James Boyce: Meet Your Democratic Leaders: ChickenSh*t Coward Edition

I have been accused of being angry and I would like to say this for myself.

I'm angry.

I'm angry that our party has no leaders, zero, none, nada. And I'm really angry that those in leadership positions seem intent on reaching across the aisle, playing it safe, not choosing sides and not standing up even if their chair was on fire.

Today, I am angry, again, at Nancy Pelosi. And I'm calling out Al Gore and John Edwards. Three intelligent people who are not leaders in any way shape or form. How bad would things have to get before one of these three stands up? Would our economy have to be on the precipice? Would we have to be stuck in a war that's costing us blood and treasure? Would the world face major challenges in global warming? What exactly would prompt them to action?

What do you expect?  They're Democrats.  There's a reason they win elections;  Because Republicans screw up so badly, Americans want them to get it through their thick heads who runs the show.

Let's face it, Americans, by and large, want a true Republican leader.  Lower taxes, less government interference in people's lives, tough on crime/terrorism, closed borders to illegal immigrants, balanced budget, or even run with a surplus.  These are core Republican values, and when a Republican leader believes in these fully, you have yourself a great leader (Abraham Lincoln comes to mind mostly.)

Democrats generally raise taxes, ask for more government interference in everyone's lives (welfare, socialist programs, banning of "bad for you" things, etc), soft on crime/terrorism, open borders, run with a deficit, etc. 

And you wonder why when a true Republican shows up, he slaughters the competition.

Ever wonder why a LOT of Democrats were rooting for Ron Paul?  There's a reason for that.

When you vote for a coward with no backbone, you can't be surprised when they act like one once they are in office.

Jeez, you act like you've never been lied to before from a politician.

Perhaps you should keep Nancy to her word (Getting rid of the culture of corruption, 5 day work week for Congress, etc.)

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Commentary: How Obama can get beyond Rev. Wright

I generally like to read the opinion pieces at CNN, because it usually shows bias towards Democrats, and you and point it out rather easily.  Sometimes it's subtle, other times it's blatant.  But they've never really gone for the "fear mongering" type of argument until today:

Make it clear to women, especially white women, that Roe v. Wade will be extinct if McCain wins. The next president is going to choose three Supreme Court justices.

There is no way -- no way -- that the religious right will let a President McCain appoint anyone with a moderate bone in his or her body. Remember Harriet Miers? Bush even said he knew her heart, and they told him to go to hell.

What Obama has to tell those women, who are supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton in huge numbers, and will be disappointed if she's not the nominee, is that sitting at home on Election Day, or crossing the aisle and voting for McCain, virtually assures that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body will be taken from her.

That's right folks, if McCain is elected President, women will lose their right to have an abortion.  Never mind the massive amounts of legal precedent, never mind the Supreme Court decision, never mind that it hasn't been overturned in 30+ years and that includes going through 24 years of a Republican President.  Yep, John McCain is just the guy to end it all for the ladies.

This is fear mongering that Democrats like to throw into Republicans faces when they speak of threats like Al-Qaeda.  "You're fear mongering!" they all say.  The only difference is, is that Al-Qaeda is a real threat, and Roe Vs. Wade isn't going to be overturned. 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Anyone Smell That? I Think It's Hypocrisy

The Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

It’s a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.

If she were president, Clinton says, she’d fight to protect those jobs. It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support from working-class Democrats worried about their jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country’s security.

What Clinton never includes in the oft-repeated tale is the role that prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband's administration.

Yep, that's George Soros, the same George Soros who founded Moveon.org and blasted George Bush and Republicans in general.  The same guy who bought up companies, fired everyone, and sold out to the Chinese.  And yet, we have brainwashed Democrats who swear this guy is the second coming of Jesus or some such bullshit.

He sold out American jobs, AND America's security in selling defense technology to the Chinese.

Then there's Hillary.  Oh Hillary, I swear there's no depths to what you'll say or do to get out of trouble:

In response, the Clinton campaign said that Bill Clinton's administration had gotten assurances at the time it approved the deal that production would remain inside the United States, and that the shift of jobs to China didn't occur until under the Bush administration.

That's right folks, she's trying to blame the Bush administration for failures that her husband made.  Wait, it gets better:

“Right here, over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military's smart bombs to their targets,” the New York senator says.

“They were good jobs, but now they're gone to China. And now America's defense relies on Chinese spare parts. George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't. As your president, I will fight to keep good jobs here and to turn this economy around. I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message because American workers should build America's defense." Here’s how she told it a few weeks ago at a union meeting in Washington.

“A Chinese company bought the company, called Magnequench, and they wanted to move the jobs to China. The people in Indiana protested, did everything they could to convince the Bush administration that this was a terrible mistake. Couldn't even get a hearing,” she said.

“The jobs went to China, but so did the technology. And now the United States military has to buy the magnets we need for the smart bombs we invented from China,” she said as the union members booed. Here's the complete story.

But I have a question.  If the Chinese don't respect our Intellectual Property such as movies, music, and games, why do we need to respect theirs?  Why can't we make these magnets ourselves?  I'm sure the technology is already in our hands, it's just a matter of manufacturing it ourselves.

And if the Chinese protest?  Fuck em, they should have thought of that when we protested out of IP.

In 1995, General Motors decided to sell the Indiana-based Magnequench to a Chinese-American consortium.

The consortium included:

• San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co, a company owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
• Onfem Holdings, a company controlled by the State Nonferrous Metals Industry Administration in the Peoples Republic of China;
• Soros Fund Management, headed by George Soros;
• The Sextant Group, founded by Archibald Cox Jr.;

Because Magnequench made magnets for smart bombs, the sale to a group that included foreign owners required approval under a 1988 law.

After a 30-day review, the Clinton administration’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes representatives of the Pentagon, approved the sale in 1995.

The buyers reportedly promised to keep manufacturing in the United States.

Yet in 1998, they started building a plant in China, close to the source of the raw materials used in the magnets.

The company reorganized in 1999, buying out Soros as well as Onfem Holdings.

In 2000, Magnequench bought a magnet factory in Valparaiso, the same year it started operations at its China plant.

In 2001, it closed its original plant in Anderson, Ind.

And in 2003, it decided to close the Valparaiso plant, laying off its 225 workers.

If they broke the agreement, then we should open our own plant and make the magnets ourselves and tell Magnequench that they need to sell their wares elsewhere.  They broke the deal, so they face the consequences of that.

Of course, there's a quick rebuttal from the Clinton campaign.

Today, McClatchy published an article with the headline "Clinton blasts Bush for not stopping a project Bill OK'd," implying that the Clinton administration approved the move of a Indiana factory to China. In fact, the Clinton administration specifically prohibited the company, Magnaquench, from moving Indiana jobs overseas.

In 1995, Magnaquench was purchased by a consortium of investors that included two Chinese investors. At the time, the purchase was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and was approved on the condition that the production and the technology to produce neo-magnets would stay in the U.S.

In 2003, the Magnaquench investors announced their intention to move the production facility in Valpariaso, Indiana to China. Senator Bayh and numerous others in Congress raised concerns that the move violated the initial terms of the deal, and introduced new national security problems. They pleaded with President Bush to review and halt the deal. President Bush refused, and the jobs and production were moved to China.

But people need to understand, had your savior George Soros and Bill Clinton not sold the company out to the Chinese in the first place, we wouldn't be dealing with this problem now.  It's this significant lack of long term thinking that needs to be smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.  Simply put, you don't sell out military technology to anyone if it's going to cause problems in the future, INCLUDING for the next President to deal with.  You do what's right for the American public, not the pocketbook of your paymaster.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Uncle Tom Obama

Damn, you really can't please all the people all the time:

I have been a huge supporter of Barack.  He is the guy I've been behind for quite awhile now.  Check my older diaries if you wonder about that.  And while I've been steeling myself for a Barack loss in November, because I think the Repug machine is too good for him to beat, I had resigned myself to still working hard for him and for the Progressive cause!

But today something changed for me...

Today, the scales fell from my eyes and I saw Barack Obama for what he truly is: a weak man and a standard politician.  I really never thought I would say this...

But I am disgusted with him!

This has been a strange year.  From fighting against our staying in Iraq, to trying to find a way to get Al Gore to run for President, to despairing of the "inevitability" of Hillary, to finding Barack and feeling very invigorated by his message.

To today. 

I just watched Barack throw someone who has been a huge part of his life overboard because a bunch of white-bread advisors told him he had to.

And why?  Because white America was freaked out by a black preacher! 

I thought Barack was going to lead us past that.  I thought he was bigger than that.  I thought he was different.

But NNNOOOOOOO!  Now he is engaged in the worst kind of pandering.  He has told us, in no uncertain terms, that he is no different than the Clintons: anyone who interferes with what you are doing gets thrown to the wolves.

And Barack didn't stop there.  He threw every black man, woman and child overboard too!  What Rev Wright has to say is what every black American believes:  that racism is alive and well and living in white middle class America.

Unfortunately, Barack has decided that he doesn't need black votes to win.  I'm sure he was told by his white advisors that "black folk" will support him anyway.  So why not come out and disrespect the whole community.  Barack didn't transcend black-white politics; rather he chose to become white!

All because some white folks on CNN were appalled that Rev Wright didn't shuffle in and say "yes massa".

I cannot believe we Progressives have found ourselves here...and I am sure I will represent a minority view of these events.  There is still a lot of hope for Barack among my friends in the local party.  These younglings are great to work with, but they also don't have the same battle scars I do...and which Barack just ripped open.

I've been saying for awhile that I thought Barack would likely lose in November.  Now I am wondering if I don't HOPE he loses!

I am just so heartbroken over this whole situation...I really thought we had found someone special.  Turns out we've just found another politician.

Pretty sad...

So, denouncing hate speech is being an "uncle tom"?  It's funny that we have a bit of hypocrisy here and no one has noticed it.

He threw every black man, woman and child overboard too!  What Rev Wright has to say is what every black American believes:  that racism is alive and well and living in white middle class America.

While I won't debate the merits of that argument, I know my friends don't seem to think so (yes, they are black), but that's not the point.  The point is, is this person seems to think that racism is alive and well.  Ok, let's assume that for a moment.

Then why are you making semi-racist comments?

"I just watched Barack throw someone who has been a huge part of his life overboard because a bunch of white-bread advisors told him he had to."

First off, it's "white bred".  Bread is something you eat.  Bred is reproduction.

Secondly, you use a racist term, then complain about racism?  Your argument is null and void by that and you should keep quiet for a while for this to blow over.  It makes you look stupid. 

Obama didn't throw "every black man, woman, and child overboard", he denounced his pastor for making hate speech.  His pastor is now trying to duck his statements, but it's very obvious that the Reverend seems to love the spotlight.

Obama threw this guy under the proverbial bus because of either A) He believes that his speech needs to be denounced on it's merits, or B) he knows that people are looking at this and wondering "if this is his closest person, then what kind of people will he pick for his cabinet"? and he can't afford that when running for President.

Now, personally, I denounce Obama based upon his voting record and his lack of voting on key issues that directly effect me.

I guess that makes me an "uncle tom" too.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

How to Survive a Riot

One of my readers suggested that I post this.  Since it's extremely unlikely you'll ever encounter such a thing, I thought it would be fun to post anyway.

 

What do college tuition increases, soccer games, editorial cartoons, and a movie star's death have in common? They've all ignited riots in the past couple years.
It's no secret that angry mobs can be as dangerous and unpredictable as just about any natural disaster. As many as a million people in India and Pakistan died in the civil unrest that followed India's independence, for example, and thousands are killed in riots around the world each year. What may be surprising, however, is that riots can break out anywhere. What's more, as the above examples suggest, while the underlying causes of civil unrest are often the "usual suspects" of racial, religious, or political divisions, seemingly inconsequential events can suddenly trigger mass violence. Fortunately, while you may not always be able to avoid riots, there are steps you can take to protect yourself from harm.

Steps

1. Be prepared. If you know an area is ripe for a riot but you can't avoid traveling there, take some simple precautions to help protect yourself. Wear clothes that minimize the amount of exposed skin--long pants and long-sleeve shirts, for instance--when going out, and think about your possible escape routes and safe havens before anything actually happens. Carry some cash with you in case you need to quickly arrange transportation, pay off looters, or bribe police at a checkpoint. If you're traveling abroad, register with your country's consulate and carry your passport and/or visa with you at all times.
2. Remain calm. Riots bring intense emotions boiling to the surface, but if you want to survive one you'd be better off keeping yours in check. Your adrenaline and survival instincts will kick in, but try to think rationally and pursue safety methodically.
3. Get inside and stay inside. Typically riots occur in the streets or elsewhere outside. Being inside, especially in a large, sturdy structure, can be your best protection to weather the storm. Keep doors and windows locked, avoid watching the riot from windows or balconies, and try to move to inside rooms, where the danger of being hit by stones or bullets is minimized. Try to find at least two possible exits in case you need to evacuate the building in a hurry. Try to contact police or your country's consulate to let them know where you are, and be on the lookout for signs of fire. If the building is set on fire get out quickly. If rioters are targeting the building and gain entry, try to sneak out or hide.
4. Stay on the sidelines. If you're caught up in a riot, don't take sides. Try to look as inconspicuous as possible, and slowly and carefully move to the outside of the mob. Stay close to walls or other protective barriers if possible.
5. Avoid being hit by riot control chemicals. Police may deploy riot control agents (tear gas, for example) to disperse a crowd. These chemicals can cause severe pain, respiratory distress, and blindness. Try to stay away from the front lines of a riot, and learn to recognize the signs that a riot control agent has been used and how to handle exposure.
6. Move away from the riot. The more time you spend in the midst of a riot, the greater your chance of being injured or killed. That said, in most circumstances it's better to move out of a riot slowly. If you run, you will draw attention to yourself, so it's usually best to walk. It can also be dangerous to move against a crowd, so go with the flow until you are able to escape into a doorway or up a side street or alley. It may also be advantageous to stay with the crowd until you are certain you can safely escape because it will help you remain inconspicuous and improve your odds of survival if shots are fired.
   • Avoid major roads. Major roads, squares, and other high traffic areas are liable to be crowded with rioters. If possible, stick to less-traveled side streets to avoid the mobs.
   • Avoid public transportation. Buses, subways, and trains will likely be out of service, and stations and depots will probably be packed with people. Even if you succeed in getting on a train or bus, rioters may stop it. Subway stations are particularly bad places to be, both because they are generally difficult to escape and because riot control agents are generally heavier than air and may drift down into subway stations and accumulate there.
   • Don't stop your car. If you're lucky enough to have a car that you can drive away from the riot, drive quickly and don't stop for anything until you've reached someplace you know is safe. If people try to block your escape route, honk your horn and drive through or around them at a fairly high speed--they'll get out of the way.
7. Get to a safe place, and stay put. Choose a safe haven carefully. Sometimes it can be as close as your hotel room, but other times you'll need to get out of the country entirely. If you're abroad, you will generally want to head to your country's embassy or the airport. Try to contact the embassy before going there, however, to let them know you're coming and to find out if it is safe to go there. If a mob is gathered outside, embassy staff may be able to direct you to a safer place. In any case, just try to put as much distance as possible between yourself and the riot.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Former terrorists to explain 'why we want to kill you'

Two self-proclaimed former terrorists are scheduled to speak at the University of Colorado on Tuesday in a speech called "Why We Want to Kill You."

CU's College Republicans group made the request to bring in the two former Islamic terrorists, Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem, at a price tag of $10,000. The university has footed the bill for the 7 p.m. lecture out of the mandatory $670 per student activity fee, of which they say about $20 is used to bring in speakers annually.

So who here thinks that giving two "former" Islamic terrorists $10,000 is a good idea?  Anyone?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Azerbaijan blocks Russian nuke shipment to Iran

Iran has reported that a shipment of Russian nuclear equipment was being held in neighboring Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan, an ally of the United States, has acknowledged the delay. The Azeri government said it has sought to determine whether the nuclear shipment violated United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran.

Glad to know SOME nations have our back.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Bush urges Congress to better help economy

President Bush addressed Americans' anxiety about the effects that the U.S. economic downturn has taken on their wallets Tuesday, calling on Congress to pass legislation that will help reduce energy and food costs, keep people in their homes, and make student loans more available.

Speaking at a White House Rose Garden news conference, Bush said Congress has not passed legislation that he proposed to help ease the effects of the economic slump.

"I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems, yet time after time Congress chose to block them," said Bush.

Bush said Congress failed to pass bills that expand safe oil exploration and build new refineries that would help to reduce energy prices. The president said his proposal to expand oil production at home would result in about a 20% increase of crude oil production and it would likely mean lower gas prices.

Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it?  We've been pushing for drilling in Alaska for years now, and even now environmentalists and liberals are resisting it.  Yet, they are one of the first people to bitch about the high cost of gas.  I guess they can't put two and two together.  But let's give them a chance to respond:

Democrats shift blame to President: But Democratic leaders said the blame instead lies with the president.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a press conference the president is out of touch with the pains that Americans feel from the economic downturn.

"The president doesn't understand the struggles of American families," said Schumer. "Everyone is having a tough time to make ends meet."

Schumer also said that Bush has failed to address the most important factors that continue to drag down the economy.

"The president has lost control of the economy," said Schumer. ""He has ignored repeated shots across the bow: Record oil prices, the housing crisis ... none of these things are being addressed."

And the President is supposed to do what now about record oil prices and the "housing crisis"?  If we have a known location for a lot of oil, why aren't we drilling there while we work on getting us off of oil?  And do tell, what is the President supposed to do about people overextending themselves?  If President Bush, or any President for that matter were to say "you can't get the house you want because you can't afford it", some people would scream at him to mind his own business.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, called on the President to drop his veto threat from House legislation that would give tax credits for renewable energy.

"[The bill would] save 116,000 green jobs and create hundreds of thousands more," Pelosi said in a statement.

How's this?  How about we start drilling in ANWR, AND we start drilling in the Bakken shales formation, and in the mean time, we do a massive undertaking and make electric cars a viable option for people?  You know, just a thought.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Obama 'outraged' by Wright's remarks

Sen. Barack Obama said he is "outraged" by comments his former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made Monday at the National Press Club and "saddened by the spectacle."

"I have been a member of Trinity Church since 1992. I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years," he said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
"The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

Obama said he is outraged by Wright's remarks that seemed to suggest the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community, and his equation of some American wartime efforts with terrorism.

"What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," said Obama, who added that Wright had shown "little regard for me" and seemed more concerned with "taking center stage."

Obama said Wright's comments were not only "divisive and destructive," but they also "end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

You see, that's how you properly bullshit people.  Had Obama said these words during his "race speech", he might have convinced a lot more people then he had previously.  Now it just looks like he's seeing the damage and is just trying to control the furor over what's going on.

Obama does speak well publicly, and he gives a good line of bullshit, but when you delve deeper into what he's accomplished, you see that it isn't much.  While I want to believe that there's someone who can inspire everyone around him, including foreign nation leaders towards a favorable attitude to the United States, regardless of political ideology, I keep coming to the same conclusions over and over:  He's a bullshit artist.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Clinton: $2.3B in earmarks

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.

The Democratic presidential candidate’s staggering request comes at a time when Congress remains engaged in a heated debate over spending federal dollars on parochial projects.

It also has gained traction on the campaign trail. Presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a longtime foe of earmarks, has called for eliminating what he dubs “wasteful Washington spending.” Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has spurned earmarks, seeking no funds for pet projects in the upcoming fiscal year.

Yet Clinton is continuing to request billions for earmarks, most of which will go to her home state.

The money is needed for homeland security, emergency response and health projects throughout New York, according to documents provided by her office.

The total amount Clinton requested greatly surpasses the $837 million secured last year by Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee who took home the largest dollar amount of earmarks in the current fiscal year’s spending bills. In those bills, Clinton secured $342 million in earmarks.  

That's right folks, even with the economy slowing down to a crawl, Hillary is asking for an almost record amount of earmarks.  That's around $7.50 for every man, woman, and child in America.  Doesn't sound like much, but none of that money is going to go to you.  It's going to go to New York for homeland security (even though they already have a budget), emergency response (even though they have a budget), and health projects (which you won't benefit from).

And of course, these agencies would NEVER waste money now would they? 

It takes a lot of nerve and some good bullshit skills to badmouth George Bush's economic policies, then turn right around and not even bother to offer a balanced budget and seek a record amount of earmarks.

Now the article does state that Obama isn't seeking earmarks this fiscal year (of course because of the Presidential race), but last year he asked for $91 million, and once he asked for money towards his wife's employer.

It pains me to see politicians try to basically buy a vote, but it pains me even worse to see such unbelievable waste when what we need right now is a simple amount of belt tightening.  Even Bill Clinton knew to make cuts, he just made them to the wrong programs.

Personally, I don't see why we can't have a program that rewards people for finding ways to save the government money.

For example, if a government worker finds a way to save us $30,000 a year, they should get a check for 25% of that amount for say 2-3 years, as long as it's being continually used.

It gives people an incentive to find ways to save hard earned tax payer dollars, AND we as taxpayers save 75% across various programs.

It's really win-win for everyone involved.

Then you don't have to raise taxes, AND you get to keep the tax cuts that you've put into play.

If an emergency happens, then yes, we may have to issue treasury bonds or borrow from another country, but those issues should be few and far between.

While we're at it, we should also instill people with personal responsibility.

That means that the government doesn't owe you shit.  You work for a living.  If you are warned that a natural disaster is coming days ahead and you don't leave, you're on your own.  If you borrow money to buy a house you can't afford, you file bankruptcy and move into an apartment.

It's basic ideas like this that have gotten us through the 220+ years of our existence, so I fail to see why ways that have worked for centuries suddenly need to be changed.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

How We'll Know When We've Won

If you want to see a pretty good, non partisan view on the war in Iraq, take a look here.  It's a bit long, but it is well worth the read.  And example below.

SUCCESS DEFINED

A stable state. An unstable Iraq is a recipe for continued violence throughout the Middle East. Iraq's internal conflicts could spread to its neighbors or lure them into meddling in its struggles. An unstable Iraq would continue to generate large refugee flows, destabilizing vulnerable nearby states. An unstable Iraq would enormously complicate efforts by the United States or any other state to combat terrorists on Iraqi soil. An unstable Iraq would invite the intervention of opportunist neighbors. The Middle East being an area of vital importance to the United States and its allies, all these developments would harm America's interests.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Syria says US reactor charges as fake as Iraq WMD claims

Syria said on Monday that US accusations it had been building a nuclear reactor until its destruction in an Israeli air raid last September were as bogus as American claims that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction in 2003.

The ruling Baath party's mouthpiece daily compared the photographs of the bombed site shown to US congressmen last week to the images Washington presented to the UN Security Council as alleged evidence of Iraq's non-conventional arsenal in the run-up to the US-led invasion.

"When you look at these pictures... a single image comes to mind -- that of US Secretary of State Colin Powell accusing Iraq of hiding weapons of mass destruction and presenting as proof a dossier of photographs," Al-Baath said.

"Of course Mr Powell later acknowledged that he had been fooled by the US intelligence services and by conservatives within the administration.

"The new US campaign of lies should surprise nobody -- it's a continuation of the same policy of US pressure against Syria that's been going on" for the past five years, the paper added.

"Syria again rejects the US allegations and reaffirms that it has nothing to hide concerning its legitimate national defenses. Syria wants to see peace in the region, unlike the current US administration which has been behind all its wars and crises."

Really?  Then do explain to me why such a quick clean up between these two photos?

Do tell about why you decided to remove absolutely everything under the sun instead of leaving it for the whole world to see the Israeli's screwing up?  The fact is that you had a nuclear reactor being built on that site and you didn't want anyone to know about it.  That's why you cleaned it up so quickly, that's why you didn't say anything after it was attacked, and that's why no one in the Arab world said anything about it either.

You're trying a classic deflection when someone's caught lying.  No one's buying it.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

The Biggest Threat To Iran?

The Jews?

The US Government?

A nuclear attack by Al-Qaeda?

Nope, It's all American Barbie.  And I'm not even making that up.

A top Iranian judiciary official warned Monday against the "destructive" cultural and social consequences of importing Barbie dolls and other Western toys.

Prosecutor General Ghorban Ali Dori Najafabadi said in an official letter to Vice President Parviz Davoudi that the Western toys posed a "danger" that needed to be stopped.

"The irregular importation of such toys, which unfortunately arrive through unofficial sources and smuggling, is destructive culturally and a social danger," Najafabadi said in his letter, a copy of which was made available to The Associated Press.

And then they wonder why we laugh at them.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Supreme Court Upholds Law Requiring Indiana Voters to Produce Photo IDs

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld Indiana's law requiring voters to present government-issued picture identification at the polls, validating Republican efforts to impose a law they say will cut down on voter fraud.

Its the highest-profile Republican v. Democrat case to reach the high court since the 2000 Bush v. Gore lawsuit that effectively decided that year's presidential race. This case doesn't have as much at stake but has still managed to inflame the passions of political partisans even during this primary season.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the 6-3 opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice David Souter wrote the dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer filed his own dissent.

"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters," Stevens wrote, noting that the law doesn't impose "excessively burdensome requirements."

Show your ID before you can vote.  Sounds like a good idea doesn't it?  I mean, with liberals screaming about voter fraud during the 2004 election, you'd think they would get behind an idea like that.  Well, I guess not.

For more on why "voter fraud" is a myth, see this amicus brief filed with the Court by the Brennan Center for Justice, the People for the American Way Foundation and others.  ("The record contains no evidence of polling place impersonation fraud in Indiana: the State conceded that it was unaware of any incidents of attempted or successful impersonation fraud in Indiana; that no one in Indiana history has been indicted for impersonation fraud; and that no evidence of impersonation fraud was presented to the Indiana legislature during the debate over the photo ID law.")

So, now wait a minute.  During the 2004 election, liberals were coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that there was "voting irregularities" and outright fraud going on.  Once they won in 2006, they decided to keep quiet about "irregularities" because that might call into question that they legitimately won the election.

Plus, if you're required to show your ID when you vote, how are all those dead people going to vote Democrat anyway?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Alicia Keys: 'Gangsta Rap' Created to Convince Black People to Kill Each Other

There's another side to Alicia Keys: conspiracy theorist.

The Grammy-winning singer-songwriter tells Blender magazine: "'Gangsta rap' was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other. 'Gangsta rap' didn't exist."

Keys, 27, said she's read several Black Panther autobiographies and wears a gold AK-47 pendant around her neck "to symbolize strength, power and killing 'em dead," according to an interview in the magazine's May issue, on newsstands Tuesday.

Another of her theories: The bicoastal feud between slain rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. was fueled "by the government and the media, to stop another great black leader from existing."

Damn, she's got us.  Ok white people, it's time we came clean with the black community.

Here's a list of everything that's all "white people's" fault:

Gansta' rap. - that was a given

Crack cocaine

Guns

$500 cars with $10,000 stereos

Meteors

Ignorance

AIDS

The common cold

Snow

Jobs

Nintendo

and

Xbox

 

These are all the things and more that we as white people have invented to sucker the black community into getting into so they'd kill one another.

God, sometimes I wonder if people think before they speak.

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Dave Johnson: Bring Back the 90% Top Tax Rate!

You know, in my dealings with Democrats, I've found that there are really two different sets of them.  The first ones are your usual blend of left of center folks, who, when asked about their points of view, can explain them and you get an understand on how they came to their beliefs.  Then there's this guy:

When Eisenhower was President the top income tax rate was 91%. But you had to have already made a LOT of money before you hit that rate. (Eisenhower, by the way, supported that 91% top tax rate.)

That 91% tax rate is what got us out of the depression, and helped create a middle class (with the help of strong labor unions). It payed (emphasis mine) for fighting World War II and the GI Bill, and helped build our highway system, education system and other infrastructure that is in place today (albeit crumbling now from maintenance deferral resulting from tax cuts.) We did all that without borrowing, and the rich still got richer.

Think about this: If tax rates at the top were 91% today, hedge fund managers would STILL be bringing in over $300 million EACH YEAR - but the rest of us would be able to get health care, fix the roads, good schools, and the other benefits that were the reason we - yes, we - enabled this economic system in the first place.

And think about this. If that top rate is 91% it reduces the incentive for corporate CEOs to bribe politicians to put policies in place that funnel all the wealth up to the top.

Who is our economy FOR, anyway?

 

First off, please use spell checker.  It makes you look much more intelligent.

Secondly, I guess the mess that has been created by the subprime market is now the fault of the rich?  For example, tell me why should a hedge fund manager, who had NOTHING to do with the current mess, see his taxes increase almost 200% for your benefit?

Why don't you want to include yourself in this massive tax increase?

Our economy is designed to benefit the hard working, the innovative, and the risk takers.  It is NOT designed for the lazy, the whiners, or those who feel a sense of entitlement.

If you want all these things, then do one of two things, either donate more money to the IRS to get these things done, or run for office and fix the issues you want.  Either way, advocating the increase in taxes upon certain groups of people reeks of "the lazy, the whiners, or those who feel a sense of entitlement."

Would you advocate the increase of taxes against people who were black, gay, Democrat, or left handed people?  Of course not, so singling out people because they make more then you isn't fair to them and it isn't American, it's socialist.

And it's so short sighted it's not even beginning to be funny.  So if someone makes say 10 million a year, then has a bad year and makes "only" 50,000, do you still tax them at 91%?  How about a little long term thinking from Democrats for once please?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Sharpton vows to 'close this city' after officer acquittals

Hundreds of angry people marched through Harlem on Saturday after the Rev. Al Sharpton promised to "close this city down" to protest the acquittals of three police detectives in the 50-shot barrage that killed a groom on his wedding day and wounded two friends.

"We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell."

So, let me get this straight.  I seem to be confused.  Because Al Sharpton and some people didn't get the guilty verdict they wanted, they can somehow dictate how other people live their lives?  Officers fired upon someone who was trying to run them over with his car.  50 shots a bit excessive?  Of course, unless it's a firefight.  However, there's a few points I'd like to show.

People were shouting "KKK" and other racist overtones.

Sharpton was joined by the family of 23-year-old Sean Bell - a black man - and a friend of Bell who was wounded in the 2006 shooting outside a Queens strip club. Two of the three officers charged were also black.

They are simply playing the race card to gain sympathy.  It makes them lose credibility when they do that.  You can't play the race card every time and not have people look at you like the boy who cried wolf.

The rally at Sharpton's office was followed by a 20-block march down Malcolm X Boulevard and then across 125th Street, Harlem's main business thoroughfare, where some bystanders yelled out "Kill the police!"

Is that really the way you want things to be?  What happens when the drug dealer down the road decides to rob you?  Who are you going to call? 

Simply put, Al Sharpton is milking this for the publicity, and trying to "close this city down" is your way of showing that you're acting like a baby.  All you're going to do is interfere with people who are just trying to get to work and go about their day.

The officers went on trial and they were found not guilty by a judge.  That's the end of it.  Al Sharpton likes to use the courts for various other things and has repeatedly said "we'll see you in court".  Well now that he didn't get his way, he's acting like a spoiled child.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

McCain Criticizes Remarks by Obama’s Former Pastor

Up to now, Mr. McCain had largely avoided talking about the incendiary views of Mr. Wright, saying he wanted to run a “respectful” campaign. He has even called on the North Carolina Republican Party to pull an advertisement that focuses on Mr. Wright.

But Mr. McCain took a different approach at a news conference here when he criticized Mr. Wright for, as the senator paraphrased him, “comparing the United States Marine Corps with Roman legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our Savior, I mean being involved in that” and for “saying that Al Qaeda and the American flag were the same flags.”

“So I can understand, I can understand why people are upset about this,” said Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. “I can understand why Americans, when viewing these kinds of comments, are angry and upset.”

Mr. McCain said that he did not believe that Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, shared those views and that he was still against the advertisement in North Carolina. But he suggested that Mr. Obama had made the subject fair play by declaring in an interview shown over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday” that questions about Mr. Wright were “a legitimate political issue.”

“If he believes that,” Mr. McCain said, “then it will probably be a political issue.”

Pretty inflammable words I must say.  And to be sure, if Reverend Wright said those things, fuck him.  But here's where the hypocrisy comes in:

The Obama campaign accused Mr. McCain of breaking his promise to run a respectful campaign.

“By sinking to a level that he specifically said he’d avoid,” said an Obama campaign spokesman, Hari Sevugan, “John McCain has broken his word to the American people and rendered hollow his promise of a respectful campaign.”

So, if McCain told his own political party to pull an ad, and Obama says that his pastor is a legit political issue, then how is McCain breaking his word?

This is damage control at the very worst.  They have a hot headed, rabidly anti-American guy who's extremely close to Obama and they want to shift the attention away from it.  Wright brought up a lot of issues of things we've done "wrong", yet, he doesn't bother to put those into context like he's complaining about with his own words.  For example, he brings up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet, he DOESN'T mention the fact we asked the Japanese to surrender several times before the bombing, the fact we were attacked first, and the fact that the bombings killed less then a full scale invasion would have.

He then has the fucking nerve to go onto the news and complain that his words were being out of context.

That's cherry picking your argument and it's bullshit.

Asked about some of the comments after the terrorist attacks, Wright challenged the reporter questioning him.

"Have you heard the whole sermon? No? The whole sermon?" he responded. When the reporter shook her head, he said, "That nullifies that question."

Well I HAVE heard the whole sermon, and you're simply trying to weasel your way out of your own words.

What REALLY bothers me though is that the New York Times have Wright's word about Marines and Al-Qaeda, but take a look at these stories from other news organizations.  Not one of them mention this.

What bothers me also, is that CNN is saying that Wright's speech was "spirited", when in fact is was borderline hate speech.

When am I going to get a news source that tells me the news and doesn't bother to try to slant it one way or another?

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

 

Arizona sheriff stirs furor with crackdown on illegals

The self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff in America" has been making forays into Phoenix and nearby Guadalupe and sweeping up illegal immigrants, drawing howls of protest from the cities' mayors and other community leaders.

While Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has legal authority to enforce the law in cities within his county, politicians and activists are accusing him of grandstanding and, worse, racial profiling.

A total of 150 people—73 of them illegal immigrants—were arrested by Arpaio's deputies in the raids on heavily Hispanic sections in late March and early April.

"I was upset. We did not request them here," said Guadalupe Mayor Rebecca Jimenez, who charged that the patrols were meant to raise Arpaio's profile for his re-election campaign this year.

Guadalupe, a community of about 6,000 people that relies on the sheriff's office for police protection, is taking steps to find another department to patrol its streets.

As for Phoenix, Mayor Phil Gordon said Arpaio should be concentrating on more pressing duties such as finding people with warrants against them, and he has asked for a federal civil rights investigation, complaining the sheriff is singling out people who are "driving with a broken taillight or have brown skin." The U.S. Justice Department refused to comment.

And in Mesa, Arizona's third-largest city, the police chief has requested two days' notice of any sweeps Arpaio might conduct there, so that his officers can be prepared for any unrest.

Arpaio has long had a reputation for in-your-face tactics. He is known for making jail inmates wear pink underwear, assigning them to old- style chain gangs, and serving them green bologna sandwiches.

He began pushing the boundaries on immigration three years ago when he set up a special unit to deal with people sneaking across the border. Since then, his office has arrested 900 illegal immigrants under a state human smuggling law and set up a hot line for reporting immigration violations.

This begs the question:  Is the sheriff going too far in enforcing the law?  If he's rounding up illegal aliens, it's hard to say that he is.  People are sick and tired of illegal immigrants, and there's the key word:  Illegal.  If the sheriff is enforcing the laws, people who are protesting it have zero ground to stand on.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

John Ridley: The Undeniable Virtue of Jeremiah Wright's Pro-Blackness (and the Problem with Pro-Whiteness)

There's nothing I hate more then a hypocrite and a double standard.  And this idiot is filled with both.

For example, Fox's Sean Hannity had this to say about statements appearing on the website for Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ:

"It says, "Commitment to God." By the way, I'm with you, and I hope you'll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system. Now, Reverend, if every time we said black, if there was a church and those words were white, wouldn't we call that church racist?"

In answer to the question: yeah, probably. But that's 'cause there's a difference between being pro-black and pro-white and the difference is a bad one.

Oh really?  I'd LOVE to hear this.

Adherence to pro-black values isn't code for "kill whitey." It's merely how blacks have managed to stay alive and viable in America all these many years since we were first graciously given a ride across the middle passage to get dropped off in Virginia.

True, but that was "blacks" in the past.  Not you.  Ok, I'll see how far down the rabbit hole goes.

"A commitment to the black community" is what got us collectively through slavery, through an abandoned reconstruction and the ensuing era of Jim Crow. As I'm sure some will recall, because of a pesky little thing called segregation there was nothing for the black community to rely on but the black community.

Really Mr. Ridley?  Segregation hasn't happened in 40 years.  You personally have not suffered through slavery, so do tell, why is it that being pro-black is some how better then being pro-white?

To the contrary of pro-blackness, it's pro-whiteness which has unfortunately produced some awful to horrible results: white sheets and nooses and burning cross and Citizens Councils and red lining and guys nicknamed Brownie doing a "heck of a job."

So, being pro-white is akin to being a racist, but being pro-black is just sticking to your roots?  Don't you see a bit of a double standard there?

That's not say there's anything wrong with being comfortable in white skin. If that's what God gave you, sure, be happy with it. However, the whole concept of having to be pro-white is redundant. It's not as if, in the normal course of events, white folks as a race really need that much encouragement. Do teachers really have to explain to white kids that in a more fair America they could perhaps grow up to be president?

You're making a general statement about a race.  Isn't that something that racists do?

So, yeah; based on its suspect history, if one were to preach the doctrine of pro-whiteness there could be due cause for concern.

Really?  Because being proud of your heritage is something that should be encouraged if you're black, but should be frowned upon if you're white?

This is the same bullshit that I see time and time again from various members of Huffington post.  It's a constant "blame America and white people" for the world's ills.  You didn't suffer from slavery, so you don't get to use that as a historical crutch every time you get called out about your blatant racist statements.

"if one were to preach the doctrine of pro-whiteness there could be due cause for concern."  Do tell me how you manage to not see that as a racist statement?  You yourself have agreed that if Sean Hannity had replaced the world black with the word white, it would probably be construed as racist. 

So let me ask you this?  If "white power" is a racist statement, then how is "black power" not?  Many radical, sometimes racist groups made those statements, including the Black Panthers.

This is the same thing that a lot of people are starting to rally against.  Rappers, pro athletes, and black folks get to use the word "nigga", but white people can't.  That's bullshit.  There's no difference between "nigga" and "nigger".  It's just the person saying it can't form a proper pronunciation of the word and it morphed into "nigga" by people in the public eye and wanna be suburban white kids.

Pro-blackness, on the other hand -- analogous to the Protestant work ethic -- is one of the most positive American values we have.

Yes, of course it is.

And unfortunately, I only see one example of someone paying attention:

shag11 See Profile I'm a Fan of shag11

John,
I am black and feel we need to move away that old styled shit. Progress has been made, yet still a ways to go. However, we can't beat a dead horse. People who sympathize with the plight of minorities are getting sick of the "race card," and the victim mentality. People like Sharpton and Jackson are thrilled to keep up under their thumb, while they enrich themselves.
The new way is personal responsibility. If you err, aceept it, and move forward. If it's your fault, don't blame others. Shit is getting old, and I am a brother.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Syrian vows to cooperate with IAEA over US nuclear charges

Syria's UN envoy Bashar Jaafari on Friday said his country would cooperate with a planned probe by the UN nuclear watchdog agency into US allegations that Damascus and North Korea cooperated to build a nuclear reactor inside Syria.

"We have close cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)...We are not afraid of this cooperation, on the contrary," he told reporters. "Syria has nothing to hide."

"IAEA inspectors should go into Israel (instead)... The real danger is the Israeli nuclear arsenal," he added.

Oh I smell bullshit.  They've deflected twice now about their nuclear aspirations.  First it was about Iraq, and now it's about Israel.

Let's take a quick summation of what's going on.

Syria was building a building of some type.

Israel attacks this building saying it was for an ill mannered idea (weapons, etc.)

No one involved; Syria, Israel, the US, or even the Arab world, said much of anything about it after it happened.

 

The best question is:  Why?

Why didn't the Syrians raise holy hell about the attack?  Why didn't the Arab world have riots?  Why wasn't any of this brought up at the UN?  Why, why why?

None of it makes any sense.

If Syrians are attacked in any way, they raise a racket about it.  This time they didn't.

I think I know why:

 

This is some of the evidence that is being shown to the general public.  It shows, in alarming detail, what appears to be a nuclear reactor.  It's very difficult to deny the validity of these pictures.  There's also rumors of a video being made.

If it was indeed an "abandoned military warehouse", like the Syrians said it was, why do a quick clean up of the site?  Why get trucks in there as quickly as possible to remove all traces of what was there?  If it WAS an abandoned military warehouse like the Syrians said it was, why not just leave the damaged building there as is to rub Israel's nose in a major fuck up?

They didn't because they were doing some nefarious shit there.

 

Of course, the IAEA is getting all pissy:

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency criticized the United States on Friday for not sharing intelligence sooner about a facility in Syria that Israel bombed last September.

The White House said Thursday that Israel destroyed a covert nuclear reactor in Syria that would have been capable of producing plutonium and likely was "not intended for peaceful purposes."

In briefings to Congress and reporters Thursday, Bush administration officials said North Korea may have assisted Syria in nuclear activities as early as 1997.

Israeli officials have not commented publicly on the possible target of the strike.

In a written statement, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the United States informed him Thursday that it believes the Syrian facility was a nuclear reactor.

"The director general deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the agency in a timely manner, in accordance with the agency's responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to enable it to verify its veracity and establish the facts," ElBaradei wrote, noting the IAEA was responsible for verifying allegations of a country's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"The director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the non-proliferation regime."

Really?  And what would you possibly have done ElBaradei?  Would you have written a terse letter asking permission of the Syrians to come and check the site out?  What would you have done if they said no?  We'd all be sitting around with our thumb up our asses, chasing down nuclear equipment and materials.

And let's face it, you haven't done a whole hell of a lot of stuff when it comes to the Iranians, so why should we leave it up to you to find and fix what's going on with the Syrians?   The simple fact is that the IAEA is a toothless organization that has absolutely no real interest in getting rid of nuclear proliferation.  They don't want to rock the boat, so to speak, and they will do whatever it takes to appease anyone involved, except the United States.  With us, he doesn't mind giving us a big "fuck you" about our rightful concerns.

Of course, with the bitching from the IAEA, I'd expect a polite apology.  I'd be wrong:

The State Department had a pointed response Friday for the U.N.'s criticism that the U.S. did not come forward with information about Syria's clandestine nuclear reactor program: Get over it and start investigating.

"We would expect and hope that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) would investigate this matter," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "The fact of the matter now is this is an issue that is worthy of investigation putting aside these questions of timing."

Additionally, "the director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the nonproliferation regime," it said.

Well it goes back to my earlier point of you guys doing nothing about it.

But the best part comes from my good buddy John Bolton (No relation to Michael)

John Bolton, who has served as U.S. ambassador and before that held Rood's job at a time the U.S. was considering trying to push ElBaradei out from his position, said the IAEA's chief criticism is "entirely unwarranted."

"The IAEA was and remains unable to deal with regimes like Syria," he said in an e-mail to the AP. "Israel did what was necessary to defend itself, and the U.S. had no obligation to brief the IAEA in such a matter."

There's a nice stick to the eye of ElBaradei.

I knew there was a reason I liked Mr. Bolton.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Israel's Air Force Chief: Iran Threat Real, Tells 60 Minutes Israel's Air Force Is Ready For Any Threat, Especially A Nuclear Iran

The commander of the Israeli air force takes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel extremely seriously. Israelis must be ready for anything and ultimately trust only themselves, he believes, and for good reason: his family survived the Holocaust.

Maj. Gen. Eliezer Shkedy speaks to 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon in a story about the Israeli air force this Sunday, April 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"I think it is a very serious threat to the state of Israel, but more than this, to the whole world," Shkedy says of the Iranian leader’s public animosity toward Israel. "They are talking about what they think about the state of Israel. They are talking about destroying and wiping us from the earth," he tells Simon. It reminds him of the Holocaust. "We should remember. We cannot forget. We should trust only ourselves."

Well thank God SOMEONE'S taking the Iranian threat seriously.  Everyone else seems to think that they should be pussy footing around the notion that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon.  It's plain to see by anyone that they thirst for power.  Their nuclear program is their only true thing they have as a national symbol of pride.  Everything else in Iran has turned to shit that Ahmadinejad has touched.

Personally, I think a bit of sabotage might be in order.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Carter-Hamas meeting achieved nothing: Palestinians

Last week's meeting between former US president Jimmy Carter and the exiled leader of Hamas militants did not produce any results, Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Malki said here Wednesday.

"President Carter came to the region thinking he could achieve something. Unfortunately president Carter left without anything concrete," he told a conference in the Spanish capital.

"The only thing he achieved was permission on the part of Khaled Meshaal of Hamas to deliver a letter from a detained Israeli soldier to his family. Nothing else," he said.

"Hamas offered nothing to president Carter. They reiterated the same positions. There was no change on the part of Hamas," Malki added.

You see, that's where they are wrong.  It produced plenty of propaganda material for Hamas and let everyone know what kind of weakling Jimmy Carter really is.  Ever wonder why you don't hear him fart?  There's a reason for that. He's too busy taking it up the ass from terrorist scum.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Keith

Oh Keith, how I've missed you so much.  Your constant ramblings and idiotic nature has filled my heart with a flutter that no other liberal could possibly do.

And yet, there was a long time when you started making good points about things that needed to be said.  I thought you were coming to the Dark Side.

But alas, here we are, and you've blasted John McCain for something his pastor says, yet, you yourself have praise for Obama's speech about his pastor.  A bit hypocritical don't you think?

 

How odd eh?  I thought you were a journalist, not a partisan hack.  But you surprise me almost daily Mr. Olbermann.  Pretty soon, you'll surprise me again and say something nice about a Republican, you know, "there are times where we need to be bipartisan".  Just a thought.

But then again, Reverend Wright is now having the nerve to say that his words were "twisted".

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor to Barack Obama, said that publicizing sound bites of sermons in which he condemned U.S. policies was "unfair" and "devious," and done by people who know nothing about his church, according to excerpts of a PBS interview released Thursday.

Wright said that, as an activist, he is accustomed to being "at odds with the establishment," but the response to the sermons has been "very, very unsettling."

The interview, scheduled for broadcast Friday night, is the first the pastor has given since video of his preaching gained national attention in March, putting Democratic presidential hopeful Obama on the defensive.

Among the most remarked upon sound bites was Wright proclaiming from the pulpit "God damn America" for its racism. He accused the government of flooding black neighborhoods with drugs.

The controversy forced Obama to explain his 20-year association with the minister, who is stepping down from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

"The blowing up of sermons preached 15, seven, six years ago and now becoming a media event, not the full sermon, but the snippets from the sermon ... having made me the target of hatred, yes, that is something very new," Wright told "Bill Moyers' Journal."

"I felt it was unfair. I felt it was unjust. I felt it was untrue. I felt _ for those who were doing that _ were doing it for some very devious reasons," he said.

Remember Reverend, it's wrong to lie.

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Democratic Presidential Candidates Both Caught Lying...Or At Least Stretching The Truth

Now here's where the fun begins.  Everyone who sends me a supportive email about Obama continues to say how honest he is.  Well, unfortunately, he's not the Messiah that everyone thinks he is:

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.
Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Cavnar of Milagro Exploration and his wife, Gracie, have helped the Illinois Democrat raise at least another $50,000 by helping host a fundraiser earlier in the campaign.

Other oil industry donors have included Sinclair Oil President Ross Matthews of Texas and John B. Hess, chairman of Hess Corp., a New York-based oil producer and retailer with operations worldwide. Hess, who has given to other presidential candidates, including Sen. John McCain, gave $2,300 to Obama last year, as did his wife, Susan. Hess gave $14,000 to Obama's Senate run in 2003. The oil executives did not return phone calls.

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits "penalty."

"Since the gas lines of the '70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence but nothing's changed -- except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year and we're paying $3.50 for gas. I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore," says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.

Sounds like a righteous winner right?  Well, not so fast.

Obama's ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.

So in other words, Obama is misleading people a little bit.  Making them think something is one way, while technically correct, is another.

For example, if I told you I was the top rated conservative blog on the Internet, you would think I was getting millions of hits per month right?  However, if I took a poll of a small amount of my readers, then I would be more likely to get their vote.  What I've said is technically correct, but grossly misleading.  As much as I say on here, being honest AND straight forward with my readers is a top priority.

That's why when you write to me, I reply to everyone (even as time consuming as it is).  That is why when I post your emails, I get permission first.  And that's why when I say something from the heart, you know it's the honest truth, without misleading you on the thought and feelings I'm trying to convey.

Now, on to Hillary!

Sen. Hillary Clinton is arguing that she is ahead of rival Sen. Barack Obama when it comes to the popular vote.

"I'm very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else," Clinton said Wednesday, one day after her decisive win in Pennsylvania.

Not so fast, says Obama's campaign. Clinton's count includes her wins in Michigan and Florida, but the Democratic presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in those states because they violated party rules by scheduling their contests too early.

So, in other words, Hillary is trying to count votes in a contest that didn't involve her opponent?  How is that even remotely fair?  That's also grossly misleading like Obama has done about his claims of oil money not going into his campaign.

What's worse, is that it's not even a very good misleading.

If Michigan and Florida are counted, Clinton is ahead by 100,000 votes -- 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million. Without those states, Obama has a 500,000 vote lead, 14.4 million to 13.9 million.

So even if she manages to make idiots think that she's ahead, with two states that Obama didn't even compete in, she's only ahead by 100,000 votes out of 30 million cast?  That's not only misleading, it's pathetic.

But Obama is facing questions about why he can't just bring the race to an end.

"You know the way we're going to close the deal is by winning. And right now we're winning. And what we'll do is keep on campaigning in Indiana and North Carolina and Oregon and these other states," he said.

Obama leads Clinton in the overall delegate count, 1,719 to 1,586.

Neither candidate can capture the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination with wins in the remaining Democratic contests, meaning the party's superdelegates will probably decide who gets the Democratic nomination.

So, even with the upcoming state votes, unless there's a landslide victory for either one of them, and I'm talking about 90%-10%, then this is going to go all the way to the convention, and watch for fireworks from either side, because it's not going to be pretty.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

N. Koreans Taped At Syrian Reactor

A video taken inside a secret Syrian facility last summer convinced the Israeli government and the Bush administration that North Korea was helping to construct a reactor similar to one that produces plutonium for North Korea's nuclear arsenal, according to senior U.S. officials who said it would be shared with lawmakers today.

The officials said the video of the remote site, code-named Al Kibar by the Syrians, shows North Koreans inside. It played a pivotal role in Israel's decision to bomb the facility late at night last Sept. 6, a move that was publicly denounced by Damascus but not by Washington.

Sources familiar with the video say it also shows that the Syrian reactor core's design is the same as that of the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, including a virtually identical configuration and number of holes for fuel rods. It shows "remarkable resemblances inside and out to Yongbyon," a U.S. intelligence official said. A nuclear weapons specialist called the video "very, very damning."

Nuclear weapons analysts and U.S. officials predicted that CIA Director Michael V. Hayden's planned disclosures to Capitol Hill could complicate U.S. efforts to improve relations with North Korea as a way to stop its nuclear weapons program. They come as factions inside the administration and in Congress have been battling over the merits of a nuclear-related deal with North Korea.

Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha yesterday angrily denounced the U.S. and Israeli assertions. "If they show a video, remember that the U.S. went to the U.N. Security Council and displayed evidence and images about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I hope the American people will not be as gullible this time around," he said.

Wow, classic deflection technique!  How's this Mr. Ambassador:  If you weren't building a nuclear reactor, or any other nefarious thing, why did your government decide not to say a word about the bombing?  Why didn't you scream about "atrocities" that were carried out by the Israelis?

Everyone knows that if Israel bombed a simple, commercial factory, or something harmless, you'd be up in arms, screaming at the UN to do something.

The fact you didn't speaks volumes.

Besides, we're talking about you, not Iraq.  And it's pretty difficult to fake video.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

What a Day!

Well it certainly appears that I wasn't far off with my predictions about Hillary and Pennsylvania.  I thought she'd win by less than 10%, and she won by just 10%.  I predicted she'd use this "victory" as an excuse to keep going, and it appears that I was right.

I wonder if I can predict the winning lottery numbers?

I have a full evening planned, so I won't be posting as much as I usually do.

As a side note, I've extended an invitation to several people to write up some articles to get a fresh perspective on the political scene, and I am expecting to hear from them soon.

 

Some of them are hard core liberals, so it ought to be entertaining. :)

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Pennsylvania

Well here we are.  Barack Obama may push ahead to the point where Hillary statistically can't win tonight.  Hillary needs a win, and needs it in the worst way.  Can she pull it off?  I sincerely doubt it.  But here's where to check out the incoming results.

Remember, just 6 months ago, Hillary was saying "They aren't going after me because I'm a woman, they are going after me because I'm in the lead".  It certainly doesn't look like she had a "plan B", something you don't want to have in your next President.

Obama was up against the ropes for the longest time, and his campaign certainly appeared finished at many points in the process, but here we are.

My guess?  Obama loses slightly, by less than 10% of the vote.  Hillary trumps it as a "victory", and we move onto other states.  We'll know more tonight.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

American arrested as nuclear spy for Israel

U.S. authorities arrested an 84-year-old American on Tuesday suspected of giving Israel secrets on nuclear weapons, fighter jets and missiles in the 1980s in a case with links to imprisoned spy Jonathan Pollard.

Ben-Ami Kadish acknowledged his spying in FBI interviews and said he acted out of a belief he was helping Israel, according to court documents.

Kadish was accused of reporting to an Israeli government handler who was also a main contact for Pollard, an American citizen serving a life term on a 1985 charge of spying for Israel.

Kadish's arrest indicates that spying revealed by the Pollard case, still an irritant in the close U.S. alliance with Israel, may have spread wider than previously acknowledged. "It was bigger than we thought, and they hid it well," said former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova, who prosecuted the Pollard case.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said, "We will be informing the Israelis of this action ... 20-plus years ago during the Pollard case we noted that this was not the kind of behavior we would expect from friends and allies and that would remain the case today."

I must say, I'm disappointed in the Israeli's for this.  After all we've done for them and after all the defense and aid we've given them, this is how we are treated?  Personally, I think execution is in order here, even if the guy did it over 20 years ago and he's 84.  We're talking about nuclear weapons secrets here.  We're talking about weapons systems that, had he screwed up and this information fell into the wrong hands, could have resulted in the deaths of thousands of people.

It's treason, and traitors should be put to death.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Rendell Says College Kids "Drink The Kool-Aid" Of Obama Speeches

Tell me, where is this guy wrong?

 

People don't like being told that they are "drinking the kool-aid" when they have so much passion involved in something, but listen to what the guy is saying and look at the audience.  They clearly have "drunk the kool-aid".  None could say what Obama had specifically accomplished.  Of course, the folks over at HuffPo are up in arms about it as well.  How DARE they question the Almighty Obama!

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Al Qaeda No. 2: Attacks on Western nations in works

Of course, we get the usual line of bullshit from this guy, but there are a couple of interesting things he does talk about.  For example:

Al-Zawahiri also denied a conspiracy theory that Israel carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., and he blamed Iran and Shiite Hezbollah for spreading the idea to discredit the Sunni al Qaeda's achievement.

Al-Zawahiri accused Hezbollah's al-Manar television of starting the rumor.

"The purpose of this lie is clear -- (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.

"Iran's aim here is also clear -- to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq," he added.

Iran cooperated with the United States in the 2001 U.S. assault on Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban, an al Qaeda ally.

The comments reflected al-Zawahiri's increasing criticism of Iran, which al-Zawahiri has accused in recent messages of seeking to extend its power in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and through its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon. Until recent months, he had not often mentioned the Islamic republic.

Is Al-Qaeda planning attacks against Iran?  I doubt it highly, but when Iran gets the attention of Al-Qaeda, it certainly is enough to raise an eyebrow.  I certainly wouldn't put it past Al-Qaeda to bomb some target in Iran as "retaliation" against "aggression".

It also points out that conspiracy nutjobs who blame Israel and the US for the attacks of 9/11 are just that, nutjobs.

But, there's also something else he talks about that's quite interesting:

Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri criticized Muslims for failing to support Islamist insurgencies in Iraq and elsewhere in a new audiotape posted Tuesday on the Internet.

Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant also blasted Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas over their reported readiness to consider a peace deal with Israel.

"I call upon the Muslim nation to fear Allah's question (at judgement day) about its failure to support its brothers of the Mujahedeen (holy Warriors), and (urge it) not to withhold men and money, which is the mainstay of a war," he said.

It's shows that there are beginning cracks in the support of Al-Qaeda by Muslims everywhere.  We're finally starting to show people who Al-Qaeda really is and it's starting to show up in popular support for the terrorist organization. 

When you have someone so directly getting pissed at other Muslims and other terrorist organization, it shows that they are starting to crumble.

Divide and conquer, I always say. :)

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com