The Islamization of France - A Descent into Hell, part II

Michelle Malkin has the scoop on bloggers reporting on France’s descent in hell with the sheer force of Islamization by reckless and hell bent Muslim youths.

France’s own riot has some parallel with our own L.A. riot that occurred in 1992 that resulted in over 150 fires raged in the city of Los Angeles. Some 53 deaths were reported as well as over 1200 injured, and more than 3000 arrested

Although no deaths were reported so far as a result of the ongoing rioting but injuries continue to mount. Some of them were horrific in nature caused by Muslim thugs preying on disabled people.

Just like the LA riot, the rioting didn’t end and stop where it originated. It went beyond the boundary of the city.

As the senseless violence reached it's peak in Los Angeles on Thursday night, reports began to be received that it had spread to other cities and states across the country.

1. In Northern California, 1,400 people were arrested in San Francisco as rioting engulfed the city's downtown area. A State of Emergency was declared there and a curfew established.

2. In Los Vegas, a mob of two-hundred (200) people went on a rampage, setting fires, and engaged in sniper fire and drive-by shootings. Local law enforcement officials admitted that they were overwhelmed and requested the activation of the Nevada National Guard. The Governor complied and control has reportedly been somewhat re- established. Reports were received of several arson fires.

(3.) Seattle was struck by mobs of 50-100 people, who randomly broke windows and and looted numerous cars in downtown Seattle during the night Thursday and early Friday. Police say that forty-five (45) people were arrested and five (5) injuried during the violent spree. Firefighters responded to twenty-eight (28) fire calls during the unrest, including five (5) buildings that were termed "suspicious in nature".

(4.) Further East, Black protestors in New York City reportedly pulled two white men from a truck, stabbed one and beat the other. An estimated two-hundred (200) protestors attacked the doors at Madison Square Gardens causing injuries and property damage. Another crowd of four-hundred (400) black youths reportedly stormed a popular shopping mall and smashed windows and stole merchandise. Shops and businesses were damaged as the "melee" traveled over several blocks. As many as eighty (80) arrests were made and several police officers injuried. Many NYC employers were said to have released workers from work early to avoid further occurrences.

(5.) Police in Atlanta, GA were confronted on Friday, by hundreds of black protestors. This followed a night of three-hundred (300) arrests and fifty-seven (57) injuries. It also prompted the use of teargas and a call for the Georgia National Guard to help combat large crowds of people looting and throwing rocks and bricks. Mayor Maynard Jackson called for calm and understanding, as he counseled college students that had originally begun peaceful protests which escalated into wide-spread violence.

Sporadic acts of violence, arson, and property damage were also associated with the Los Angeles Riots in such cities as Tampa, FL, Pittsburg, PA, Birmingham, MS, Omaha, NE, and several other locations.

Muslim men and youths in France no longer have a “master” (ie. Imam) to report to when violence and gang life are a part of their lives. They lived wherever they wished among the large concentrated Muslim parts of French towns. These “masterless” Muslim men and boys join Muslim gangs as a source of their distraction from years of being ignored by the French government offering them no hope. They use their violence on other people, including the raping of young Muslim girls.

Currently, 6 million people of Muslim descent are living in France. cBS explains more on what caused the volatility in France’s riot:

Crux of the Problem: It is currently estimated that 40 percent of the French population descends from these different waves of migrations, making France the most ethnically diverse country in Europe. Nevertheless, the immigrants from other European countries have had an easier time blending in (race and religion being key), while the "non-European" groups have tended to assimilate at a slower pace.

Difficult Integration: Because of the difficulty integrating into French society, many young males of African and Arab descent work for the lowest wages and often live in ghettos where crime is rampant.

"Western Europe society has not managed to integrate second- or third-generation immigrants," said Scott Atran, Director of Research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and professor of psychology at the University of Michigan.

France has a chronic problem of not knowing how to shrug off the "ossified economic and political structure" that rules the country, he added.

Religion: Roman Catholic - 83 to 88 percent; Protestant - 2 percent; Jewish - 1 percent ; Muslim - 5 to 10 percent.

Unemployment rate: 10.1 percent.

Unemployment in the Paris "immigrant ghettos": 20 to 40 percent, according to varying sources.

Riots: The unrest began after two North-African youths, Bouna Traore, aged 15, and Zyed Benna, 17, were accidentally electrocuted at an electricity sub-station in Clichy-sous-Bois. Protesting by burning cars is not uncommon in the immigrant-populated suburbs, but this marks the worst civil disobedience in the last decade.

Rioters: Bands of 10 to 15 youths, some as young as 12 years old.

Riot Epicenter: Seine-Saint-Denis is northeast of Paris identified as the "93 departement." Hot zones within the departement include Aulnay-sous-Bois, Clichy-sous-Bois, Bobigny, La Courneuve.

Copycat Riots: The rock-throwing, torching of cars and other acts of vandalism have spread to other immigrant ghettos in the ring around Paris but have not yet occurred in the city's center.

Protesters have used the internet to get other cities to join the fight, with the ultimate goal of making the evening newscast, according to French newspaper, Le Figaro. There has been mild trouble reported in other cities, including Marseilles, Dijon and Perpignan.

Policing: A lot of these "ghetto" suburbs lack security and policing. Gangs, running the suburbs, have slowly pushed out police presence. In Seine-Saint-Denis, security personnel have fallen from 468 in 2000 to 205 now, according to Le Monde.

Housing Shortage: As in many cities around the world, Paris rents have gone through the roof. As a result, many people have been forced to move out or shack up in dilapitated buildings. Last year more than 100,000 people competed for 12,000 available subsidized housing units in Paris, according to official figures. Among the hardest-hit without housing are immigrants (legal and illegal.) The three back-to-back Paris fires over the spring and summer, which killed many children, occurred in such rundown buildings.

Political Backdrop: A week before the riots began, the interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy vowed a "merciless war" on suburban violence, and when the troubles started, he called the rioters "hoodlums." The rioting has become embroiled in the political succession war on the right between the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, and Sarkozy, ahead of the 2007 presidential elections.

One thing tho, the United States does not have a “housing shortage.” The rest of the world might, but not the United States. We're not that dire as CBS would like for you to believe. And also what cBS doesn't tell you is that French police do not go in any of the 4 subburbs (small nearby "cities") out of 20 subburbs of Paris where Muslim crimes are mostly intense. The cops never go into these areas to stop any of the crime for years. No wonder these Muslim gangs go unopposed in their daily crime sprees.

And what of France’s unemployment rate of 10.1 percent?:

France's generous jobless benefits, about three times those of the US and Britain, help explain its 10.1 per cent unemployment rate — double the rates in those countries. The benefits are among a set of labour policies that may pose the biggest obstacle to President Jacques Chirac's efforts to rekindle the economy and restore his tattered popularity.

This is where France's own grand socialism experiment begins to tear and tatter under the strain of Muslim immigrants wanting a better life. The French government ignored them for decades. So what France is looking at is their own descent into hell and realizing that it has now just begun.

The Islamization of France - A Descent into Hell

Social unrest by Muslims continues to plague France whose minority makes up almost 10% of France's population. This was a policy of France who tried to be the "good" country by letting immigrants in on a grand social scale and not realize the traps they were setting themselves up until it became almost too late.

The violence also cast doubt on the success of France's model of seeking to integrate its large immigrant community — its Muslim population, at an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe's largest — by playing down differences between ethnic groups. Rather than feeling embraced as full and equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children complain of police harassment and of being refused jobs, housing and opportunities.

Opposition groups accused the government of letting the situation spiral out of control, either by failing to act quickly enough or letting in too many immigrants over the years.

"We see that the situation in certain neighborhoods is not getting better at all but degenerating," Socialist Party President Jean-Marc Ayrault told LCI television, who said Chirac's conservatives "did not know how to take control."

Right-wing French lawmaker Philippe de Villiers, who has said he wants to "stop the Islamization of France," told RTL radio that the problem stemmed from the "failure of a policy of massive and uncontrolled immigration."

Minister of Social Cohesion Jean-Louis Borloo said the government had to react "firmly" but added that France must also acknowledge its failure to have dealt with anger simmering in poor suburbs for decades.

"We cannot hide the truth: that for 30 years we have not done enough," he told France-2 television.

Indeed. You cannot hide from the fact that you have 5 million Muslims living in France (547,000 km square) which is 18 times smaller in geographic size than the United States who are living among 55 million Frenchies. Or to put into proper perspective, you have France which is somewhat smaller than the state of Texas (696,000 km square with 22,000,000 people). Ignore the minorities long enough in such a small area, there will be social unrest. Only this time instead of trial by fire, it'll be trial by religion, namely Islam, when Muslim moderates and fanatics are bent on wanting to take over France and institute control over laws regarding religion and the practices of it to their benefits. The problem is, France does not realize that. Until, that is, today they are realizing the stark possibility of what they are dealing with. Or at least in the back of their minds, that is.

Will the United States bail out France again 10 years down the road? Only time will tell since Europe has seen the history of having these "tipping points" where wars were waged because of dangerous ideologies. One was about the ideology of one race...white and German. The next one will be about a one Islamic race.

Just watch.

When Judicial Activism Supports Explicit Sex Surveys for 1st Graders

Here we have the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that parents do not have exclusive rights over their children when it comes to providing sexual education according to a three-judge panel who dismissed the case, saying.

"There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children...Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

The 9th Circuit dismissed this case which was brought on by California parents who were “outraged over a sex survey given to public school students in the first, third and fifth grades.” This allowance was the result of former Gov. Gray Davis who signed the controversial sex-ed bill.

This is where judges lose the whole concept on the meaning of what parents are about when it comes to caring for their children and how to raise them. Not the school, the state or the government unless there is some horrible abuse involved. California's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is famous for their judicial activism, including the "Under God" decision.

According to the report:

The parents argued that they — not the public schools — have the sole right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex.”

Indeed they do have the right to object and schools should seek parents permission on such matters, especially sex education, which is NOT the school's sole area of responsibility. It's the parents. The school need to seek permission first and nothing else. Here's a typical example of what happened in one high school of Fairfax County of how far the school should (or should not) go:

A survey scheduled for distribution to a group of Fairfax County high school students in April has drawn criticism from some area parents. They feel that some of the questions about sexuality are inappropriate. They are upset by questions such as "How old were you when you first had sex?" and "The last time you had sexual intercourse, what one method did you or your partner use to prevent pregnancy?" One parent complained saying, "Some of these questions are asked in such a way that they give tacit approval to some of these behaviors. Kids will read these questions and think if they're not engaging in this, 'What's wrong with me?' This is so tacky, it makes me squeamish.

But this story here is different. It was a sex survey for 1st, 3rd and 5th graders. Excuse me? They are all under 10 years old! Totally inappropriate. And without the parents' permission, too. And the survey asked totally inappropriate and, even for us who are of age applicably so, completely personal questions. Questions like if they ever thought about having sex or touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex."

In one report "Sexuality Education in the Elementary School" in New Jersey gives an example of forcing questions upon kindergarteners and up.

In the earliest grades, kindergarten through third, when teachers simply say, "We’re going to be talking about family life and sex, about being a male or female, a boy or a girl," young children eagerly call out their questions. They sense they have been given permission by a nonjudgmental teacher and are relatively free of the embarrassment and self-consciousness that is more evident by the fifth and sixth grades.

Permission? By whom? The parents? Non-judgemental teacher?? Do teachers even have the right to discuss these things without having consent of the parents? So much for being "non-judgemental."

No where in that Sexuality Education report states about the importance of asking parents for permission to do these things. Schools in my area do, in fact, ask permission from parents to have sex education discourses or classes for middle school students. Sex surveys is another way of trying to get around from seeking permission first when it's not a sex ed class at all.

Schools and courts have gradually unsurped parental controls regarding their concerns over how education is done for their children at their schools. Not only that, many schools are going down the drain and are becoming more and more irresponsible in educating students.

Judicial activism doesn't mean per se from a liberal judge, it can either be a liberal or conservative judge. The proper approach and right approach for any judges is to examine the law as it is written. Not change the Constitution (state or federal) and its written rules.

In order to change the law or amend the Constitution there are mechanisms allowing just for that. Changing the law does not belong in the hand of one judge or a panel of judges. Judicial activism does not belong in America's society.

November 2, 2004 - Presidential Election Date

It's been one year since George W. Bush was re-elected President of the United States for the 2nd time. What were you doing that day? Me? I was laughing my head off as I watched the whole thing on televison at home. At least Kerry was very gracious in his concession speech. But John Edwards' "Heal" speech just made me laughed. Hardly a concession on his part.

Judge for DeLay Case Recuses Himself

Step 1. Remove Democratic Judge from DeLay's case. Done. Check.

A new judge will preside over the conspiracy case against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, after a motion was granted Tuesday to remove the appointed judge because of his donations to Democrat causes.
.
.
Judges are presumed to be impartial," Reed said.

If (Judge) Perkins was left as the presiding judge, it could create an impression and public perception that he could not be fair, defense attorneys said.

Richard Keeton, an attorney for DeLay, said in closing arguments that too many unanswered questions remain even without putting (Judge) Perkins on the stand to explain his contributions to Democrats.

"We don't have (Judge) Perkins' testimony ... all we have is numbers of donations he made," Keeton said.

Since Perkins avoided (ie. refused) taking the stand to address the motion, "those facts ring loud," Keeton added.

Step 2. Get an impartial Judge.

Step 3. Successfully defend DeLay against a felony charge and win.

Step 3. Sue and charge D.A. Ronnie Earle for "Prosecutorial Misconduct."


And now to this, I keep hearing, again, about D.A. Ronnie Earle's past indictment history that he indicted 12 Democrats and 3 Republicans making him seem to be NOT the partisan guy he is by going after most Democrats in Texas. How little do you know. First off, you really need to know a little bit (a lot really) more about the history of Texas politics.

Now, three parties exist in Texas. Conservative Democrats, Liberal Democrats and Republicans (especially since 1980, you can thank Rove for that....ooooh...evil Rove!). The dominant political group in Texas has been Conservative Democrats for so long you can ask anybody who have lived in Texas for awhile. Texas has always been known as a conservative state...not liberal. That would be Massachusetts. Texas had always been a one party state, liberal Democrats versus conservative Democrats in the past until around the 1990s when Republicans started to make headways in Texas politics.

Remember, Republicans do not really mind working with Conservative Democrats since both of these parties share similar ideologies. In fact, Zell Miller is himself a Conservative Democrat. He was the one who did the famous "Spitball" commentary at the 2004 RNC to re-elect George W. Bush. He even wrote a book called, "National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat." Changes the picture doesn't it?

For as long as anyone can remember in Texas, politics in governement were run by mostly Democrats. And they fought among themselves to get the votes. And they were just as nasty to each other (liberal Democrats vs conservative Democrats) as Democrats versus Republicans. You might as well call many of the conservative Democrats as Republicans. Here's one short history about it.

Take a note here: EARLE PROSECUTED DEMOCRATS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF STATE GOVERNMENT...and not the little guys. Most of them were conservative Democrats AND Republicans. See below:

Bob Bullock (Conservative Democrat, served 24 years as state comptroller and lieutenant governor), he was a GW Bush campaign consultant who helped GW Bush build a great governorship. Bullock escaped indictment but not Earle's scrutiny.

1994 - Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican.

1992 - Texas House Speaker, Gib Lewis (Conservative Democrat). Charged with gift-reporting and financial-disclosure violations.

1983 - Attorney General for Texas, Jim Mattox (Conservative Democrat). Attempted to prosecute him for commercial bribery in 1983, only to see the controversial, hard-fought case end in a jury acquittal. It's been known that Jim Mattox was a conservative Democrat and a political enemy of Earle. Mattox was indicted on felony bribery charges. He was acquitted afterwards.

1982 - State Treasurer, Warren G. Harding (Conservative Democrat). Indicted on two felonies for political misuse of office. Pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges. See something different here? "Felony" and a "misdemeanor."

1980 - Sen. Gene Jones (Conservative Democrat). Indicted for official misconduct. Entered plea bargain for misuse of state computer.


Now, look at this picture of Texas voting results from the last presidential election. See that little blue spot in the middle of all that red? That is Travis County. It is liberal, it has been liberal, it will always be liberal. That's where Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle resides. The rest of the state is conservative. Also, in the map, the little blue spots along the Mexico border? All are relatively unpopulated areas.

A big change in party demographics was shifted in the 1990s when there were more Republicans than Democrats. Ronnie Earle's days are numbered until the day he can no longer get the people's confidence of Travis county to keep him as District Attorney of Travis county.

Something to think about. Remember, D.A. Ronnie Earle took 7 separate grand juries in 3 years just to come up an indictment. That's like getting tried for the same crime in a court of law 7 separate times with a different jury each time. Only this time, DeLay cannot defend himself while Ronnie Earle influences his grand jury to give him an indictment. On the 6th try, a bogus indictment came up which shows Earle's ineptitude in court, and then finally 24 hours later convinced coerced a 7th grand jury for an indictment against DeLay.


Kokonut Pundits blogs on DeLay:

Hey! No fair! DeLay's smiling!
Smile, Tom DeLay. Smile!
DeLay File for "Prosecutorial Misconduct" Against Earle.
DeLay's First Charge Won't Stick, then Ronnie Earle Changes the Charge.
Politics 101 - Indictments

Liberals....UNHINGED!

Well, I had a few Liberals going unhinged on me, too. Go figure. Just read some of my recent blogs and figure it out. But here is the story, be sure to check out Michelle Malkins blog piece about Liberals going unhinged and her official launch of her new book today, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. Also, be sure to look at her two pages worth of very un-DeLay like Liberal mugshots who have gone unhinged and got caught by the police in pre and post November 2004 election in Michelle Malkin's blog.

Will I see more Liberals get unhinged over my blogs? Only time will tell.

Nice timing, Michelle. Unhinged, indeed!

UPDATE: Also, check out Michelle Malkin's 10 Unhinged Celebrities with a short description of their unhinged responses that include Cameron Diaz, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Julie Stiles, Janeane Garofalo, Chrissie Hynde, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Vincent D'Onofrio, and Cher.

A good short read. A good laugh, too.


UPDATE II: A recap on Ann Coulter's June 2002 editorial piece "Liberals Unhinged" describing exactly what is an unhinged Liberal. When the name calling starts, it's usually the start of their own descent into hell of their own, suffering needlessly and moronically, too. When one cannot rebut, they sputter. And when sputtering comes, all they have left is name calling harkening back to the days when they were on kiddie playgrounds going around saying "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"

Regressive and anal rententative attitudes are not pretty things to watch. But they can certainly be funny to watch, too.

Condi for Prez

Now that Halloween is over. Condi for Prez!

Wouldn't it be great for Dr. Condoleezza Rice to become President? The first black woman to become President of the United States? Wouldn't it be great for Condi to grab two titles by being the first black woman to become the Vice President of the United States and then subsequently become the first black woman to become the President of the United States? Think about this. How would Cheney step aside? There are a couple of ways that could be done as a reason if you think hard enough.

Here's why.

Here and here, too.


Ooooh..ooooh! Eeeeevil Karl Rove is at again!!

Freedom is Never Free

Check out Iraq the Model and see how the Iraqis have gotten together to discuss how to ensure their freedom with their new found and hard fought Iraq Constitution. Reminds me of the forefathers who gathered at Independence Hall. Only this time they gathered at the LIBERTY LOBBY.

Check out all of the latest news and reports on the war on terrorism and the fight for freedom here and abroad.

In the country of Singapore you can read what the former Prime Minister of Singapore had to say about freedom of the press and free expression. He's pretty much delusional and is against such an idea.

Here's a little history recap detailing 8 women in the United States who fought for freedom in light of Rosa Park's death.

For over the past 10 years the Nepal government was able to incorporate media freedom into their nation's Constitutional Articles guaranteeing their people their freedom of opinion and expression. This was the result of the hard-won outcome of people’s 30-year long struggles against the Panchayat regime that ruled by suppressing people’s voice.

Here is a nervous lecture that took place in Beijing's Tsinghua University where lecturer Li Ao, China's independent legislator and television personality, discussed in the packed auditorium where he questioned how long the Communist Party could remain in power and urged it not to be afraid of free speech. The talk filmed live beamed to China mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan reaching an estimated audience of 130 million. Li even turned to Mr. Liu who was sponsoring the lecutures and asked "Does Mr Liu think that my speech so far is safe?"



Freedom in Iraq. Without it,
he would be dead already. Even
if he protested against Bush.



LiberalsMoonbats protesting using their freedom
to protest freedom in Iraq. They would rather
have Saddam in power unlike the Iraqi guy
in the above picture.


Do you want to be in a country where you have to ask permission to see if your speech is "safe enough"?

Freedom is NEVER free. Don't you forget that.

Boo!! Happy Halloween

Booo!! Scared you didn't I? It's Halloween night and all the ghosts, ghouls and zombies are out in force tonight. Vampires can still haunt you in your nightmares. And all of the Frankensteins never had it so fun on All Hallows Eve. But beware of the Spider lady she'll ensnare you into her sticky, stringy lair. Watch out for the nasty werewolves and please keep your children away from them! Watch out for the witches , they always seem to catch a break! And what ever you do, never, never grow up and be the gay (a little play of word here for those who are bent on complaining about my blog) and scary person like this guy. Ever!

Ad Hominem Attacks Versus Proper Rebuttals

Ok. What we have here is somebody who just really doesn’t get it on what I do here. And here I provide the proper rebuttals to somebody's much maligned ad hominem attacks. I'm hardly chagrined to see any links or references like any other good, responsible bloggers would do. But I do my good duty here using the proper blogger's protocols when it comes to linking and referencing as much as possible. You can read below (a long one I warn ya!) and figure out who is who.


ATTACK: At first, I always thought Kokonutguy was highly intelligent and could debate well. Well, he *was*.

REBUTTAL: Just because if you cannot come up with an alternative argument in a debate, don’t go about using ad hominem attacks as an excuse for what you lack.

*

ATTACK: Well, the bad news is Kokonutguy is just getting worse and worse. He found a new sport - bashing liberals and using liberals as scapegoats for all the evils in this world.

REBUTTAL: There are evils in both arenas. Just that there are variations and aspects of it. What some people do not get is that they try and portray the Clintons as angels (ie. "His lyings and obstructions weren’t really a crime" and yet compare that to the recent Libby case, yet not even at a trial, and they go nuts over.....Scooter) and that Karl Rove is the eeeeevil Republican masterminding everything in the Bush administration. It’s called turning the table on them. Not only politics do I blog, but technology, deafness related issues, science, national security issues, foreign politcs, etc.

*

ATTACK: Every time there's a scandal in the White House, he brings up Clinton. He's obsessed with Clinton and his arguments are non-sequitor.

REBUTTAL: Non-sequitor is defined as "a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it” Everything I write has relevancy to it whether you see it or not. It’s like an inside joke sometimes, only you have to know the whole story to understand it. If you don’t, well, just pretend by nodding your head up and down and smile as if you got the joke. Isn’t that what deaf people do?

*

ATTACK: He whines consistently about Clinton and Liberals.

REBUTTAL: You have to have a baseline comparison to start with. I could go with Jimmy Carter but that’s a bit outdated. Reagan? A hard man to measure up with. Ford? Just clumsy. Nixon. Never did like him. See what I mean?

*

ATTACK: What Bush administration is doing right (now) has NOTHING to do with Clinton but he tries SO hard to protray the Bush administration as the moral administration thus should not be held accountable for bad ethics.

REBUTTAL: Actually, Bush has a better moral compass than Clinton ever did. Ever wonder why Clinton was impeached? Ever wonder why Bill and Hillary never got together and showed affection with each other like George W. Bush with his Laura? Like here, for example?

What about Bill's affection towards his wife? Not much is there. It’s called public perception. According to me, Bill lacked any real meaningful examples about his own moral compass like here…oops….oops….oopsies again.

Of course, there are human frailties to consider. We all have them. Some more, some less. Hence the comparison between Clinton and Bush is a good start to point out the obviousness.

*

ATTACK: He argues that Clinton did so many terrible things, it makes Bush look like a saint.

REBUTTAL: Please see my previous reply

*

ATTACK: Well, he fails to realize that we're concerned about the present problems in the White House, not the old problems that's way behind us.

REBUTTAL: Actually, I am concerned with the present problems such as our leaky borders and national security issues, among other things as well. However, the MSM never (as in very rarely) cover anything good on the progress seen in Iraq. And I remind people often that freedom is never free which is why old problems have a way of catching up to us if we're not careful thinking it'll go away. This is why I say go here for the updated information on Iraq's progress.

*

ATTACK: The facts are here: Plame was the CIA operative and she was not supposed to be exposed.

REBUTTAL: Glad you brought that up which shows a certain ignorance on your part. If Plame's ID was suppose to be a secret and if Novak "outed" her in his July 14, 2003 article then why did Wilson and Plame have their pictures taken in November of 2003 for the January 2004 Vanity Fair article with Plame in her scarf and dark glasses sitting next to Wilson in a car? If her identity was top secret..shhh...shhh...shhh! would Wilson NOT go ahead and have themselves interviewed and their pictures taken for a NATIONALLY recognize magazine? And reduce the risk of exposing his wife which would be easily connected to the Novak's article? Sounds like Wilson had a plan with this set up from the get go. If so, then Wilson's move with the Vanity Fair interview would have been incredibly foolish, putting his wife in extreme, extreme, extreme danger!! (ok, a little sarcasm there) if she happens to be the top, top secret, ultra-covert CIA operative.

In Washington, plenty of people are acquainted with CIA “operatives” who are not working undercover. For example, when one CIA analyst wrote a book called “Anonymous,” it was widely known by that time that "Anonymous" was about the CIA agent/employee Michael Scheuer. Later on the name was revealed in print for a wider audience to find. No crime was committed or alleged — no classified information had been disclosed, no NOC had been exposed. Go figure. Also, one mustn't forget this and this one, too. And if you think the CPSAG.org was a recent update think again by clicking on the February 2003 archive which occurred way before Novak's article came out.

So much for Wilson's extreme care to keep his wife's top secret identity secret...shh! shh! This is the problem I see here.

*

ATTACK: Kokonutguy knows NOTHING about her.

REBUTTAL: True. I only know on what I’ve researched so far to come up with a certain conclusion about all of this. It's never final until all of this is truely over. Isn’t this what the Liberals are doing, too, by guessing on the Plame’s investigation on how the indictments (if any) may turn out tomorrow (Monday, October 31, 2005)? Hoping and dreaming that this will open up a hole for a Democratic pre-emptive strike at the Bush Administration in the hope that an impeachment will finally, somehow, come to fruition after seeing the dominos effect? Do you claim that Liberals know something about Valeria Plame? You're quick with your tongue before you can stop it.

*

ATTACK: He even had the nerve to say that she wasn't even a CIA operative based on unreliable sources.

REBUTTAL: I never made such an assertion. Please provide the quote and reference next time.That’s what good bloggers do. Furthermore, when you say “operative” you are saying she was covert as in top, top, top secret? How do you know? How "secret" is "secret" are you saying? You got the inside scoop, too?

*

ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines about how Tom Delay is being targeted by the liberals.

REBUTTAL: He is being targeted. Plain and simple. What else can you conclude when the Liberal D.A. used 7 different grand juries just to come up with an indictment on the 6th try but was found bogus and hurriedly got the 7th jury to come up with another charge in 24 hours. If that doesn’t sound fishy then I don’t know what is. Outlining discrepancies such as this is all but an observation I am providing and questioning the motives of such moves.

*

ATTACK: He whines about him (DeLay) getting indicted.

REBUTTAL: I point out irregularities I see in this whole indictment process. See above. Also, many people (ie. reads "Liberals") see this “indictment” process as the automatic equivalency of being guilty. Not so. Anybody who has been charged is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The court of law has barely begun for Tom DeLay and people have already charged him guilty when they try and figure out the size of his orange prison jumpsuit. This is what I am pointing out.

*

ATTACK: He cheers when Tom Delay grinned on a mugshot.

REBUTTAL: Because I thought it was funny when Liberals were hoping for an unCongressman–like photo mugshot. You know. Like a deer caught in the headlights? Unkempt clothing. Roused hair. Pale look on his face. Etc. But a smart move on DeLay's part for him to smile grandiously with his wrinkle-free suit, sharp tie, lapel pin and the combed hair. You have a problem with Tom DeLay making a fantastic mug shot?

Here's the next closest squeaky clean looking Congressman mugshot, unfortunately for him, a Democrat, who was bonafide convicted and sent to jail.
Now, name another Congressman who smiled fantastically for a mugshot? See what I mean? Priceless of DeLay's smile. Pure brilliance. And much to the disappointment of Liberals everywhere on DeLay's mugshot.

*

ATTACK: Guess what? Tom Delay admitted that he didn't report the contributions. But I'll bet you all, he'll whine more about it.

REBUTTAL: Actually, you’re twisting things a bit here. He did report it…some days late amid all the activity that was going on. I believe this is what you're referring to? Can't read minds here. See the value in providing links, now?

Dates on federal records filed by DeLay show that Alexander's contribution was received after DeLay was indicted, though Welch faxed The Tennessean a computer printout of Tenn PAC's financial activity that lists a donation to DeLay on Sept. 14. DeLay's campaign-finance report shows the Tenn PAC contribution came on Sept. 30 — two days after DeLay's indictment.

For reporting late, after 48 hours, there is a formula to calculate the amount of fines for late reporting on PAC contributions. It’s common for PAC contributions be reported late. In fact, many, many days late. Hence, the formulas are used to assess the amount of fines to be paid out. Here’s an example:

EXAMPLE 4: Nonfiler of 48-Hour Notice.

A House campaign committee fails to submit a 48-hour notice to disclose its receipt of a last-minute $5,000 PAC contribution. During the current two-year cycle, the campaign has two prior violations under the administrative fine program.

Applicable formula:

Penalty = [$100 + (.10 x amount of contribution(s) not timely reported)] x
[1 + (.25 x number of previous violations)]

Penalty = [$100 + (.10 x $5,000)] x [1 + (.25 x 2)]

Penalty = $900

Nothing illegal here. And certainly nothing that DeLay will “whine” about either. His PAC organization will simply pay the fine. It’s certainly a common occurrence to report late on contributions to PACs. Here’s from the 2003 report on late fees (and you thought library late fees were bad?) for PAC contribution reporting violations:

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

1. Bob Condon for Congress Committee $521
2. Briggs for Congress $9002,3
3. City PAC April Quarterly 2002 $900
4. City PAC July Quarterly 2002 $550
5. Cohen & Grigsby PAC $350
6. Hudson Valley PAC $1,350
7. Keyes 2000, Inc. $9002
8. Maximus Inc., PAC (MAXPAC) $650
9. Montana for Johnson July Quarterly 2002 $9001,2
10. Montana for Johnson 12 Day Pre-Primary 2002 $2,0002
11. Political Action Council of Educators (United Teachers—Los Angeles) $343
12. Raczkowski for Senate $4,200
13. Salt PAC $3,5002
14. Skorski for Congress _____4
15. Voters for Choice/Friends of Family Planning $2,550


No whining here. Everything’s legal. All monies reported that was contributed by Lamar Alexander where he voluntarily gave money to DeLay’s PAC called “Tom DeLay Campaign Committee.” Are you trying to infer is that this was an illegal contribution in this case? No such thing. A nice little Ronnie Earle's move you got there if that was your intention.

*

ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines saying that MSM doesn't report about the heroic efforts in Iraq. Wah! Wah! (Ok, need tissues?)

REBUTTAL: It’s true, MSM rarely report anything good and when they do there is always something ominous about it. They report the glass as half full but remind you that there is a hole at the bottom of the glass.

Here’s a challenge for you guys out there without doing any Google checking. I doubt you can do it. Name (a very big list here) the things that were done successfully in Iraq that could have only been succeeded with the help of the coalition work. That's your kiddies homework for now.

*

ATTACK: Kokonutguy whines saying that liberals are babies... ha... just look at his blog.

REBUTTAL: Well, when they say they are for peace and you see these Liberals running amok attacking others who want to also voice their opinions? Sure, many of them are basically babies when it comes to free speech. Just like what you’re doing to me. Attacking me ad hominem style in place of any valid arguments whatsoever. Where's the argument? No arguments but attack ad hominem style nonetheless.

*

ATTACK: he whines consistently about liberals... nothing intellectual at all.

REBUTTAL: Like what you are doing now? Nothing intellectual to give but attack and no valid arguements? Nice intellectual move there.

*

ATTACK: Lousy arguments.

REBUTTAL: And what was yours by the way? Again?

*

ATTACK: Just full of whiney comments about liberals. Oh the horrors!!!

REBUTTAL: I report. You decide. I have opinions, too. But I provide links and references. Yet I don't scream "QUAGMIRE!" at every turn in Iraq. You? Still looking for the links.

*

ATTACK: He conjures a stupid theory that Bush already expected Meirs to be withdrawn and would nominate Janice Rogers Brown.

REBUTTAL: Her name is "Miers"...not Meirs. Stupid or not, that’s why it’s called a “theory.” You have your own opinion about it. I have others but that’s another story.

*

ATTACK: He whines about liberals blocking her nomination but never mind that it was the conservatives that literally prevented her.

REBUTTAL: No. I never, not once, ever mentioned that nor implied that Liberals were blocking her nomination. Even Democrat minority leader Harry Reid was happy with the nomination and fawned all over her for the press while many Republicans had question marks over their heads when President Bush announced Miers for the Supreme court. Even I had that question mark.

"I like Harriet Miers," Reid said in a statement. "As White House counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association."

Haven’t you been following the news at all?? Or even follow correctly my bloggings? This was common knowledge that many Republicans didn’t like Miers nomination. Neither did I. Again, you’re running wild with your imaginations here or at best a selective memory problem.

*

ATTACK: He whines that the MSM failed to see the possible idea that a bum who put feces in food is a terrorist. Blah blah blah... the FBI said it's not a national security issue but he whines still.

REBUTTAL: I really grate you don’t I? Just…don’t…read my blogs. Simple. But you actually thought that I was serious about that blog piece? If anybody who have known me long enough or know the inside joke about all this then you’d know. Remember, just nod your head and smile like you completely understood the joke here. Remember when I said “Could the FBI elaborate a bit more?” about how they came up with the conclusion about this guy in my blog? You probably missed that one did you? What I wanted was more info on why the FBI concluded that. See? I question things. You misconstrue on a lot of what I say.

*

ATTACK: He whines about Joel not being treated as a terrorist suspect. (Ok, here more tissues)

REBUTTAL: No. I never made that assertion nor have I implied that. See here, here, here and here. Again, either you are running wild with your imaginations or you are reading my blogs quite poorly and misinterpreting them quite badly. Very, uh, dishonest of you to say that. Very.

*

ATTACK: He whines about the MSM doctoring the Rice picture. (more tissues, dear?)

REBUTTAL: USAToday is supposed to be a reputable online news organization. This includes ensuring all aspects of editorial control, including what pictures to go in and do a final proof analysis before putting it online. They failed. Not only did Time did this (OJ) as well, so did a few others nationally known MSM magazines and news outlets. Something that many conservative bloggers report but liberal bloggers do not. Photo-shopping anybody, whether a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or a regular schmoe Joe off the street just to make his/her appearance a bit more on the shady or guady side is a no no. Otherwise, it’s being partisanship or trying to cast doubts for the readers. I'm sure you agree but I may be wrong.

*

ATTACK: Kokonutguy has become a truly pathetic loser. I totally lost respect for him. Because of that, I am removing his link. Bye, Whiny Baby!

REBUTTAL: Well, there are people who cannot or do not have the ability to look beyond my writings and see for what they are whenever I point out certain odd or inequitable things I see out there (e.g. Harry Reid demanding that Bush make a pledge not to do any pardoning relating to the Plame “leak” investigation) where I reiterate or magnify their actions just to make a point. Things like that. Remember, nod your head and pretend to understand the joke or the meanings here. Must act cogent at all times.

*

ATTACK: Any deaf conservatives out there that doesn't whine about liberals?

REBUTTAL: I’m a rarity. A hard of hearing Republican. I’m proud of my political status. But what I do is not about whining because there is this inside story I'm attempting project. Guess you don't see it. But an example of whinning belong to you on what you just did. A classic case without a nary of rebuttal or argument. Just pure ad hominem attacks one after another. Are you sure you're a Libertarian?

What I do is about getting people to look at different perspectives here by presenting my views, my opinions and lay out all of my arguments on the thing that I see using my own special brand of writing style. Love it or leave it. I cannot possibly satisfy every creatures on the planet just so they can be placated and cuddled into having that warm and fuzzy feeling. If you think that's possible, you're nuts.

*

ATTACK: It'd be nice to have a new link to replace the deranged Kokonutguy's link.

REBUTTAL: It must really be a nice feeling using words like “deranged”, “pathetic”, “loser”, and so on ad nauseum? Not once a rebuttal using proper the arguments, links, or references in a debate you have displayed so well. Well, it's hardly was a debate as readers can see for themselves here. Do what you must. De-link me! I think I'll hang my head in utter shame. Woe is me. Let me play the victim card and get some practice.

Here's the thing. I do get it. However, it is just that I don’t go about the ad hominem style like what you just have done to me. Doing so is just a measure of a person’s own intellectual capacity and capability when they respond in such a way. Much like using epithets all the time thinking it's a yardstick measurement of sort to measure a man's worth. It does get across. Pointless and worthless as though it may be. In a word, for those who insist on ad hominem attacks deserve to be recognized as such even if it they turn out to be a Libertarian. A lesson learned for them.

I'm glad that we I had this exerise on futility on your part, Netrox.* A good mental workout I do say.

Ya'll come back, hear?



*Kokonut Pundits is now officially with meritable unmentionable mentions De-linked from Netrox' blogsite.
I am now shamed.

Democratic Senator Reid Says "You better not pardon Libby or others!"

How funny is that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid saying President Bush should not try and pardon any Administration aides if they get convicted as a result of the Plame/Wilson leak investigation. I'm adding Wilson to the Plame investigation because he essentially outed his own wife in Vanity Fair magazine. You simply do not do that if you believe your own wife is still a CIA operative, as Wilson have claimed, and go ahead and pose yourselves in a nationally recognized magazine.

Now, didn't Harry Reid forget about President Clinton's last hour 140 presidential pardons? From Foxnews report,

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Sunday that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should apologize for the actions of their aides in the CIA leak case.

Reid, of Nevada, also said Bush should pledge not to pardon any aides convicted as a result of the investigation into the disclosure of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

Senator Reid should stick it up his wazoo for making a suggestion like that in his attempt to still paint a picture of guilt among the aides. Again, kiddies, for once get it in your noggin, it is too early to discuss a presidential pardon because no one has been convicted in the investigation!

Duh.

And, oh, this has nothing to do with the Iraq war. Get that one straight, too. I know Liberals are desperate for some kind of a indictment/conviction. But this is beyond ludicrousness. It ranks right up there with all of Howard Dean's gaffes.

Most Corrupt Administration Ever?

Indictments and convictions of Clinton cronies (*check here often as I will add links to the names below*)

CONVICTIONS

Webster Hubbell
Jim McDougal
Susan McDougal
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker
Stephen Smith
David Hale
Eugene Fitzhugh
Robert W. Palmer
Chris Wade
Neal T. Ainley
Larry Kuca
Henry Espy
James Lake
William J. Marks, Sr.
John Latham
John Haley
Michael Brown (Ron Browns son)
Eugene Lum
Nora Lum
Johnny Chung
Tyson Foods
Sun Diamond Growers
Richard Douglas
James Lake
Ron Blackley
Smith Barney
Crop Growers Corporation
Brook Keith Mitchell Sr.
Five M Farming Enterprises
John J Hemmingson
Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr.
Municipal Healthcare Cooperative
Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet
Linda Jones
Patsy Jo Wooten
Allen Wooten
Roger Clinton
Dan Lasater
Bill McCuen
Dan Harmon
Roger Tamraz (Lebanon by default)
Charles Matthew
John Deutch

INDICTMENTS AND TARGETS

Ron Brown (indictment was pending at time of death)
Herby Branscum
Robert Hill
Mike Espy
Henry Cisneros
Jack Williams
Archie Schaefer
Charlie Trie
Maria Hsia
Nolanda Hill
Bruce Babbit
Ron Carey
Monica Lewinsky
Webster Hubbell, Wife and 2 Others (new charges)
Hillary Clinton (here, too)
Bill Clinton
Roger Tamraz (France)
Sandy Berger


CLINTON'S LAST HOUR PRESIDENT WITH 140 PARDONS AND 36 COMMUTATIONS. And because of President Clinton's last day pardoning spree, a hearing took place on February 28, 2001 regarding the potential abuse of pardonings that was discussed before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representative.

Compared to Clinton's last hour pardoning spree, President George H. Bush last hour was 6 pardons. Talk about returning the favors.

See history on Presidential pardons.

Gallaudet University Bison Mauls Univ NC Greensboro, 51-0, Wins Season Undefeated

Well, it's about time, too. Gallaudet University football team is now 8 wins and 0 losses. Yesterday, Saturday, in Greensboro, NC the Bison effortlessly mauled the UNCG football team with an astounding score 51 - 0. All season so far, the Bison football team has consistently placed strong wins ever since September 4 and that shows right away the strength of this year's football team. The Greensboro newspaper has this to say. Congratulations Bison football on completing the season undefeated!

MSM Refuse to Cover Hero Saving Journalists Lives

You would think, huh? That the MSM would cover one soldier, a machine gunner who is a hero, was able to kill the terrorist driver in a cement truck right before it exploded where it's intended target was the Sheraton Hotel that housed numerous foreign journalists. Had the driver not been killed, he would have succeeded in demolishing the Sheraton Hotel.

Now, let's see if CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS will pick this one up. At least the AP got off to a good start here. What? No outcry from the foreign journalists whose lives were saved?

Oooooh. Eeeevil Karl Rove! And the Ever So Angelic Clintons.

Ah, the imitable eeeevil Karl Rove escaped from the clutches of Liberal, "peace-loving" looney bunch. Karl Rove had this to say. If the Bush Administration is the most corrupt, then you have certainly been keeping your head buried in the sand way too long. Talk about major corruptions here by Democrats and the Clinton Administration. I suggest you read the major corruptions link first before moving forward. An eye-opening detail.

But remember again, kiddies, an indictment is not a conviction. But of course, you would count them automatically as "guilty" whenever the word "indict" comes across your mouths. Oh, also, "investigation" doesn't mean they're guilty, either.

Here's one crime that came out on January 7, 2005 when Hillary's campaign finance director was indicted that day while earlier another person associated with this finance campaign cover-up was sent to jail for 15 years. And why not hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her actions in the fund-raising fraud?

October 19, 2005 – The California Appellate Court ruled that Hillary would not be dismissed from the caset as she had requested, but also that the case is remanded to the trial court to correct an error -- the trial court had ruled based on the date the anti-SLAPP motion was filed, rather than the date it was served on the parties. Now we will see whether the trial judge decides to waive the 30-day requirement or deny the motion once again. Since Hillary's attorney waited 6 months to file the motion, the date error may not make much difference.

See the October 5, 2005 signing by Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Restoring Protections to Landmark Free Speech Law where the bill was drawn up by Assembly woman Lieber to help ensure that victims of meritless SLAPP lawsuits can seek damages from filers of lawsuits.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation—or ‘SLAPPs’—are lawsuits filed with the intent of stifling a defendant’s exercise of his or her First Amendment rights. Typically filed by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials against individuals who oppose them on public issues, SLAPPs have no merit but the suit instead intimidates opponents into silence, and sends a clear message to others that they too risk being sued if they speak out. The anti-SLAPP law was enacted to allow a court to declare such a suit a SLAPP and dismiss the case at an early stage in the proceedings.

And here is how it got started with the lawsuit against Hillary. And here is a website called Hillcap - the hillary clinton accountability that has the details on The Hillary Election Fraud Conspiracy: How Democrat leaders conspired with the Clintons to obtain millions in campaign contributions and hide it from the Feds, and lots more in this website.

Yet, how come none of this constitute as a scandal while DeLay, Frist and Rove are considered as humongous scandals?

That's because the many of the MSM and much of the looney Liberals hate, hate, hate the Republicans and President Bush and anybody associated with the Bush Administration. Their hate is shown by giving unproportional news coverages when it comes to scandals, or for that matter "scandals."


"I tried to indict Karl Rove and all I got was this Scooter."
-Fitzgerald Patrick

What if Miers was Bush 2nd Choice and Janice Rogers Brown was Really his First Choice?

I thought that Janice Rogers Brown would've been President Bush's 1st choice. Perhaps it was his first choice all along (I'm hoping here) but picked Miers banking that either way if she wins the vote it would be good. If not then President Bush will have a benchmark to use just as Jason Smith theorized. However, I believe what the Administration really wanted (hopefully true) as a first choice was Janet Rogers Brown as the Supreme court nominee. It'd would have been a distastrous combo punch out had it gone Brown first...and then Miers. Others feel sorry for Miers for getting caught in the crossfire, but I disagree. I think everybody in the Administration, including Miers, knew this was coming. Maybe they were trying to prepare and use this as set-up just in case.

Now, if President Bush nominates Janice Brown, it'd be an excellent woman to have for the Supreme court. I'd imagine with the benchmark already set after Meirs withdrew her nomination it'd be a way to help ensure that the Democrats get themselves pinched into a corner if they are going to be the rabid bunch by going after a 2nd nominated woman. But this time it'd be a first nominated black woman for the Supreme court. What a quandry for the Democrats to face!

Janice Rogers Brown qualifies well to be the next Supreme court judge with her experience in being in the 2nd highest court in the land. She has a sharecropper story and did everything herself by pulling her own bootstrap. She is a woman, and if voted for the Supreme court, she'll be the 1st black woman judge in the Supreme court history

We had the first woman judge, Sandra Day O'Connor, now since retired.

We had the first black judge, Thurgood Marshall. Died some years ago.

We have the second black judge Clarence Thomas.

We have the second woman judge, Ruth Ginsburg.

It is clear, I believe, that the Administration's goal is to have another woman Supreme court judge just to keep Supreme court "balanced" on the judges makeup. Rather than ruin two choices for a woman judge (Miers and Brown in that order), he choose Miers to go first and then, if it doesn't work out, Bush would capitalize on the responses from the Democrats who would not have wanted Janice Rogers Brown in the first place but may acquience so not to look like hypocrites and/or racist by going ahead and vote Janet Rogers Brown for the Supreme court.

Now, what do you think would have happened had President Bush picked Brown first instead of Miers? After the Democrats voted for John Roberts to be the Chief Justice after trying to find excuses not to vote for him, all very weak, no way in hell will they sit back and not have things their way and let President Bush "get away with it" this time around. Here's why.

But for all the accolades and praise from family and friends, her reception in Washington among Democrats in the Senate has not been pleasant.

Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "Her opinions, if they weren't on such serious matters, would be laughable."

Democrats who are blocking her nomination say she is out of the mainstream and a judicial activist. They say her decisions and speeches show her to be opposed to government, abortion and even hostile to civil rights. They say that because she has ruled against affirmative action programs in the past.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) remarked, "We are not going to turn back by appointing judges to lifetime positions who will bring us and return us back to those days of discrimination and prejudice."

In her confirmation hearing two years ago, Justice Brown tried to address the concern of Kennedy and others.

"Probably the most important thing that we have ever done is to try and guarantee people equality under the law,” said Rogers Brown. “And maybe that's because I have lived in a time when that was not so."

Her mom admits that the unfair criticism bothers her, and Janice, too, to a certain degree.

Holland said, "She hides it very well, but I know that it bothers her because it bothers me. Some of it is so negative. They take some things that she says out of context."

She added, "It hurts, but I pray a lot. God does answer prayer."

Part of why Democrats are so opposed to Brown is because of comments in some of her speeches, like this one: “Where government advances and it advances relentlessly, freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized...”

And in another speech, she said, “These are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in, and say those things out loud."

Her mom believes that outspokenness does not sit well with her opposition. Holland said, "She tells it like it is. And they don't like it They don't like to hear the truth."

So, Miers was the first on the chopping block. The Democrats had their taste of blood and got what they wanted and got Miers to withdraw her nomination. Now, it would be Brown's turn but there's a problem this time. For the Democrats to try and reject a 2nd nominated woman for the Supreme court, a 2nd black woman nominated for the Supreme court, they would look foolish in the eyes of their black constituents, and their constituents in general, if they try and stop Janice Rogers Brown. Doing this would portray many of the Democrats as just being plain racist and/or hypocrites.

It would have been easier for the Democrats to try and reject Brown had she been nominated first. And then probably easier still to reject Miers as the 2nd choice (rather than the first) because of her background and such. Noticed how weak she was when she presented her case before the Senate Panel? And how the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter returned the committee's questionnaire to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers after many lawmakers found her original answers unacceptable??

I think the whole thing was a clever set up by the Administration and Miers agreed to go along with it and wouldn't matter if she won the seat or not since the first objective by the Administration was to get another woman onto the Supreme Court panel. The Administration was banking on the Democrats' reaction toward Miers. And if Miers nomination fails, then Janice Rogers Brown would be next and use the Democrats' past response against them.

Was it all a set-up? Was it a plan for the Democrats to waste their political capital on Miers before moving on to Brown? Was this designed to be a clever fallback tactic by the Administration should the Miers nomination not go through?

Seems like it.

UPDATE: The Anchoress Online seems to think so, too. So does Generation Why? And "Underneath the Robes" gives an example of a decoy used for the nomination of John Roberts and gives names of other potential female judges that could be up for nomination.

Not a National Security Issue when Nahidmobarekeh Spreads Dried Human Feces on Pastries?

Here's a guy with a foreign sounding name, possibly of Middle Eastern orgin, who got caught sprinkling dried, grated human feces on pastries at a Fiesta grocery store. The guys name is Behrouz Nahidmobarekeh. A 49 year old cab driver. But the FBI determined that it (or he) was not a National security issue.

So, sprinkling dried feces on foods in public places where the possibility of human pathogens may exist in the feces is not considered a terrorist threat or a National security issue? Can the FBI elaborate a bit more? Say, that Behrouz was just a nutball but with a suspicious sounding name?

When Liberal News Editors Sides with Terrorists via Doctoring of Photo of Rice

Imagine the surprise. Here were are helping Iraq establish itself as a democratic and free country away from dictatorship, terror, and despotism. The editor Mikhail Metzel, of the Associated Press, writes up a story and has the undoctored photo here in WaPo while USAToday gets away with Metzel's story by using the doctored photo of Dr. Rice. altering the appearance in her eyes making her look more demonic. Nice to know that USAToday would prefer to take this approach while the U.S. helps Iraq establish itself as a democratic and free country.


Screen Capture. USAToday
Click for larger version

Michelle Malkin has more. Don't forget OJ. And the John Kerry thing, too.


UPDATE: USAToday corrects photo "error".

Karaoke for the Deaf

Here's a very, very funny and creative clip by a British comedian David Armand who plays out a "mime-like" rendition of a song called "Torn" by an Australian singer Natalia Imbruglia. The comedy act is not in a very "ASL"-like repertoire performance. But nonetheless his performance is absolutely priceless. He doesn't perform the full lyrics but use about 1/2 of it for his performance. The lyrics are in blue while in parentheses I try include description of the signs to help you follow the lyrics and the music with his "mime-like" performance.

I thought I saw a man (man = shows a long weiner)

brought (both hands cupped comes up)

to life (makes a circle)

*

He was warm (fans himself)

He came around (cowboy lasso)

And he was dignified (imitates wearing a monacle - "sophisticated")

*

He showed me what it was to cry (he cries)

*

Well you couldn't be that man I adored (pumps heart)

*

You don't seem to know

Or seem to care

What your heart is for

*

I don't know him (him = weiner)

anymore

*

I don't care

I have no luck (checks pocket for cash)

I don't miss it all that much (bow and arrow -miss)

There's just so many things (points finger all over the place)

that I can't touch (touches his palm)

I'm torn (rips a paper)

*

I'm all out of faith (points finger down to hell)

This is how I feel (feels body)

I'm cold (shivers)

and

I am shamed (covers mouth)

Lying naked on the floor (covers anatomy, imitates with arms of legs spread on floor)

*

Illusion never changed (imitates a magician)

Into something real (reels in a fish)

I'm wide awake (imitates fish "awake")

and I can see the perfect sky (he see and makes a circle)

is torn (tears an invisible paper)

*

You're a little late (fake scolding talk, points to watch)

I'm already torn

*

(He ad libs from here on out)

For those of you who are frowning about this clip, lighten up! For those who are wearing cochlear implants, this is a good time to improve your hearing by watching this clip to try and listen and follow the lyrics. You'll really enjoy this comedy routine. I promise you that. For those who wears a hearing aid, it's funny and try and follow the lyrics as you watch. Now, for those who are Deaf/deaf it's still funny if you watch the performance since it follows the stanza ("breaks") in the lyrics.

Guess what the sign is for "man" ?

It's a comedy fer Pete's sake! Lighten up, dudes.

This guy a genius. He's going to go places and people love his performance "Torn." Already this is being circulated all over the internet passing around this very funny clip.

Enjoy.