Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Over the past few days the Democrat Party and its agitprop arm, The New York Times, have been making a big deal about a leaked classified National Intelligence Estimate which (they say) indicates we're more at risk because of the policies pursued by President Bush.

President Bush released the Estimate yesterday. Here is is.

Do you see anything you couldn't have gleaned from a few minutes of CNN?

This isn't news. What is news is that the CIA has chosen to become political, and to throw in its lot with the Democrat Party. The other news is that the CIA is serving up pablum as hard intel.

Time for a clean sweep at Langley.

UPDATE: A close examination of the NIE shows the Israel/Palestinian conflict is not a source of anti-American sentiment.

UPDATE: No sooner do we hear that our invasion of Iraq is causing more jihad than we read that al Qaeda is losing hearts and minds in Iraq. So, looks like this NIE had crappy prose, and was wrong.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

All you podcasters out there, listen up!

Can there be any doubt that Apple is actuallly a cult?

I'm still thinking about Clinton's appearance on Fox News Sunday.

Apart from the weird conspiracy rant (Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, Conservative Hatchet Job), the real failing part of this interview was the finger wagging. Clinton just doesn't understand how badly the Lewinsky lie hurt the credibility of his finger wag defense.

George Will has the perfect take on the Clinton Presidency:

Some presidents' names become adjectives -- Lincolnian gravity, Rooseveltian reassurance, Kennedyesque charisma, Nixonian deviousness, Reaganesque leadership. To understand the meaning of "Clintonian," parse this from a 1997 news conference: "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution."

It is reasonable to believe that he was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline. As president he was fined $90,000 for contempt of court, and there is no reasonable doubt that he committed and suborned perjury, tampered with witnesses and otherwise obstructed justice. In the words of Richard A. Posner, chief judge of the 7th Circuit, Clinton's illegalities "were felonious, numerous and nontechnical" and "constituted a kind of guerrilla warfare against the third branch of the federal government, the federal court system."

Clinton is not the worst president the republic has had, but he is the worst person ever to have been president.


Sunday, September 24, 2006

Bill Clinton's on "Meet the Press". If I understand him correctly, Republicans have been screwing up for the last 12 years, and especially for the last six. On terror, he "tried" for eight years, while the Republicans did nothing for eight months. Eight years. Eight months. Hmmmm.

Do the Democrats really want him out there, preaching this message? We know, for example, that Sandy Burglar stole and destroyed papers from the National Archives. Papers that would have shed light on the complete cluelessness of the Democrats in the face of a growing Islamic threat. Had Jamie Gorelick been questioned by the 9/11 Commission, we'd have learned about how Clinton's administration hamstrung law enforcement. We know he refused Sudan's offer of bin Laden's head on a plate. In today's AJC, there was an article about Clinton's finger-wagging defense of his handling of the terrorist threat. Later in the same article, there's a picture of him with Monica Lewinsky. You know. The (finger wag) woman (finger wag) he (finger wag) did (finger wag) not (finger wag) have (finger wag) sex (finger wag) with. (finger wag) Miss (finger wag) Lewinsky.

Clinton's going to be on "Fox News Sunday" today at 6:00 PM. I can't wait to watch it.

Here's the larger issue: The Republicans, for their supine performance in the last couple of years, deserve to lose. However, given the past and present behaviour of the Democrats, there's nobody for them to lose to. No sooner do Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi have a go at Hugo Chavez, than Tom Harkin defends the same Hugo Chavez. Just when national security is rising as an election issue, out trundles Bill Clinton with a finger-wagging defense of his indefensible record. Democrats, seeing illegal immigrants as a natural constituency, want the borders thrown open. Etc., etc.

Republicans will win this year, by default.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Today is the centennial anniversary of the Atlanta race riot.

I didn't even know there'd been one until I read about it in last Sunday's AJC.

Lots more here.

Fortunately, many of us have evolved since then.

The City of Atlanta was planning to revitalize blighted parts of the city via the Beltline Project.

One of the earyl supporters of the project has now dropped out.

Money quote:
The tipping point in the dispute came this week when Mason rejected Atlanta's proposal for a land swap that would have resulted in Mason giving up his land and building elsewhere in the city.

I guarantee you that the plan was for well-connected members on the City council to take this land and make tons of money from selling the right to use it.

In Atlanta, greed trumps all.

Most of the Democrats took their smart pills yesterday. Pelosi called Chavez a thug, while Charlie Rangel condemned Chavez's speech.

You know that if the election weren't so near, with terrorism such an issue, they'd be nodding their heads sagely, and admiring Chavez's understanding of international affairs. As it is, they're scared they're going to lose in November, so they decided to act as if Chavez is not their natural ally. After Chavez's remarks at the UN, they had clue enough to recognize that the speech of America's enemies has become the speech of the American Left, and to distance themselves from it.

Let's face it: Jimmy Carter (the man who never met a dictator he didn't like) ratified Chavez's election, and Jimmy's been going around the world offering comments just like Hugo's.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand. The Democrats *almost* made it through the day without stabbing the President in the back when faced with a one-man Axis of Crazy.

Then, Tom Harkin came along.

While thinking that Chavez's speech was "incendiary", he understands Chavez's "frustration" and "anger". He wants a new "humility" in American foreign policy. He wants us to "[help] poor countries with things like clean water, medical aid and education".

Thanks Tom! Now, what's your plan for dealing with dirty bombs in Ames?

Tom Harkin, the true face of the Democrat party.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Democrats are opposed. Naturally.

If you look here, you'll see that the text of Hugo's remarks haven't yet (1:51 PM, 9/24/2006) made it onto the website.

Maybe they're working on a translation that doesn't make him sound, oh, unbalanced.

By comparison, the little troll from Iran sounded statesmanlike.

UPDATE: Drudge has the transcript of Hugo's rant.

UPDATE: Someone here suggested John Bolton get pictures of everyone who laughed and cheered Chavez's remarks, write the amount of aid each country receives from the US every year, along with the question "What's wrong with this picture", and forward the picture to the respective governments. I like it.

The Ultimate Showdown!

(Did you catch the "Arrested Development" reference?)

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

I think this means the Democrats won't make any significant gains in the upcoming elections.

If that's right, the Democrat party will then line up in its standard firing squad formation (a circle) and start tearing itself to pieces.

Who's going to sufffer?

Well, I think lefty bloggers like Kos, Atrios, and Hamsher will take big hits. They went out of the way to stab Liebermann in the back, and he'll probably get re-elected anyway - as an independent. In the long-term, they'll probably carve off the far-left part of the Democrat party, and start their own political movement. Though, what it'll stand for - apart from wanting America to lose wars - is debatable.

This may well boost Hillary's chances of running for President. Her husband's already charmed the major lefty bloggers. If their power is broken in this election, she may decide to run, since her support for the war in Iraq will no longer be a major issue. Of course, her campaign will go like Kerry's. It'll be a complete disaster, despite fawning media coverage. She'll have nothing to stand on - she rode her husband's coat-tails into power, after all - and that "listening tour" strategy isn't going to fly in the country at large.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may suffer. If the Democrats fail to make any significant gains this year, then they'll have been out of power for 12 years, and will have failed to win anything, even during the lame-duck term of a President who's either a moron or an evil genius, with a hurricane of support from the mainstream media. If you can't win, even when the consistent message in the MSM is that Iraq's a mess and trending to civil war, the economy's tanking, the world hates us, and it's all the fault of the Republican Party, well, when can you win? Loads of Democrats will announce their retirements.

The bottom line there is that Democrats have failed to realize what distinguishes the two parties: The Republicans may be wrong, but they're serious. The Democrats may be wrong, but they're frivolous. It reminds me of bumper stickers I saw in Louisiana back in the early 90's: "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard" and "Vote for the Crook, It's Important".

Monday, September 18, 2006

The Religion of Pieces demands that the Pope must die.


Quick question: Where are the American politicians asking (asking? DEMANDING!) ordinary Muslims to disavow lunatic Muslims?

Next quick question: Where are the Christian lunatics demanding the deaths of Muslim lunatics?

The Religion of Pieces is now threatening children.

Well, of course.

This is hysterical.

Why? Well, do you spot any reference to political affiliation?

Democrat, in case you haven't figured it out. A Republican would have been tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Quick question: As we watch the Religion of Pieces melt down after some remarks from the Pope were taken out of context and amplified, has anyone publicly wondered whether some Europeans are quietly stocking up on weapons?

I understand that most of white Europe is currently slouching towards death in a post-socialist haze, but are there any minorities out there deciding they won't go quietly into Eurabia? Benedict XVI is giving some indication that he expects Christianity to decline massively for the next half-millineum or so, before recovering. Meanwhile, Germans are losing faith in democracy. All I can say to that is "Look out, Islam."

I won't bother asking about the USA. California, and most of the Southwest, will eventually go Mexican. (I'm sorry I won't be around to see the horror on Mexican faces when they discover they've reconquered el Norte and turned it into the shit-hole they originally came from.) Michigan will probably go Muslim. For a while. The Northeast will probably secede and rejoin the last party pissup of the dying European socialist dream, along with Canada, Oregon, and Washington state. The rest of America - the Midwest and Southern red bits - will remain as the real America. And probably re-conquer.

God knows what will happen to the Northeast, Canada, and the Northwest. I expect cannibalism - the logical final destination of socialism, and eventually a crawling, hangover-based, tearful begging to be readmitted to the Union. Expect Southern troops to occupy Boston, et al., for thirty years or so. Among other things, hookers will acquire a new name.

Look for the Muslim minority in Michigan, and surrounding areas, to be kicked out sometime around 2300. You know, like they originally got kicked out of al Andalus.

The Mexicans will be allowed to keep the Southwest. I mean, the cleanup costs alone would bankrupt the new Republic.

On a cheerful note, maybe we'll outrun this. I mean, if you think the singularity might actually be near, we'll be able to get off this rock and leave it to the Muslims. They won't be following. I mean, you don't expect this lot to have an Enlightenment, do you?

In that future, you'll be able to enjoy the pungent aroma of Arab dung, the sound of a suicide vest exploding, the hate-filled mobs demanding the death of the (long-departed) Great Satan at a distance, whenever you wish. You'll just have to make the tourist trip back to Earth.


Saturday, September 16, 2006

Does anyone else notice how Clinton and the raven-haired beauty are posed? Something tells me his eyes turned into the camera only while the picture was being taken.

All that's missing is a beret.

Friday, September 15, 2006

If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made of increasingly tasty, genetically-engineered meat?


Oh those crazy Japanese.

Go Pope!

More here.

And here.

Someone needs to tell the Turks about Godwin's Law. I mean, they went to the "triple dog dare" immediately. How about some proportionality, guys? (Oh, right, Muslims.)

Oh, and who now remembers the Armenians?

UPDATE: Right on schedule: West Bank Churches Attacked as Muslims Protest Pope's Remarks on Islam.

Muslims: The Pavlov's Dogs of Violence.

UPDATE: The Pope regrets any offence. "Not good enough!", say the church burners.

I am getting really tired of the Religion of Pieces. Go over to MEMRI any Friday and you can listen to imams across the muslim world referring to the US as "The Great Satan", calling Jews the descendents of "pigs and apes", and calling for acts of violence against the west. When the Pope calls them on it, they object, claim they're peaceful, and start burning churches.

I think it would be a good thing for western public rhetoric to start matching muslim public rhetoric. Fighting fire with fire, and all that.

UPDATE: No sooner said, than done.

"We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith," Mr Robb said at the Sydney conference.

"And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.

"You can't wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.

"Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia."

Gotta love the Aussies.

BREAKING: A nun murdered by representatives of the Religion of Pieces.

John Bolton's tenure as US Ambassador to the UN may be up.

Or maybe not.

What am I thinking?!??! Of course Bolton's time is up.

It's because laws apply only to Republicans. Democrats flout any law they feel like when the cause is "right".

It's a sad day: Oriana Fallaci has died.

More here.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

This is awesome.

A Democrat moonbat sighting.

Monday, September 11, 2006

On 9/11/01 I was at the company where I was one of the developers.

I'd been at my desk. hacking, for about an hour when my right-hand guy, Woosung You, called in to tell me a plane had hit the WTC, and telling me to turn on and watch any TV I could find.

We had a TV in the conference room, so everyone present (all 10 of us)(it was a startup) sat and watched. Transfixed.

We saw the second plane hit. I think that by 11:00 we all knew our startup was going down the tubes: what small startup could survive a world war?

After two days of "The Path to 9/11", I will never trust a Democrat again.

After two days of "The Path to 9/11", I will never trust a Republican again.

What a collection of incompetent boobs.

This sums things up nicely.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

When hands are outlawed, only outlaws will have hands.

Damn! It was a paid hit.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Bill Clinton will go down in history as one of America's worst presidents, on par with Jimmy Carter.

Not without a fight, however.

(The comments from Sandy Berger are particularly rich, considering he was caught stealing records from the National Archives.)

More here, here, here, here, and here.

UPDATE: Clinton wins! (For now.) ABC backs down. Well of course, given that the Democrat party is threatening to revoke its broadcast license. Can you believe that?

UPDATE: After considering the criticism of this series, consider this.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?