupied without the President submitting new legislation, or rallying them to it - though it doesn't hurt to note that the main legislation Bush did work on in the last three months was that dealing with interrogations - in other words, he was focused on the war.

 

How long can this go on? Bush implies that the next President will be just as busy as he is in preventing attacks on the United States. If it's true that the presidential attention span will be concerned primarily with security for the foreseeable future - say ten or fifteen more years - this does not bode well for those who are most eager for large-scale domestic reforms. It might even augur an age of diminished capabilities for the federal government. Simplification of the government's role in life might make it easier for it to more effectively accomplish its remaining core competencies: those largely related to security.

 

Josh Manchester is a TCSDaily contributing writer. His blog is The Adventures of Chester (www.theadventuresofchester.com).

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110306A

Entry #660

Vote Democrat say Terrorist Leaders

"Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat
Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden jihadists to destroy Israel, America

By Aaron Klein
Source WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

 

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege."...........
................" Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal." .................

........."WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam." ..........

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

Entry #659

"Saddam .. year away from having nukes

Compilation from several news sources and blogs, quoted and properly credited.  Embedded live links on some.

 

Powerlineblog.com

Saddam was a year away from having nukes -- Bush to blame

 

The defining characteristic of partisan attacks on President Bush has been their unthinking and indiscriminate nature. For example, Bush is to blame for not halting the development of nukes by Iran and North Korea, but he's also to blame for toppling Saddam Hussein on the grounds, in part, that Saddam was interested in and capable of developing nukes. Critics point to Iran's rise as evidence that Bush misplaced his focus on Iraq but they don't consider how Saddam would have reacted to Iranian nuclear progress.

The New York Times now has carried unthinking Bush-bashing to a point beyond carricature. Today, as Tiger Hawk notes, it quotes with apparent approval "experts" who say that Saddam was as little as a year away from building an atom bomb. The Times does so in order to show that the Bush administration acted recklessly when it published captured Iraqi documents that describe that country's WMD programs, because those documents might be used by another country in furtherance of building WMD.

Did the Times just say that Saddam's Iraq was a year away from building a nuclear weapon? I guess so. Good thing Saddam's no longer in power.

As Tiger Hawk puts it, "the New York Times owes Judith Miller an apology. Or at least a hat tip." Not to mention President Bush.

See Jim Geraghty for more.

Posted by Paul at 08:29 PM |      http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015749.php

National Review Online

"Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

"11/02 10:39 PM
When I saw the headline on Drudge earlier tonight, that the New York Times had a big story coming out tomorrow that had something to do with Iraq and WMDs, I was ready for an October November Surprise.

Well, Drudge is giving us the scoop. And if it's meant to be a slam-Bush story, I think the Times team may have overthunk this:

U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN...

NYT REPORTING FRIDAY, SOURCES SAY: Federal government set up Web site — Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal — to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war; detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research; a 'basic guide to building an atom bomb'... Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums...

Website now shut... Developing...

I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?

What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been  "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.

Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.

I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda."........

http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y

"JVERITAS - TRANSLATING THE IRAQ DOCUMENTS

"Original translations of the documents captured in Iraq from Arabic to English.
Contact me if you wish to contribute to these efforts, and speak both Arabic and English.

"JVERITAS Responds to the 11/3 NYT Article Regarding Iraq Nuclear Program.

 

The New York Times article to be published on November 3rd 2006 is about the US putting some captured Iraqi documents on the Foreign Military Intelligence Office (FMSO) website that talks about what the NYT and the IAEA call sensitive information from Iraq 1996 "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration FFCD presented to the UN and IAEA in 1996 and that talks about Iraq nuclear clandestine program. The IAEA and the New York Times claim that Iran may be using some of the technology in this FFCD which is a laughable idea as shown below.

That is from the IAEA website regardinf their report on Iraq FFCD presented to them by the Iraqis in 1996: “ 3. On 7 September 1996 in Baghdad Iraq delivered what it considered to be the definitive version of the "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration" (FFCD-F) of the Iraqi clandestine nuclear programme. The IAEA with the assistance of technical experts from Member States undertook a comprehensive review of the document.” Link: http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC41/Documents/gc41-20.html

So the FFCD was discussed with member states experts of the IAEA. There are 142 members in the IAEA including Iran. I am not saying that the IAEA discussed the Iraqi FFCD with Iranians but the FFCD was not such a secret document and the Iranians would have been able to access it in one way or another if it really provide them with any useful information.

What is important in this whole issue is that the New York Times has ridiculed these documents all along and never payed attention to them including the very important documents that show Saddam regime never stopped its programs related to WMD including nuclear programs. These documents were translated and posted here on FR.

On the subject of nuclear program, I translated and posted a document last month dated January 2001 that shows with a shadow of doubt that Saddam was personally involved with his nuclear scientist to re-build the nuclear program. In this document it states that Saddam personally approved his Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency to re-use nuclear equipments that include something called “Degussa Furnaces” that were used in the previous and prohibited Iraq nuclear program. These furnaces can be used to melt uranium and other nuclear related activities. The Degussa Vacuum furnaces were supplied to Iraq in the 1980’s by a German firm (Degussa AG based in Frankfurt Germany) and these furnaces later on became the subject of investigations of the German firm in the early 1990’s where the company claimed that they did not know that Iraq would have used them in its nuclear program.

The New York Times had an article in 1998 titled “An Iraqi Defector Warns of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Research” where the Degussa furnaces were mentioned as part of “previous” Iraq nuclear program and the controversy surrounding the sale of these furnaces and the investigations later on(link: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/iraqi_defector.html ). The irony is that this is not only a New York Times article but also it was written by JUDITH MILLER and JAMES RISEN once of the worst accusers (liars) that the Bush administration lied about Iraq WMD. Where are you Scott Shane????

Link to the translated document on FR: 2001 Iraqi Document: Saddam Approved the Re-Use of Nuclear Equipment http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725141/posts

Moreover, there are documents dated 1999-2001 that talk about Saddam regime projects to re-build some of the nuclear program facilities like RWTS (Radioactive Waste Treatment Station) and Radio-Chemistry laboratories which were part of Iraq previous clandestine nuclear program. Link to the translated document on FR: Iraqi Documents: Projects to Rebuild Saddam Nuclear Facilities http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718125/posts .

Also this one

Iraqi Documents Show Plans for Prohibited Nuclear Projects http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709390/posts

posted by jveritas @ 7:02 AM   0 comments links to this post  

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

  The New York Times' November Suprise   H/T Drudge Message that the New York Times wishes to convey with this article - days before the mid-term Congressional elections:. Those idiotic GOP Congressmen and right-wingers in the Bush Administration and the blogosphere helped ...
posted by St Wendeler @ 8:13 AM   On the documents story...   My partner-in-blogging has discussed the New York Times story. I, too, will add some thoughts - and give out some well-deserved praise. Blogger jveritas, who has been doing yeoman's work translating a very small fraction of the ...
posted by Harold C. Hutchison @ 8:06 AM   JVeritas comments on NTY article...   Blogger jveritas, who has been doing yeoman's work translating a very small fraction of the documents recovered during the liberation of Iraq, has responded to the New York Times article. At the very least, these documents should lift a ...
posted by Harold C. Hutchison @ 8:06 AM

<< Home



http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/2006/11/jveritas-responds-to-113-nyt-article.html#links

Entry #658

"Rest Of The Story On The Allen 'Assault'

A group of still photos done by the Fredricksburg Free Lance Star which are on site and running in sequence show an assault which lead up to the removal of leftist activist Mike Stark from Sen. George Allen's campaign rally.

If CNN had shown the whole thing it would have been apparent why he was ejected, but guess that didn't fit their agenda.

"The Rest Of The Story On The Allen Assault'

Ed Morrisey, Captain's Quarters
"Various left-wing bloggers voiced their outrage when blogger/activist Mike Stark got leveled after trying to push his way through to George Allen at a hotel this week. CNN video showed Stark trying to get around campaign staffers to shout at Allen about spitting on his first wife, a charge Allen's former spouse denied and called "baseless". The same staffers tossed Stark to the ground when he refused to back away, prompting accusations of goonery by Allen's campaign.

However, a series of photographs 
from the event by the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star shows that Allen's staff had good reason to worry about Stark. He assaulted one staffer in his attempt to get to Allen, something that the CNN cameras wouldn't have caught. Here's a slideshow of Stark's actions before the confrontation that everyone saw on the video.

Very obviously, Stark had become violent before the altercation we saw on CNN. The staffers afterwards closed ranks around Allen to keep Stark from committing violence against the Senator, and when he continued to push and shove, they physically removed him from the scene. The CNN video provided plenty of justification for the concerns of Allen's staff, and these pictures show that they acted rationally to Stark's irrational behavior.".........

.........."Allen has made mistakes in this campaign, but the Democrats have been nothing short of vicious. They've attacked Allen's mother, they've tried to pry open his divorce records, and they've tried to imply that a couple of summonses for minor infractions amounted to a secret arrest record from 30 years ago. The Democrats have done everything in Virginia except talk about the issues, and that should inform Virginians of what their votes will endorse next Tuesday. I believe Virginians are too smart to support these kinds of electoral tactics, and they will make the right choice -- to return George Allen to the Senate and James Webb to the private sector. "

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/ 
Entry #657

"What The MSM Doesn't Know And Doesn't Care To Find Out

John Kerry ...... Democrat Party's nomination for President in '04 ......... the one who best represents their PARTY PLATFORM.  [insert red star] 

Telling, indeed especially that the dinosaur media is totally complicit.

I personally wonder who or what is the real background funding source for the MSM. 

Sure makes you wonder considering al Reuters photos of the green helmet guy awhile back. 

"What The MSM Doesn't Know And Doesn't Care To Find Out

By Hugh Hewitt

Source Townhall.com

"When unique visitors to HughHewitt.com crashes through 125,000 on a single day, I know the public is engaged.

 

That's what happened yesterday, and my guess is that Townhall.com traffic was also off the charts.".....

 

....."And yesterday's numbers were no doubt helped along by lefties eager to read my interviews with Mark Halperin of ABC News. (Interview one here and interview two here.) Halperin and co-author John Harris have written a book, The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008, and was eager to promote it while talking politics with me. We disagreed sharply on many issues though the long conversation was for the most part very civil, and the left was as a result feverish beyond belief and fired with rage against Halperin. Generated a lot of traffic too.

 

But that doesn’t explain the Wednesday surge. The surge was Kerry's doing.

 

During the day I posted often on Kerry's slander of the military, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and finally here. So did Dean Barnett, here and here."..........

.........."Even as the men and women in uniform heard the sneer and felt the slur, they also watched as elite media dismissed their anger and participated in the diminishment of their right to be incensed."
.............." Within the Manhattan-Beltway media machine there was utter cluelessness as to opinion about Kerry's statement, Kerry's refusal to apologize, and then Kerry's non-apology apology, a cluelessness so profound as to be easily mistaken for contempt.

No other group would be treated with such casual disregard than the American military. They were the target of the barb, but their opinions about it and the man who hurled it were not consulted, and indeed, positively avoided. Much more important in the eyes of the MSM is what elite pundits and prestige reporters thought of what Kerry said and what Kerry did.

Why were so many so eager to defend Kerry instead of the troops?

A handful of Democrats instantly understood that Kerry had crossed an unacceptable line, though many including Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Ohio's Sherrod Brown rushed to defend their patron as opposed to the military they soon hope to represent.

In MSM, there were almost no voices willing to recognize the slander and demand an apology.

New media moved to make sure the military's view was heard, but it was the military itself that ultimately settled the issue.".........

......"

One picture -- now a famous picture-- utterly routed the MSM. It did so because it came from the military that had heard and understood what Kerry had said, and what he had not apologized for. Whether or not the old media carries the picture on front pages today (which would have been an obvious decision in any newsroom not deeply biased against the military and in favor of Democrats) most Americans will have seen it and laughed and laughed at John Kerry. Ridicule is the best revenge, and the troops have it.

But the American electorate also has a very clear example of how the media has been covering the war, the 2006 campaign, and, yes, the military for the past few years. The big MSM names want another Vietnam, and they pursue that storyline with a relentlessness that isn't deterred even by plummeting circulation and declining viewership.

It is surpassingly strange to watch an industry will its own destruction. But stranger still if the culture within which it lives does not object to the design."

Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=what_the_msm_doesnt_know_and_doesnt_care_to_find_out&ns=HughHewitt&dt=11/02/2006&page=full&comments=true

Entry #656

"Kerry's '72 Army Comments Mirror Latest

Yes I posted this pic another blog entry but it deserves posting again.  Big Grin

"Kerry's '72 Army Comments Mirror Latest
 WASHINGTON (AP) - During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061102/D8L4QH580.html

GIS DROP SMART BOMB ON KERRY

"HILARIOUS HEROES FIRE BACK OVER DEM AND DUMBER CRACK ABOUT IRAQ

By TODD VENEZIA in N.Y. and IAN BISHOP in Washington

Slideshow image
WACKY IN KHAKI: A group of sharp-witted soldiers gives Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry a Memorable rebuke for his so-called "joke" advice to students to study or else end up "stuck in Iraq." The devastating photo raced around the Internet yesterday after being posted ona Milwaukee talk-radio host's blog.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
November 2, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A group of GIs showed they are smart enough to take on condescending Sen. John Kerry - by deploying a hilariously misspelled sign mocking the failed presidential candidate's comments about their education.

"Halp us Jon Carry - We R stuck hear n Irak," read the sign, which was apparently the brainchild of a group of service members from the Minnesota National Guard.

The picture was first revealed yesterday on the blog Web site of Milwaukee talk radio host Charlie Sykes, who said he got it from a listener who had a buddy in the unit.

The picture soon raced around the Internet, and it got much of the nation chuckling when it went up on Drudge Report later in the day.

Staff Sgt. Erik Holtan, a member of the Minnesota National Guard, says he saw the picture and recognized the insignia as that of his fellow Minnesota guardsmen - and he immediately put it up on his own blog site.

"It's awesome," he told The Post. "The troops over there have to be livid because of what [Kerry] said. I don't know why he would say that."

Holtan, who works at Guard headquarters, said he believes the troops behind the Kerry sign are in Iraq, since all the members of the unit in the shot - the 1/34 Brigade Troops Battalion - have been deployed.

He said he can see a unit insignia on one of the vehicles in the background and those vehicles have also gone to Iraq.

Fox News Channel quoted Army officials saying that the picture looked authentic and appeared to be taken in Iraq.

"We are always amazed at the creativity of our troops," one Army official told Fox.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022006/news/nationalnews/gis_drop_smart_bomb_on_kerry_nationalnews_todd_venezia_in_n_y____and_ian_bishop_in_washington.htm

Entry #655

The great American suck-up begings....

The great American suck-up begins .................  Now she can't let potential voters desert before '08, can she????  Wonder how many sides she has to her mouth????????????????????????? 

Understand she told military people who served in the White House while "We ARE the President" that SHE DOES NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THEM, that at White House functions she had them serving hors d'oeuvres, and otherwise treated them like dirt.

 

"Sen. Clinton says Kerry should apologize

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061101/NEWS/61101021

Entry #654

Photo

Source Drudgereport.com  http://www.drudgereport.com/

 

Found this on "Basictraining" blog and found it appropriate to post.

 

""I Botched the Joke?!?!?!

Here is the email I am submitting to Senator Kerry:

I am incensed about your remarks today concerning my and my fellow enlisted soldiers' intelligence. I also read your follow-up explanation that it was a failed joke - I hope you also do not believe the rest of the country as stupid as me, because I have a really hard time believing it was a joke after being able to view the speech (yes, in context) online.

I have a BA from Columbia University. Maybe you have heard of it. I would be willing any day of the week to put my French language skills up agaist yours. I also attended a certain private high school in Exeter, NH. Maybe you have heard of that one? I enlisted in the US Army after 9/11. Am I stupid?

I went to basic combat training with a guy who has a BS in Aeronautical Engineering. He is, literally, a rocket scientist. He also enlisted soldier in the US Army after 9/11. Is he stupid?

I currently work with another guy who has a Masters in Philosophy and was very close to finishing his dissertation for his PhD. He, by the way, is very liberal politically, but I would be willing to bet that in an exercise of debate, with him taking the other side, he would talk circles around you, or any of your 99 colleagues in Washington. He enlisted in the US Army after 9/11 out of patriotism. Is he stupid?

College degrees in my company in the enlisted ranks outnumber those in the officers'. We obviously did our homework and worked hard during our years in school. Maybe you are out of touch and do not realize just how much things have changed since you were in the military (that is if, in fact, you had an idea about it then). I think you may get too many of your ideas from movies and television, because it is painfully obvious that you have not ever taken the time to really speak with an enlisted member of today's US military.

To my relatives and friends in MA: Please, please, please do not send this elitist buffoon back to Washington the next time he is up for re-election. This is not the first time he has made disparaging remarks about the military, or the general population at large. Listen to his speeches and he will always mention the "working class". We don't have classes in the United States. Our ancestors left Europe because they hated the fact that they were part of the toiling masses which supported a small, elite aristocracy who ran everything. In America, anyone can work hard, become successful and live the good life - ANYONE. Bill Gates dropped out of college to write MS-DOS, the precursor to Windows. Wal-Mart started as one family-run store in Arkansas. Nike was a track coach's dream in Oregon. Next time you hear a John Kerry speech, listen closely and when he refers to "working class Americans" it will be in the 3rd person. That is because he does not see himself as part of that group - he sees himself as part of a small, elite aristocracy."

Posted by TJ at November 1, 2006 06:11 AM



http://www.basictrainingblog.com/weblog/archives/2006/11/i_botched_the_j.html
Entry #653

"Imputed Income ... time to pay close attention

Anyone who owns a home or hopes to own one needs to pay close attention to this socialist scheme to redistribute income and assets via siezure through taxation.... and we do know the foundation of the current DemocratSocialist party is FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO OWN EVERYTHING.  They do not believe in private property ownership, period.

"WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU.  TODAY'S INSTALLMENT

"Again .. .do I think that the Republicans have earned our continued permission to control both the House and the Senate in Washington?  Not only no, but hell no.  The best that can be said of the Republicans now is that they're not Democrats, though they seem to be trying to erase any differences as fast as they cam.  Republicans in control for two more years --- spending and increasing the size of government --- is an acceptable outcome next week only because the alternative is so much worse. 

This week I'm detailing some of the plans that the Democrats have for you and your bank accounts if and when they get the control that they think is their birthright.

Today I want to share with you another delicious little morsel the Democrats have waiting for you if they ever gain the political power they so ardently desire.  It's called "imputed income."  If you are a home owner, pay attention.  This concerns your wallet and your bank account. 

Let me start this off with a few points that I don't think you will dispute.  Democrats are the party of big government.  Democrats are the party of the social welfare state. Democrats want to make more and more Americans dependent on government because they know that the higher the degree of dependency the weaker the people and the stronger the government.  It goes without saying that the stronger and more powerful government becomes, the stronger and more powerful the politicians who control that government become.  This isn't rocket surgery here.

Money in the hands of the people who earned it contributes to their personal independence.  Independent people don't need politicians.  Money taken from those who earn it and then used to build the government social welfare state robs people of their independence.  Democrats love this scenario.  They want you to be dependent on government.  To do that they need to take your money and use it to grow the federal welfare state.  This is why Democrats just love the idea of tax increases. 

To be sure, Democrats know that all of their rhetoric about raising taxes on the rich and the rich "paying their fair share" resonates well with their voter base.  Playing to wealth envy will always earn votes ... but nothing earns votes quite like dependence on government.  Creating that dependence, though, is an expensive proposition.  To cover the tab the Democrats have to drain every penny from your pocket that they can -- right up to the point that you decide it's time to revolt.

Democrats will tell you that they only want to raise taxes on the so-called "rich."  Nancy Pelosi will probably come up with some figure in the $200,000 or $250,000 range to describe "rich" when she and her Democrat pals start to work on their tax increase plans.  But here's a warning.  If you happen to fall below that "rich" category, you're in their crosshairs as well.  They have various schemes in the works to put you smack in the middle of the "rich" category, and thus set you up for some pretty substantial tax increases.

One such scheme targets homeowners.  It's called "imputed income," and its a brilliant and devious idea on how to tax your home ownership.

Here's how it works.

Let's say that you've owned your home for about 20 years.  For 20 years your home has been appreciating in value ... big time.  Your monthly payments on that home are about $550 a month.  Remember, it's a 220-year-old loan made when the cost of your home was much, much less.  There isn't much of a home mortgage tax deduction left at this point since you almost have the home paid off, and the bulk of your payments go to principal instead of interest. 

The very fact that you're living in such a nice home, and paying so little, attracts the interest of Democrats.  They know that there are a lot of people in your neighborhood that paid a lot more for their homes than you did, and their mortgage payments are a lot higher.  Not only that, but there are other people renting homes in your neighborhood and they're paying much more than you are every month.  It's obvious that you're enjoying some great economic benefit due to the fact that you've owned your home for so long and your payments are so low.  Well, where there's an economic benefit, their must be a tax!

Enter the concept of imputed income!

Under this wonderful plan, first floated by Clinton Democrats before the voter revolution of 1994, the government would figure out how much your home would rent for every month.  To do this they would use all of that census data they've gathered, plus any information that they can develop on current sale and rental prices up and down your street. 

Let's say that the government --- the IRS, if you will --- determines that your home would rent for $3,250 a month.  That would add up to $39,000 a year.  But the IRS discovers that you're only paying $550 a month, or $6,600 a year in rent.  Well, there's that economic benefit you're enjoying by virtue of your long-term home ownership.  The economic benefit of your home ownership is the difference between the $39,000 you should be paying to live there, and the $6,600 you're actually paying.  Do the math.  You're getting away with $32,400 every year in non-taxed economic benefits! 

The Democrat plan is simple.  Just take that $32,400 and add it to your taxable income on your next tax return.  Then you get the privilege of paying income taxes to the federal government on the economic benefit you derive from your long-term home ownership.  The IRS has "evened the playing field" in your neighborhood ... so to speak.  Your neighbors had to pay taxes on the full $39,000 they're paying to live down the street ... now you're having to do the same.  After all ... it's only fair, right! 

Just remember this.  Democrats actually believe that the best use for every single penny you earn is for it to be spent by government for what they love to call the "common good."  They will grudgingly allow you to keep enough of your earnings to avoid your participation in a full-scale tax revolt.  A good Democrat knows that only Democrats and the government know what is good for you, and that you will be so much better off and your life oh so much better if you will just succumb to the power of government and it's ability to care for you much better than you can care for yourself. 

In tomorrow's Nuze ... what would you think about a proposal to limit where you can invest your retirement funds ... a limit based on political correctness.  "

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Entry #651

"Turning Point

Interesting .... Boortz has been advocating allowing Dems to take the House this election to hopefully pound some sense in Republicans for allowing RINOS (Repub in name only) to overspend, expand government, etc.

However it seems the Poodle did it for him along with many blogs I cruised last night. 

Kerry now calls his remarks a "joke and aimed at the Bush Administration" but the only joke is liar Kerry himself. 

" TURNING POINT --- AT LEAST FOR ME

"OK ... all bets are off.

Don't get me wrong ... I still have this deep felt desire to see the Republican's get punished by the electorate in next week's midterm election ... but suddenly the stakes seem to be too high.

What turned the tide for me?  John Kerry, that's what.  That insipid, haughty, pretentious jerk uttered another one of his absurd statements about our men and women in uniform ... and in a flash my fear of Democrats and their disdain for our military services overcame any desire I had to put Republicans over my knee.

You did hear what Kerry said, didn't you?  Come on now .. surely you have. [refresher]  For the few of you who might have been in a 48-hour coma, The Poodle was talking to a group of college students in Pasadena, California (where else?) on Monday when he said:  "You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

So there you have it.  There's your choice.  According to Mr. Band-Aid Purple Heart, you either become smart, or end up serving in our armed forces. 

John Kerry seems to have a deep-seated disdain (bordering on hatred) for those in uniform.  Remember, please, that it was John Kerry who, many years ago, talked about our troops in Vietnam regularly committing atrocities against innocent women and children.  It was also John Kerry who remarked earlier this year about American troops in Iraq "terrorizing" women and children.  How dare that pompous ass suggest that it is our troops who are doing the terrorizing over there? 

For the record, Kerry is dead wrong.  Not that he cares.  Just four days ago The Heritage Foundation issued a report by Tim Kane entitled "Who Are the Recruits?  The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003-2005."      (  http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-09.cfm  )You have the link, go and read the report for yourself.  If you do you will find that a higher percentage of military recruits have graduated from high school than the general population.  In  2004 82.7% of recruits were high school graduates while another 7.03% had their GEDs.    The national high school graduation rate that year was 79.8%.  Even today, in 2006, the high school graduation rate for recruits is still higher than the high school graduation rate for the civilian population.  Looks to me like the recruits are doing pretty well.  You'll also find that "the Department of Defense reported that the mean reading level of 2004 recruits is a full grade level higher than that of the comparable youth population." 

Clearly John Kerry had no idea what in the hell he was talking about .. the arrogant putz.

So .. the firestorm erupts, and here comes Kerry to the microphones to set the record straight.  Did he apologize for his insult against our troops?  Are you kidding?  Not only did he not apologize, but he actually had the stones to try to tell us he wasn't talking about our troops, he was talking about Bush!  I would ask just how stupid Kerry thinks Americans are --- but the very fact that he thinks we should have made him president indicates what his answer, were he to be truthful, would be.

These men and women are on the front lines, giving up their lives, to defend us from Islamic fascism -- and Kerry is back here talking about what intellectual failures they are.  Intellectual failures that terrorize women and children in the night. 

Do we hang the sins of John Kerry around the necks of all Democrats?  Well, let me ask you.  Did you hear of one single Democrat .. just one .. anywhere .. stepping forward to repudiate what Kerry said?  Maybe some Democrat did, but I sure as hell haven't heard anything about it.  Have you?  A Democrat congressional candidate in Iowa has gone so far as to say Kerry's words were "inappropriate."  Hardly an apology .. but he did ask Kerry to cancel a planned campaign visit to his district.

In other words ... these gutless wonders who just love to tell us how much they truly do support our troops won't even stand up to be heard when our soldiers are slandered by this rich woman's boy toy. 

This is such a gift to the Republicans.  It's as if Karl Rove himself paid John Kerry a large amount of money to read from a script.  It couldn't be better.  Here we are, on the even of the 2006 mid-term elections...in which the Democrats are poised to take over the House and maybe the Senate.  Now here comes John Kerry, standard-bearer of his party in the last presidential election...to slander our troops.  Bad move....even the most anti-war politician never blames the troops.  It's political suicide.

So .. that's it.  We're six days out, and I've come unglued.  Sure, the Republicans have become just another party of big government and pork barrel spending ... but at least they don't slander the very men and women who are shedding blood every single day to defend our country. 

Give me the big-spenders who support our troops over the big-spenders who slander them any day.

I'm voting Republican.

We'll just have to figure out another way to take these Republicans miscreants to the woodshed.  "

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Entry #650

Kerry dissing troops Again

Another troop slam from someone who made it out of Nam with a band aid scratch then lied to congress.

I read he sued the Swiftboat Vets, causing them to spend thousands in attorney and court fees to defend themselves, then withdrew the suit as it came time for trial because he didn't want the truth to come out in court.  If Kerry was telling the truth what did he care if it went to trial???????????????

 

"White House Spokesman Slams Kerry Remark

By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

The White House accused Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of troop-bashing, seizing on a comment the Democrat made to California students that those unable to navigate the country's education system "get stuck in Iraq."

"Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives in this," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "This is an absolute insult."

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran and Bush's rival in 2004, fired back, saying the president and his administration are the ones who owe U.S. troops an apology because they "misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it."

White House Spokesman Slams Kerry Remark

"This is the classic GOP playbook," Kerry said in a harshly worded statement. "I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium."

Snow was asked about the comment which Kerry made during a campaign rally Monday for California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. The White House spokesman was clearly ready, consulting his notes to read a fuller account of Kerry's statement and unleashing a sharp attack."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31/D8L3OTV00.htmlWhite
Entry #649

MN Keith Ellison-Muhammad

"Keith Ellison's great awakening

"I've tried to make one key point about Keith Ellison's alleged eighteen-month involvement with the Nation of Islam as the enthusiastic servant of a hate cult. Slightly modifying the words of the Frank Sinatra song, it was very long year. It extended at the least from Ellison's days as a law student from 1987-1990 at the University of Minnesota Law School to his first run for office under the name Keith Ellison-Muhammad in 1998. Among the media that have missed this key fact in their stories on Ellison are such notable organizations as the Minneaoplis Star Tribune, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek and Reuters.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015709.php

Entry #648

Admission of liberal bias in the dinosaur media

Wow to all who have argued there's no liberal bias in the news, here's one of of the big three admitting just that in an interview. 

Yes, Todd and I both hear what we hear, see what we see and don't succumb to the MSM rewriting history, REALITY or reporting agenda as news. 

Anyone feeding from the swill trough of the MSM might want to have their realty barometer re-calibrated.  Y'all have been had over and over ...... and should have been given Godivas or flowers as a thank you.

From Powerlineblog.com

"Hugh Hewitt interviewing Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News.

(full transcript:    http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=1f133562-cfd3-40f8-af2f-129219d59c8d  )

........"Beyond that, though, one stiking feature of the interview was Halperin's ready admission of the liberal bias that pervades old media. Here are a few exchanges; there were more to the same effect:

MH: You’re asking me should people be skeptical? I think anyone who’s conservative should be skeptical of anything the old media does. ***

HH: But the old media is overwhelmingly liberal, correct, Mark Halperin?

MH: Correct, as we say in the book.

HH: And so everyone that you work with, or 95% of people you work with, are old liberals.

MH: I don’t know if it’s 95%, and unfortunately, they’re not all old. There are a lot of young liberals here, too. But it certainly, there are enough in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction, which is completely improper. And it goes from the big and major like CBS’ outrageous story about President Bush’s draft record right before the 2004 election, to the insidious and small use of language describing Nancy Pelosi’s liberal policies and ideas different than they would Newt Gingrich’s conservative ones.


HH: And these liberals…you know, Terry Moran on this program said…Terry Moran on this program from ABC, your colleague…

MH: Right.

HH: …said that the media hates the military, has a deep suspicion of it. Do you agree with that?

MH: I totally agree. It’s one of the huge biases, along with gays, guns, abortion, and many other things.


MH: First of all, I never say MSM, because I don’t believe the old media is mainstream. They’re out of the mainstream on most of the issues I’ve been referring to. So I don’t use that phrase. I believe that as I’ve said several times, happy to say again, that anyone who’s conservative in this country has every justification to be skeptical about anything, an internal memo, or product that goes on the air, from the old media, because of a forty year or more history of liberal bias on a range of issues. And after what CBS News did in 2004, regarding the President’s National Guard record, I would be…I am thankful that any conservative looks to us ever for news and information, given how outrageous what they did was.".............

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015705.php

Entry #647

"Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality

"Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality

Written by Raymond Kraft
Tuesday, July 25, 2006

 

 

Last week, Jack and Jill Pacifisto were walking home through the park after dinner with friends, during which they had spent a few hours discussing the immorality of violence and war and their commitments to send more money to progressive activists over the next year. Suddenly, Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows and pointed a pistol at Jack and said, “Give me your wallet,” and, pointing the gun at Jill, “Your purse.”

 

 

 

“What?” asked Jack, incredulous, “Hey, we don’t want any trouble.  We’re pacifists.  We aren’t going to hurt you.”

 

 

 

“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your money.”

 

 

 

So Jack and Jill did, and then Tony said, “And now gimme your watches, rings, jewelry, everything worth anything.”

 

 

 

“Hey,” said Jill, “This is my wedding ring!”

 

 

 

And Tony said, “Not my problem.”

 

 

 

Jack and Jill handed over their wallet, and purse, and all their jewelry and Rolex watches, and then Tony shot them both twice in the chest and picked up the loot and stepped back into the shadows.

 

 

 

As Jill lay dying she whispered, “Tony?  Why didn’t you fight back?  Why didn’t you have a gun?”  Those were her last words.

 

 

 

“I couldn’t,” whispered Tony.  “I’m a pacifist.”  Those were his last words.

 

 

 

A few days later, Bill Thaxton and his wife were walking home through the park after dinner, when Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows.

 

 

 

“Give me your wallet, your purse,” said Tony, pointing his gun first at Bill, and then at his wife.  He did not know that Bill was an old lawman, and had been a Marine sniper when he was young, and was active in the Single Action Shooters Society and had a concealed-carry-permit.  Tony assumed that the old man was just an old man with some money and a few credit cards in his wallet walking home from dinner.

 

 

 

“Sorry, friend, I don’t like guns, and I don’t want any trouble,” said Bill.

 

 

 

“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your wallet, your purse,” he said, waving the gun at Bill’s wife, “Rings, watches, everything.”

 

 

 

“And what if I don’t?” asked Bill.

 

 

 

“I’ll shoot you both. Her first,” said Tony, pointing his gun at Bill’s wife again.

 

 

 

“Well,” said Bill, “Okay, honey, do what he says.”

 

 

 

She tossed down her purse. Bill reached slowly for his left lapel with his right hand and then, like lightning, did a cross-draw with his left and came out blazing with his trusty little 9, nailing Tony three times.

 

 

 

As he lay on the sidewalk dying, Tony Thug was heard to mutter, “Damn, I shoulda stuck with the pacifists . . .”

 

 

 

An acquaintance wrote me last week to tell me proudly how he had been a pacifist since the ‘60s. His letter set me thinking about pacifism, which is the ultimate and vilest form of immorality.

 

 

 

If you are Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama, or Ahmadinejad, your desire to kill those you dislike is at least honest and open. You wear you hate on your sleeve and we know who and what you are. But the Pacifist wears his refusal to resist evil as if it were a badge of honor, and claims it as a sign of his or her absolute moral superiority. The Hitlers and Osamas are at least honest about who they are, the Pacifist is not. Not even to himself.

 

 

 

The German Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote a poem circa 1946 about the quiescence of German intellectuals in the face of the Nazi rise to power that has become famous.  Translated, it reads:

 

 

 

    When they locked up the social democrats,

 

    I remained silent,

 

    I was not a social democrat.

 

 

 

    When they came for the trade unionists

 

    I did not speak out,

 

    I was not a trade unionist.

 

 

 

    When they came for the Jews

 

    I did not speak out,

 

    I was not a Jew.

 

 

 

    When they came for me

 

    there was no one left to speak out.

 

 

The Pacifist says something like this, but, unlike Niemoller, without apology.  He says:

 

 

 

    When you come for my allies

 

    I will not fight you,

 

    for I am a Pacifist.

 

 

 

    When you come for my countrymen

 

    I will not fight you,

 

    for I am a Pacifist.

 

 

 

    When you come for my neighbor,

 

    I will not fight you,

 

    for I am a Pacifist.

 

 

 

    When you come for my mother,

 

    my father, my brother,

 

    my sister, I will not fight you,

 

    for I am a Pacifist.

 

 

 

    When you come for my wife,

 

    my husband, my son,

 

    my daughter, I will not fight you,

 

    for I am a Pacifist.

 

 

 

    When you come for me,

 

    I will not fight you,

 

    for I am a Pacifist.

 

 

The Pacifist claims that he (or she) is too good to fight against evil, and this is the catastrophic intellectual and moral failure of Pacifism. In the guise of being too good to oppose evil, the Pacifist invokes the ultimate immorality by aiding and abetting and encouraging evil, on the pretext of being too pure, too wise, too sophisticated to fight evil, thereby turning the pretense of goodness and purity into an invocation and license for evil to act without opposition. 

 

 

 

The moral stance of the Pacifist is, unwittingly perhaps, homicidal, genocidal, fratricidal, suicidal.  The Pacifist says, in effect: “There is nothing good worth fighting for. And there is nothing so evil worth fighting against.”

 

 

 

The Pacifist is willing to give evil free reign, because he or she thinks or feels that fighting against evil is even worse than evil itself . . . an intellectual and moral equivocation of monumentally staggering proportions. In order to be a Pacifist, one must hold that Nazism or Islamism or Communism or any other puritanical totalitarian ideology that seeks to slaughter or oppress all the Jews or all of any other race or tribe is no worse, is not morally inferior, to the existence of Jews and Judaism, or whatever other race or tribe is the whipping boy of the day.

 

 

 

To be a Pacifist, one must hold that acquiescence to a Jihad that seeks to destroy Western Civilization is no worse than Western Civilization, even though the Jihad seeks to extinguish intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, and ultimately even the freedom to be a Pacifist.

 

 

 

As the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The Pacifist replies, “I am so good that I will do nothing, I will hurt no one, even if that means that good will be destroyed and evil will win.  I am so peaceful that I will not discriminate between the goodness of good and the badness of evil, certainly not with enough conviction to take up arms, literally or figuratively, against the triumph of evil over good, of totalitarianism over freedom, of barbarianism over civilization.”

 

 

 

And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.

About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in Northern California.  "

http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=22667

Entry #646
Page 544 of 587
Guest