Alleged pervert resigns

Foley resigns from Congress over e-mails

WASHINGTON - Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., abruptly resigned from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page.

"I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent," he said in a statement issued by his office.

His departure sent Republicans scrambling for a replacement candidate less than six weeks before midterm elections in which Democrats are making a strong bid to gain control of the House.

Foley's two-sentence statement gave no reason for Foley's decision to abandon a flourishing career in Congress. But several officials said the resignation had been prompted by the e-mails, and he took his action as fresh details emerged about electronic messages he had sent.

...

-more-

Unlike our friends on the other side of the aisle, we do not believe that politics is Life.

That is the essential difference between "Conservatives" and "Liberals".

To us, Heaven comes later.

To them, Heaven can be created on Earth if only the "smart" people were put in charge.

Our willingness to cashier our malfeasors almost certainly owes to our belief that this World is just the beginning, that certain Truths transcend politics, that a Congressional majority cannot trump what is right.

We stand for something much larger and permanent and when you betray that "something", you are gone, regardless of how you vote.

We will not fight for you merely to retain a seat.

Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and Robert Byrd would be private citizens if the other side held such principles.

It does not.

Dean blasts Bush

Highlights ...

"Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq?"

...

"Bush, you deceitful charlatan, 3 1/2 years have passed since your capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so how have you found us during this time? Losing and surrendering?

...

"Bush, O failure and liar, why don't you be courageous for once and confront your people and tell them the truth about your losses in Iraq and Afghanistan."

...

"Why don't you tell them how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people's sons in order increase your profits?"

Tough talk by the DNC chair and major loon.

Awwwww, you know we're just kidding. Though virtually impossible to discern from the rantings of the Disloyal Opposition, this barrage comes to us via Al-Qaida's No. 2 madman Ayman al-Zawahri.

We apologize to Mr. al-Zawahri for the brutally unflattering conflation of him with the lunatic Howard Dean.

Obviously we're being silly, but the similarity in rhetoric is instructive.

As regards Fox News

Orchestrated or not, the bulbous-nosed, pasty-legged Boy ex-President's purple rage in response to Chris Wallace's rather tepid question has set off a barrage of Fox-bashing on the Loony Left.

What we can't understand is why?

Sure, Fox News is to the right of NBCABCPBSCBSMSNBCWAPOCNNNYTWSJ(save for the editorial page), but it's merely a drop in the mainstream media ocean.

There's a "chill wind" blowing yet somehow failed sports guy Keith Olbermann maintains his gig as a blathering idiot -- granted, with ratings comparable to public access.

Why so defensive, Moonbats?

Enuff with the 9/11 Blame Game

Yes, it was started by the Angry Left -- and later the DNC -- who could only find it in their hearts to act like real Americans for a day or so after the attacks.

And, yeah, references to Boy Clinton's relative indifference to Islamic terrorists are warranted in view of the Disloyal Opposition's wartime slanders against President Bush.

But the real blame for 9/11 belongs to those who planned and perpetrated it and we must turn our gaze to the "religion" that influenced them.

Perhaps bin Laden might have been killed prior to 9/11. So what? Who really believes this would have put the kybosh on the plan. Or a similar plan.

Usama is not the sine qua non of Islamic terrorism. When he hits (or hit) Hell another beast will take (or took) his place.

They must be engaged and killed where they are and their grubstakers need to be confronted and displaced.

Representative governments in the Middle East -- that is to say, Israel and, thanks to the U.S. military, Iraq -- require the support of Americans of all parties in order to survive.

Scorn should be reserved for those who would destroy freedom and replace it with the Sharia. And for those domestically who at least seem to long for such a devastating result.

As far as our mendacious ex-Boy President goes, we suggest therapy, heavy medication and longer socks.

Technology makes it harder to lie

Teenager's pathological lies quickly rebutted


Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions

Last week, former president Bill Clinton took some time out of his busy dating schedule to have a not so friendly chat with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Given his rabidity, Mr. Clinton might consider taking a few milligrams of Valium the next time he allows himself to face “fair and balanced” questions, assuming once wasn’t enough that is.

This wasn’t Mr. Clinton’s finest hour. In fact, it could be by far the worst performance of his career, which is saying a lot given that his acting skills were typically much more apparent than his policy-making acumen when he was in office.

From the onset, Mr. Clinton seemed ill at ease. This is understandable, as he didn’t see the normally comforting initials of the “Clinton News Network” proudly displayed on the video cameras in front of him. But, this doesn’t absolve him of appearing before the American people as if he were Norman Bates just questioned about his mother.

On the other hand, maybe asking the former president anything of consequence these days will elicit such volatility, as the fireworks started as soon as Wallace brought up historically factual statements made in a new book, The Looming Tower. In it, author Lawrence Wright addressed how Osama bin Laden had indicated that when American troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993, he and his al Qaeda buddies saw this as an indication of American weakness.

Although this certainly couldn’t have been the first time he had heard this, it didn’t sit very well with Mr. Clinton, who lashed out in a fury akin to a president that had just been accused of having sexual relations with an intern:

I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much.

Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous terrorist leader?

Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and conservatives – the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers and bears…oh my – and how it’s all some kind of a conspiracy the complexities of which only Oliver Stone fully grasps.

Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line, and sinker. However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to forget regularly is a recent invention known as the Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.

Regardless, this tool – with the assistance of search engines and services such as LexisNexis – allows folks to go back in the past to accurately identify the truth. Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their understanding of what the word “is” means. At least that is the charitable interpretation.

...


-more-

The Bill Clinton Anti-Terror Myth Fact


What can we add?

Teenaged boys are prone to this sort of thing.

Thankfully, most of us outgrow the need to be always and everywhere loved by everyone and mature into adults.

Not so our 42nd "president".

Better put some ice on that dude -- erm, sir.

The difference between Us and Them

General Explains Decision to Refrain From Targeting Taliban Funeral

By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2006 – Much has been made in recent days of an aerial photograph taken in Afghanistan that reportedly shows hundreds of Taliban fighters attending a funeral and the decision to refrain from wiping out the gathering militarily.
At a Pentagon news conference today, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan said the rules of engagement provide all the flexibility needed to take the fight to the enemy and to protect coalition forces, but the decision in this case was not as simple as it might appear to be.

Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry said the intelligence available to the coalition commander on the ground did, indeed, support the belief that the gathering was for the funeral of a mid-level Taliban operative. “It was also reasonable to believe that, as he looked down at that photograph or looked down at the video, that a number of the people that were standing there at that funeral were Taliban fighters,” the general added.

But it’s what the picture didn’t show that ultimately led to the decision not to strike, Eikenberry said. Just outside the frame, he said, was an Afghan village.

“And it also was reasonable for the commander to conclude from that village that there were probably innocents -- maybe sympathetic to Taliban, but innocents, noncombatants -- that had moved to participate in that funeral,” the general said. And the photo couldn’t rule out the possible presence of women and children, he added.

“So that commander made a decision, based upon our values as a people, based upon our values as a nation, that he would not strike,” Eikenberry said.

The general noted that the enemy has no such values.

“I would point out to everybody that (the coalition commander’s decision not to strike the funeral gathering) stands in very sharp contrast to an enemy that will kill religious leaders wantonly, that will kill teachers in order to intimidate parents to keep their children out of school houses, that will -- as they proved themselves last week -- throw a suicide-bomber at a patriotic governor of Afghanistan who came from his home in Australia to serve his nation. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy,” he said.

“And with regard to our commanders' decisions, our commanders make decisions like this in the field every day, and I have complete confidence in my commanders that they always make the decision for the right -- for the right reasons and in the right way,” he added.


...

-more-

This is all very sweet.

We are nice.

But when we hear stories like this and we see leading Senators in the ADULT party defending a terrorist's "right" not to have water poured over his face we might have become TOO nice.

If Civilization dies, it will have been a suicide.

Did those nefarious "right wingers" oppose Clinton's pursuit of bin Laden?

Jonah Goldberg unearths a National Review (dead tree edition) editorial and other press reports from 1998 ...

NR & Bin Laden 1998

Bill Clinton in his interview today seemed to be suggesting that conservatives uniformly opposed and denounced him when he launched his "wag the dog" strike in 1998. For the record, here's the NR editorial in response to the attacks, dated9/14/98:
COMEDY Central's The Daily Show called it "Operation Desert Shield Me from Impeachment." Funny, but too cynical. The U.S. missile strikes against terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were a response to a real threat: They targeted the operations of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind who, according to U.S. intelligence, was responsible for the brutal bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and was plotting further attacks on Americans.

Congressional leaders were therefore right to support President Clinton's action. The last thing Republicans should do is add to the inhibitions and hesitations of an Administration congenitally averse to the forthright use of American military power. The White House's blatant exploitation of the crisis for its own political purposes-dragging Mr. Clinton back from vacation for a portentous Oval Office address to the nation-should be a source of amusement only. Richard Nixon, too, tried to claim indispensability for his foreign-policy expertise-a much more valid claim in his case, and at the height of the Cold War to boot. It didn't help him.

Launching 75 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the training camp in Afghanistan and the chemical-weapons plant in Sudan was, by Clinton standards, a strong performance. In June 1993, responding to an Iraqi assassination attempt against ex-President George Bush, Mr. Clinton launched 23 cruise missiles at a military-intelligence headquarters in Baghdad-in the middle of the night, so that no one would get hurt! This time, the strike in Afghanistan was aimed at a gathering of terrorist leaders reported to be taking place on that day. Admirably cold-blooded, that.

Bin Laden, the terrorist kingpin, is a new phenomenon, but we should not exaggerate either his novelty or the difficulty of defeating him. (There is a canard that he is an American creation. There is no evidence that he is. He did win his spurs in the Arab world's equivalent of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade-the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan-but U.S. money and arms went to the Afghan freedom fighters through the Pakistani military.) While he is a freelancer, bin Laden is dependent on the support of renegade governments, such as Afghanistan's and Sudan's, against which we have leverage. We can target his physical assets by military or covert means and his financial assets through other controls (as Mr. Clinton has also done). His Islamist revolutionary ideology is increasingly discredited in the Muslim world, even in Iran. Defeating him will take time, but it will be done.

Wag The Dog (1) Cont'd
Wag The Dog (2) Cont'd
Wag The Dog (3)Cont'd

Nice try, Joy Boy.

This is what a loyal opposition looks like.

When pathological narcissists attack

Bill Clinton Freaks Out

"Right wingers"? What a great statesman! Settle down, little boy! Your knee-pad brigades would still kill to give you the Monica Treatment!

NRO's Byron York finds that even Dick Clarke's sympathetic account doesn't jibe with Clinton's tirade.

This is the same Boy Clinton who earlier told an obsequious David Remnick: "I never thought Saddam presented any kind of a terrorist threat."


Yet ...

PRESIDENT CLINTON ENDS STRIKES

December 19, 1998

...

So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat[emphasis ours] to his people, his region and the world. With our allies, we must pursue a strategy to contain him and to constrain his weapons of mass destruction program, while working toward the day Iraq has a government willing to live at peace with its people and with its neighbors.

...

-more-


Ooops. Maybe it depends on the meaning of "threat"? Or perhaps some Clintonian parsing is in place: He used the phrase "terrorist threat" to Remnick, so perhaps he believed Saddam posed another sort of threat to "the world", but with no navy and a negligible air force, this seems unlikely.

Perhaps the Boy has forgotten that he signed The Iraq Liberation Act, though that law was probably more a result of Dick Morris' polling with no intention of follow through. Typical teenager -- strong words with no backup. Toss in a few cruise missiles -- they have no next of kin and don't cost precious approval rating points. Otherwise, kick the problem down the road to the next guy.

Boy Clinton is Dick Darman's legacy: A jejune mediocrity who took advantage of Bush 41's bungled first term, inherited a recovering economy and a "holiday from history", frightened America into electing the first GOP majorities in decades then took credit for their successes.

A perfect example of a dope with a (allegedly) high IQ.

A perfect example of narcissistic personality disorder.

No comment necessary. Sleep well.

And Boy Clinton sends a roundhouse to Carter's jaw ...

The bout for most disgraceful accident -- er ... ex-president -- continues ...


Bill Clinton warns against wide torture approval

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Bill Clinton joined a chorus of critics of Bush administration proposals for the treatment of suspected terrorists, saying they would give broad approval to torture.

"You don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture," Clinton said in an interview with National Public Radio aired on Thursday.

He said any decision to use harsh treatment in interrogating suspects should be subject to court review

...

-more-

Torture?!?!? Thank you GHWB and Dick Darman for the incompetence that enabled this mediocrity to attain the Oval Office.

Further, it's highly unlikely that America's oldest teenager has access to the details of "proposals for the treatment of suspected terrorists".

The only torture this guy knows is having to pretend to be attracted to his ... um ... "wife".

Jiminy Carter has some catching up to do, but we have the utmost faith in his stupidity.

Leading Rats suffer sudden bout of patriotism?!

Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two of President Bush's staunchest domestic critics leapt to his defense Thursday, a day after one of his fiercest foreign foes called him "the devil" in a scorching speech before the United Nations.

"You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. "He is an everyday thug," she said.

...
-more-

We'd like to believe that this whimsical pair were suddenly seized with a normal American's instinct to defend her, but we know better.

More likely, they're simply bitter that Chavez' loony rants are so much more clever than their trite, boilerplate slander.

Perhaps Howie Dean should see about putting Chavez on the payroll.

Common sense in House, nonsense from would-be Speaker

House Passes Bill to Make Voters Show ID

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.

The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.

House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.

Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."

"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."

But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly - groups that tend to vote Democratic - who might have trouble producing a photo identification.

...

The bill would require everyone to present a photo ID before voting in federal elections by 2008. By 2010 voters would have to have photo IDs that certified they were citizens. In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.

Pelosi: Voter ID Bill Is an Attempt to Suppress the Votes of Millions of American Citizens

...

“Today, however, we are undermining that right to vote, and the reauthorization of the VRA. And in doing so, we are undermining our democracy. Though the right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, the bill we debate today would in effect disenfranchise millions of American voters: the elderly, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, people with disabilities; and the list goes on. As the NAACP has said, this bill ‘would disenfranchise many of the very citizens that the VRA is designed to protect.’ And the Republicans call that integrity. I don’t think so.

...

Requiring someone to prove that he is 1.) An American citizen and 2.) The American citizen he claims to be amounts to ... "disenfranchisement"? Man, this broad's face has been stretched so taut that whatever was left of her brain has clearly oozed out of her ears and into Senator Kennedy's Seagram's and Seven!

More blather from the party that thrives on voter fraud.

When non-Americans, dead Americans or Americans who have already voted in another precinct vote, someone somewhere has his legitimate vote annulled. Inasmuch as this is almost assuredly a GOP voter (felons tend to vote Dem), Ms. Pelosi has no problem with that.

And isn't it so quaint how little the Dems think of "the elderly, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, people with disabilities"? It's as if these groups, so helpless and incompetent, should drop to their knees in thanks for the likes of Ms. Pelosi, who has no discernible skills other than the ability to procure frequent Botox injections. These folks are smart enough to vote, but too hapless to figure out how.

Normally, this sort of condescension would be branded racism, ageism, MoveOn.org-ism or whatever the newest ridiculous "ism" of the day is.

Perhaps, though, a compromise is in order: finger inking, as was done during the three votes in Iraq. This would not prevent Ms. Pelosi's illegal alien constituents from voting but would at least ensure they did so only once.

Reposted ... yet again ... because the MSM couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing

Regime Strategic Intent

• Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community.

Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.

• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. [The Ponderosa: Emphasis ours. ]

• Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

• Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

• The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Clinton counterpunches in "Most Disgraceful ex-President" bout with Carter ...

Clinton pins voting woes on Blackwell

...

"You know, at the end of your life, you think about all the things they can put on your tombstone," he said. "One thing they'll never be able to put on mine or Ted's is He tried to keep people from voting.' "

...

-more-

"One thing they'll never be able to put on mine or Ted's is He tried to keep people from voting.' "

That is a pretty strong condemnation of the Gore 2000 campaign, which sought to disenfranchise overseas military personnel ... to say nothing of Clinton's party refusing to require I.D. to vote which affects all legit voters.

This is your brain on syphilis.

How's this for an epitaph: "Better put some ice on that".

Boy Clinton isn't fit to hold Blackwell's jock.

Your serve, Mr. Carter ...

Teenaged boys should not be allowed near the Oval Office sink ...

Is the War on Jihadistan lost?

‘What Americans Stand For’

...

NEWSWEEK: How do you see the military commission and torture issues playing out? Is the president going to get the legislation he wants?
Lindsey Graham: This idea of trying somebody where they don’t get [to see] the evidence against them, but the jury does—that’s dead. That’s going nowhere ...

Why are you so against it?
Let me give you the best example. What if a CIA paramilitary guy is caught in Iran, trying to find out about the Iranian [nuclear] program? What would our response be if the Iranian government put them on trial as a war criminal? And had a procedure where the prosecutor could give to the jury or the judge a file marked “secret” and never provide that to the accused? We would scream bloody murder ... We would go crazy.

...

-more-

We fully expect this kind of nonsense from our friends on the Left.

However, we are supposed to be the adults, the ones who understand that human nature has not changed since Adam bit the apple.

Does Senator Graham actually believe that any trial of a "CIA paramilitary guy" would be anything but a kangaroo court, a prelude to a brutal execution? Is he seriously comparing our military tribunals to "justice" under the Sharia?

The blatherings of Senator McCain on this point are equally fatuous.

Guess what guys ... When one of our men is apprehended by these beasts he is tortured then cut into pieces ... Oh -- and booby-trapped.

Only blithering idiots like the "liberals" on the Supreme Court, the flakes at Kos -- and now, several quisling GOP Senators, could countenance that the Geneva Conventions apply to these animals ...

While we have many disagreements with the president (immigration, domestic spending) it is clear that he and his Vice President are the last adults standing.

Man of peace upsets "Religion of Peace"

Pope Benedict has infuriated members of the "Religion of Peace" by quoting "the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus" in a much larger speech, the context of which was apparently lost on Mohammedans whose reading comprehension skills apparently approximate those of the average MoveOn.org kid. Who knew the NEA had a chapter in Kabul?

While we concur with Manuel II, it is not clear that Benedict does -- indeed, he almost certainly does not -- though the resulting violence and threats thereof seem to vindicate Paleologus.

We still are waiting for an answer to a question that strikes at the very heart of Islam: How can a man of war found a "religion of peace"?

The Jihadists have threatened the Pope's life.

The Soviets tried to assassinate John Paul II and failed. He went on to be instrumental in their defeat.

We pray that al Qaeda is similarly unsuccessful in their attempts.

However, al Qaeda need to understand the costs of success: Currently, most Westerners -- 100's of millions of whom are, at least nominally, Catholic -- are content to flow with the "religion of peace" canard in order to seem "tolerant".

Should harm come to Benedict it is likely that tolerance will evaporate, that the current silly concerns over waterboarding and military tribunals will quickly fall by the wayside. Perhaps then we will be able to fight a proper war against these savages.

Meanwhile, The NY Times continues to do the enemy's bidding ... .

Local kids exposed to freak

Batavia Students Learn About Transgender Teacher

Patrice Walsh (Batavia, N.Y.) - Wednesday was not a typical first day of school for students in Batavia. Their science teacher changed gender and came to the classroom today as a woman.

Students began the day with a discussion of transgender identity disorder. The idea is to give them a better idea of what the teacher is going through.

Tenth-grader Amber Blanco said, “She's really nice and I think kids will get used to this.”

Students say there was curiosity about how different the teacher would look as a woman.

Senior Amanda Mogenham said, "It wasn't that bad...he had long hair last year…so just girly clothes and makeup."

Some Students Transfer Out
Parent Tracy Richardson didn't want her two daughters exposed to transgender issues. She transferred both daughters from Batavia High to a private school.

Richardson said, "I believe it's morally wrong…”

Parents said that at least three students transferred to private schools because of the teacher's transgender transformation.

Sophomore Jacob Bell was supposed to have this teacher for earth science but transferred out of the class.

"I think it would be a distraction...it's tough not to look,” he said.

The district refused requests from five students to transfer out of the teacher's class. Stutzman said the district can't honor the requests because they don't meet guidelines [emphasis ours] for transferring students out of a class.

...

-more-

How's this for a "guideline"? No parent should be forced to have his child exposed to a freak and no taxpayer should be compelled to pay his/her/what the fuck ever's salary! Imagine the horror on the Left were this teacher to come to class wearing an American flag pin ... Or ... EGADS .... A CROSS!

It was bad enough when schools were merely teaching perversion. Now, apparently, they are carnival sideshows.

This story almost sounds like a parody of American Leftism. What's next? Sanctioning consensual teacher/student sex?

Even more galling, this "transgender identity disorder" is a protected disability under NY State law! No matter how crappy a teacher this "broad" might turn out to be, he's virtually un-dischargeable! Worse still, the productive -- and gender identity ordered -- residents of this once-great state will probably pay for this "guy's" schlong removal.

An idea for parents unable to meet the district's "guidelines" for getting their kids out of this cage aux folles: plant a Bible in his purse then phone in an anonymous tip to the ACLU.

Benedict Arnold Publisher "Pissed Off" by White House

Bill Keller "Pissed Off" by "Disgraceful" White House

...

"They pissed me off....I think the administration is genuinely distressed [The Ponderosa: A lot of us are distressed at your treason, Mr. Keller. ], that we ran the story over their objections. I think they were embarrassed by it [The Ponderosa: Embarassed? What are you a teenaged girl in a clique? ], by the fact that this most secretive of administrations has so much trouble keeping its secrets.[The Ponderosa: We wish that Keller and his fellow travellers in the MSM were as intent on prosecuting the leakers of this type of info as they were in the Rove -- er, Libby -- er, Armitage case. ] I think they were probably sincere in their anxiety that publicizing this program might jeopardize it. And, you know, that's all fair, but when they stir up a partisan hatefest [The Ponderosa: In a non-Bizarro World, it'd be a bipartisan hatefest. ]and impugn your integrity and patriotism [The Ponderosa: Can't impugn what ain't there. ], that is, to borrow a word from the White House list of talking points, disgraceful."[The Ponderosa: Disgraceful. Describes perfectly this this simpering little coxcombe. We watch with glee the too slow demise of the Times. ]

...

-more-

5 years later

5 years ago, some of you Moonbat cretins actually behaved like normal Americans for a few hours. We knew it wouldn't last.

5 years later and some of you despise our President more than you hate bin Laden. Hell, some of ya believe UBL is justified in loathing us as she does.

5 years later and many of you flakes actually believe 9/11 was an "inside" job engineered by an evil genius moron and a Zionist cabal (you nitwits love that word).

5 years later many of you are still so bitter at the Lunatic Al Gore's failure to steal the 2000 election that you libel the President over common sense anti-terror measures that any person not blinded by hatred, decades of drug use or both can see the prudence of.

5 years later, all some of you have to offer is aid and comfort to our enemies whether strategically (NY Times) or spiritually (Cindy Sheehan).

5 years later and some of you are still under the childish illusion that "Islam is a religion of Peace" while remaining terrified that somewhere a Christian is voting.

5 years later and you have a major political party appearing to long for military defeat that they might thus regain power.

5 years later America faces two mortal enemies: One external, one domestic.

To Hell with the both of yas.




Outcasts, oddballs and miscreants celebrate anniversary of 9/11.

More morons at Sweetness & Light