Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Surprise, Surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dem's say,"There's a Better Way." But fail to say what.

Now the Dem's are going to tell us how terrible things are. The sky is falling and Bush is causing all the worlds wo's. Come on Harry Reid, let's see you make a fool of yourself.


Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., had invited Sheehan to the address as her guest.

"I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."


La. Turned Down Feds' Help, Documents Show
Two days before the Aug. 29 storm, HHS was told by the state's health emergency preparedness director that the help was not needed, according to an e-mail released Monday by a Senate panel investigating the government's response to Katrina.

Once again, if Bush haters had only been a little patient before throwing acusations, they would have avoided egg on their faces.


Monday, January 30, 2006

Congress caught making false entries in Wikipedia
Try as I might, I could only find liberal meddling.

Saturday, January 28, 2006

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Genereal Georges Sada, Iraq's #2 Airforce commander confirms Iraq HAD WMD and moved them to Syria (with Syria's knowledge) just before the U.S. invasion. Just as I have said all along.
Saddam's Secrets


The longer we wait, the more we find out, the less the liberals have to "impeach." Man, you'd think these guys LIKE having egg on their face.

When PC propagandists assure us that jihadist terror doesn't reflect "true," "peaceful" Islam, they're not only wrong, they're dangerous -- because they lull America and the West into letting their guard down against their mortal enemy. And not only do self-appointed "experts" lie elaborately and persistently about Islam -- they have also replaced the truth about Christian Europe and the Crusades with an all-pervasive historical fantasy that is designed to make you ashamed of your own culture and heritage -- and thus less determined to defend it.

Sadam video's (graphic):

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
---George Santayana

One of the biggest history lessons, and apparently one of the hardest ones to learn, is that the truth eventually gets out. You can hold it down. You can repress it. You can't ban it.
If this were true in the bad old days, when communications were restricted, how much more so is it in cyberspace? Air America is dead.

Starbucks asks: coffee, tea or MP3?

Finally! an HONEST liberal!!!
LOS ANGELES TIMES COLUMNIST: 'I DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS'...

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Monday, January 09, 2006

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Smear campaign continues againts P Robertson

Robertson was "simply reminding his viewers what the Bible has to say about efforts made to divide the land of Israel." Robertson was referring to the book of Joel in the Old Testament to show a biblical perspective of God's view of Israel and efforts made from people who try to divide God's land, she said."In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has 'enmity against those who divide My land.' God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, 'No, this is Mine," Robertson said.

Democrats Benefited from Abramoff Contributions, Too

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.....

It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number. That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi. Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions. The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected. Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today. Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined." In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify — much less reject — one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright. What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al-Qaida operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al-Qaida were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request. Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson. COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

Smear campaign continues againts P Robertson

Robertson was "simply reminding his viewers what the Bible has to say about efforts made to divide the land of Israel." Robertson was referring to the book of Joel in the Old Testament to show a biblical perspective of God's view of Israel and efforts made from people who try to divide God's land, she said."In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has 'enmity against those who divide My land.' God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, 'No, this is Mine," Robertson said.

Democrats Benefited from Abramoff Contributions, Too

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.....

It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number. That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi. Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions. The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected. Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today. Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined." In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify — much less reject — one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright. What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al-Qaida operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al-Qaida were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request. Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson. COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Tradgedy in WV causes news organizations to prove the scoop is more important than the truth (as the LA TImes, CoCo Times, SJ Mercury News and New York Times among others all reported 12 survivors on the front page of todays editions) and that fair weather Christians shouldn't expect any miracles.(James 1:5-8)
Families outraged
Hatfield's announcement sent Anna Casto, who lost her cousin, into a tirade......
Casto said the tragedy has shaken the faith of some in the community, who "don't even know if there is a Lord anymore," she said. "We had a miracle, and it was taken away from us."
John Casto was at the church when the false report arrived and later, he was there for the terrible news. After the first report, "they were praising God," he said. And after the second "they were cursing."
(full story)

Not taking anything away from her grief, but how can you give God the credit for a miracle one minue, and the blame him and curse him a second later? Do you think he even bothers with people like this? You know what they say..."There's no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole."

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Alito’s biography (Princeton, Yale Law) and that of the recently confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts (Harvard College, Harvard Law) led me to reflect on the very different socialization of conservatives and liberals on elite campuses. The former spend their entire educational careers as a small minority surrounded by people whose political views - and often their social mores - differ sharply from their own.
Because of their minority status it is far more difficult for conservative students to entertain the illusion that all smart people think like them. They are exposed to many obviously bright young men and women whose opinions on almost every issue vary radically from their own.
Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, “You’re an idiot.” Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises. ...
LIBERALS CAN be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views - especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged.

Is the Wage Gap Women's Choice?