Monday, October 31, 2005

Will there ever be an end to Clinton's lies?

Simply unbelievable. Literally!
Clinton said he was 9 years old when Parks refused to give up her seat. and he and his friends "couldn't figure out anything we could do since we couldn't even vote. So we began to sit in the back of the bus when we got on."


Hellooo. Hope, Arkansas, was a town of less than 9,000 when Bill Clinton was growing up there. Towns that small do not have public bus systems. So, he had to be talking about school buses. At that time, the school system in Hope was racially segregated. There would not have been any black students on the bus, relegated to the back of the bus.

Clinton lies. Constantly. That much is obvious to anyone with at least two braincells to rub together. But why? Is it borne out of habit or some deep-seated psychological dysfunction? Can he control it or not?

Maybe a better question would be, "Why is the MSM so willing to let his lies just slip right on by?"

UPDATE: The NewsBusters page is gone. I have no idea why. From the comments: "Perhaps the geniuses at NewsBusters figured out that it was a crock in the first place." Yeah, maybe, but until there's proof of that, why don't you reserve judgement, Grog. M'kay?

UPDATE 2: Looks like Clinton's statement was actually made back in 1999. Strange that the media reported it as if it was current.

UPDATE 3: For my slower readers, I will spell out what update 2 means. Here's how AP reporter Jim Abrams reported the quote (specific example here). He starts out by talking about how Rosa Parks is going to lie in state in the Capitol rotunda and mentions that's where she was "lauded" 6 years ago. The article than moves on to the Senate vote, some history about the practice, a mention of people who weren't government officials who were honored this way, and some history about her. Now here's where things in the article get muddled. Abrams reports on the current statements made by Lewis, Hastert, and Pelosi:
“This brave, courageous spirit ignited a movement, not just in Montgomery, but a movement that spread like wildfire across the American South and the nation,” said Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

“The Capitol serves as a beacon of American liberty, freedom and democracy, and Rosa Parks served as the mother of the America we grew to be,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a joint statement.

Then, all of a sudden, Abrams jumps back to the 1999 Congressional Gold Medal ceremony for her and then gives the Clinton quote:
Parks, who for many years worked in the office of Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., was honored with the Congressional Gold Medal in ceremonies in the Rotunda in June 1999.

Clinton said he was 9 years old when Parks refused to give up her seat. and he and his friends “couldn't figure out anything we could do since we couldn't even vote. So we began to sit in the back of the bus when we got on.”

Considering the previous two statements, there's no reason to think that Clinton's quote wasn't supposed to be current, too. There's absolutely nothing to connect his quote with the previous paragraph. It doesn't say, "Clinton said at that time," or, "Clinton said during that ceremony." It simply says, "Clinton said," just like the article reports about the previous two quotes.

Perhaps Abrams needs to go back to writing school (or get better editors).

FINAL THOUGHT: The last thing I'm going to say about this issue is that whenever Clinton made this statement, it's a load of bull. He and his friends might have ridden buses to other towns. They might have ridden in the back (which is not unusual as many boys have always liked to sit in the backs of buses). But the idea that Clinton and his pals empathized with Rosa Parks at such an early age defies credulity.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Another leftist double-standard

Harper pulls photo exhibit upon Muslim protest
An art exhibit that included photographs of nude Muslim women wearing only a head covering was taken down Thursday afternoon just hours after opening for public viewing at Harper College in Palatine.

Muslim students at the college protested to officials about the pieces on display in Building C.

Several students say the pieces — some showing young Muslim men with machine guns — were downright offensive.

“I think they should rip this down,” student Matt George said.


College spokesman Phil Burdick said he understands why the students are offended, but freedom of expression comes into play.

“This exhibit is not the type of artwork that the college endorses or advocates,” Burdick said. “If this exhibit offends the sensibilities of any person or ethnic group, we deeply apologize.”

Now, imagine that this had been Christian protesting photographs they found offensive (e.g. "Piss Christ" - a real photo of a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine). What do you suppose the reaction would've been? Quite a far cry from this! The Christians would've been laughed at and condemned as "facist, closed-minded, free-speech hating jerks."

Friday, October 28, 2005

It's Fizzlemas in October!

One indictment that is not even directly about the alleged leak. Rove's going to have "a great Friday and a fantastic weekend." The liberal media clowns, bloggers and other assorted screwballs are frothing at the mouth and trying to spin this every which way.

Merry Fizzlemas, everyone!

Main countries opposing Iraq war benefitted from Oil-for-Food scandal

This comes as no surprise at all:
About 2,200 companies in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, including corporations in France, Germany and Russia, paid a total of $1.8 billion in kickbacks and illicit surcharges to Saddam Hussein's government, a U.N.-backed investigation said in a report released Thursday.

And what countries were among those that were opposed to the war? Why, France, Germany and Russia! *slaps forehead* I could've had a V-8!

The first indictment comes down and the nation asks...


Thursday, October 27, 2005

A somber, joyless vigil for the 2000th death in Iraq

Yeah, right...

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

More left-wing racism (but it's really not racism *winkwinknudgenudge*)

Look at the altered photo here.

Nice. Real nice. Racist jerks.

Oh, but they're liberals, so it's okay for them to do that, especially when the black person targetted is a Republican. Yep. We should be more worried about "real" racists like Bill Bennett. Mm-hmm.

UPDATE: Steve Gilliard (the guy behind that blog) is also defending the picture on the basis that he is black, too. So flipping what? Racist is racist no matter who does it. That Gilliard is black makes his ["half-vast"] alteration of the picture to put blackface on Lt. Steele that much more disgusting. You'd think that being black he'd know better.

And, like I said, Gilliard is also defending the blackface job on the basis that Steele is a Republican. In fact, Gilliard considers "black Republicans" to be synonymous with "betrayer of black people." So, you know, that justifies whatever insults Gilliard wishes to hurl at Steele. A lot of liberals think that way, it seems.

UPDATE: Some good news:
Virginia's Democratic gubernatorial candidate pulled campaign ads from a bloggers' Web site Thursday because the blogger had derided a black Republican candidate in Maryland as "Sambo."

The campaign of Virginia Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine ordered the campaign ads pulled after it became aware of the Web site's attack against Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who announced for the Senate earlier this week.

Over a story about the announcement, the blog ran a headline saying, "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house." A photo of Steele was doctored to show him with white eyebrows and moustache and thick red lips. A caption under the photo said, "I's simple Sambo and I's running for the big house.' "

Of course, this resulted in a temper-tantrum from Gilliard. B-o-o-h-o-o.

If you'd like to thank Lt. Gov. Kaine and his internet director John Rohrbach for doing the right thing, email them at [email protected].

Monday, October 24, 2005

Rosa Parks dead at 92

Civil rights icon Rosa Parks dies at 92
Rosa Parks, who helped trigger the civil rights movement in the 1950s, died Monday, her longtime friends told CNN. She was 92.

"Stormin'" Norm Coleman: Galloway proven a liar

Galloway lied over Iraqi oil payments, says Congress report
George Galloway, the British MP, was last night accused of lying by a US Congressional committee when he testified earlier this year that he had not received any United Nation food-for-oil allocations from the deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

In a report issued here, Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman and his colleagues on the Senate Subcommittee for Investigations claim to have evidence showing that Mr Galloway's political organisation and his wife received vouchers worth almost $600,000 (£338,000) from the then Iraqi government.

"We have what we call the smoking gun," said Mr Coleman, who will send the report to the US Department of Justice and the British authorities. The MP could face charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing a Congressional investigation. Each charge carries a possible jail term of five years and a fine of $250,000.


Mr Galloway's appearance before the panel, the Minnesota senator said, was "a lot of bombast". The MP was "anything but straight with the committee; he was anything but straight with the American people".

Separation of church and state apparently doesn't apply to black ministers and churches

The left's hypocrisy is exposed once again.

New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine (news, bio, voting record), a former Wall Street executive with a portfolio worth $261 million, has been giving some of his money to black churches, raising questions about whether it's generosity or politics.

The Democrat, who is in a tight race for governor, donated or loaned more than $2.5 million last year to black churches. He has received the endorsement of more than two dozen black ministers.

Can you imagine if this had been a Republican candidate giving money to churches? He'd have been cooked to a crisp over the coals by now. And the churches and ministers who had endorsed him would be facing charges from the IRS. But for some reason, if you're a Democrat getting endorsements from black ministers, everything is quite alright.

[A "threefer" for Michelle.]

The MSM finally mentions Kamau Kambon's racist statements

Though just barely.

[Again, via Michelle.]

They're waiting for the 2000th death with baited breath

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

It just can't come fast enough for these vultures. In fact, I have little doubt that many in the MSM already have stories about it written and stored on their harddrives that they are just itching to release.

"Protests" and "vigils" are planned, but we already know what to expect from those (dial-up warning: lots of pics in the following links):


More photos

Still more photos

[Chapeau tip to Michelle Malkin.]

Sunday, October 23, 2005

American contractors killed in Iraq - one burned alive

Four U.S. Contractors Killed in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An angry mob of insurgents attacked a convoy of American contractors last month when they got lost in a town north of Baghdad, killing four and wounding two, the U.S. military said on Sunday.


The Telegraph reported that two of the contractors not killed in the initial attack were dragged alive from their vehicle, which had been badly shot up. They were forced to kneel in the road before being killed.

"Killing one of the men with a rifle round fired into the back of his head, they doused the other with petrol and set him alight," the paper reported.

"Barefoot children, yelping in delight, piled straw on to the screaming man's body to stoke the flames."

The crowd then "dragged their corpses through the street, chanting anti-U.S. slogans," the report said.

Well, that certainly puts this into perspective. Don't expect any outrage from the left, however. To them, it's more offensive to burn dead bodies of Taliban soldiers that had been left to rot than it is to burn Americans alive or drag their dead bodies through the streets. (Proof.)

UPDATE: Sorry. My bad. Canadian Cynic set me right. These contractors were working for that evil, sovereign nation-invading, oil-stealing Chimpy McBushhitler's Halliburton. That very important information means that no one should shed any tears for these people or the families they left behind. In fact, we should gloat happily over their deaths. Yes, CC's superior liberal, conservative-hating, Bush-bashing morality should be adopted by all! This is a new day! Thank you, CC!

Bill Bennett probably said this, too

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery---then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

So flying planes into buildings, decapitating people and dragging bodies through the streets is okay...

...but don't you dare burn the rotting, stinking corpses of Taliban soldiers that had been cowardly abandoned!

Stench Prompted U.S. Troops to Burn Corpses
There simply wasn't enough room on the rocky hilltop above Gonbaz village in southern Afghanistan for the U.S. platoon and the corpses of the two Taliban fighters. The Taliban men had been killed in a firefight 24 hours earlier, and in the 90 degree heat, their bodies had become an unbearable presence, soldiers who were present have told TIME. Nor was the U.S. Army unit about to leave — the hilltop commanded a strategic view of the village below where other Taliban were suspected to be hiding.

Earlier, Lt. Eric Nelson, the leader of B Company, I-508 platoon leader had sent word down to Gonbaz asking the villagers to pick up the bodies and bury them according to Muslim ritual. But the villagers refused — probably because the dead fighters weren't locals but Pakistanis, surmised one U.S. army officer.

It was then that Lt. Nelson took the decision that could jeopardize his service career. "We decided to burn the bodies," one soldier recounts, "because they were bloated and they stank."

So when our troops step in to clean up the mess with absolutely no ill-will intended, the left can't express their outrage fast or loud enough, but they find no problem in remaining completely silent over the fact that these dead men's fellow Muslims just left the bodies to sit and rot in the sun.

I like this part myself:
Fueling the furor was the fact that the TV report showed that after the bodies were torched, a U.S. Psychological-Operations team descended on Gonbaz in Humvees with their loudspeakers booming: "Taliban, you are cowardly dogs. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady-boys we always believed you to be."

Yep. It makes people angry because it's true.

UPDATE: Even the Australian journalist who filmed the troops burning the bodies completely disagrees with the liberals' portrayl of this situation:
I actually believe that the guys who were involved in the burning did it with honorable, you know, reasons. They did it through their orders, or they did if for hygiene. I had no doubt in my mind that they were telling me the truth. If they were doing something that was problematic or controversial, there’s no way they would have shown me this. There’s no way they would have let me go up there and film this.

Also, he understands why the psy-ops went in to taunt the Taliban:
They want the Taliban to fight them because they can't find them otherwise. It's a really crazy situation. And, you know, the fact that they're announcing these kind of, you know, sort of incredible statements, I think, says a lot about the war that's going on there. I mean, they really want to be attacked. That's the only way they can find them.

Friday, October 21, 2005

No liberal outrage at these truly racist comments

Remember Bill Bennett's "racist" comment that the left was moaning about? How much do you want to bet that these comments don't garner as much of their attention (in fact, they'll most likely sweep them under the carpet):
Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem. I know it because they have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. *tepid applause* Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.

For people like me who are still on dial-up, you can download smaller excerpts from the speech here.

Now, who will be the first liberal reading this post to call this man a racist as he so richly deserves? CC? TNO? Brandon?

UPDATE: Well, it looks like some people actually can admit that this guy is racist, yet they add a "but," of course. "But," they say, "this man does not represent the left like Bill Bennett represents the right." (Or words to that effect.) To that I say, "Hardly." Ask yourselves this, liberals: what was Bill Bennett doing before this controversy? You don't know, do you? In fact, before Mr. Bennett made his statement, you very likely had no care in the world about what Bill Bennett was saying. But now that his statement has been thoroughly and violently taken out of context, he's suddenly the poster child for the right-wing and his statement - if it were racist - represents the feelings of the entire right-wing. And, of course, Kambon is just some "no-name" schmoe who doesn't represent the entirety of the left-wing. (And if that were actually true, then why was he asked to speak at all?) Nevermind that he was speaking at an event named "Black Media Forum on Image of Black Americans in Mainstream Media" that was held at a predominantly black college to coincide with the Millions More Movement/March/Rally. I'm sure that had some "no-name" conservative made some racist remarks at an event related to a high-profile conservative rally, the left would just dismiss it, too. Yeah, right.

BTW, taken in context, Bill Bennett's statement was not racist while Kamau Kambon's statement was. Context is what the liberals lack. (Well, it's not all they lack, but it's one of the more important things.) Bennett never called for the deaths of black people. Not once. Kambon unquestioningly and unapologetically called for the deaths of whites - and people clapped for it! Astounding. Do you think people at some high-profile public forum would've clapped for Bennett had be called for the deaths of blacks? If you do, I've got a bridge in NYC to sell you.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Planned Parenthood: you're an adult if you've had a baby

Forget what the law says, PP would rather just make stuff up on the spot to advance their agenda (source:
Ramsey County District Judge David Higgs ruled a Planned Parenthood abortuary was guilty of contravening the Minnesota notification law, which requires abortionists to inform a minor’s parents before committing an abortion. Planned Parenthood committed the abortion December 26, 2002. The girl’s parents launched the suit in May.

Planned Parenthood argued the girl, a high school senior, was legally an adult because she already has a child.

Is PP basing this on the law? Of course not, and they even admit it!
“Clearly our definition is that she was a legal adult,” said Planned Parenthood’s director of marketing communications, Marta Coursey, according to an AP report.

Could their agenda be any more transparent? Sorry, PP, but barring emancipation (which is only allowed in Minnesota "by legal marriage or parental consent"), people don't become legal adults until age 18. Giving birth does not automatically bestow legal adulthood upon a minor of any age - though I'm sure PP would like to get that changed by a judge making law from the bench.
“We are really committed to making sure this young woman’s rights are protected.”

No, you're not. You are really committed to making sure you use this young woman to advance your extreme leftist agenda: abortions at any age, at any stage, for any reason and without parental knowledge or consent.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

FFRF: Our "There is no God sign" is okay, but not your "God bless America" signs

A little background: Every Christmas, the bizarrely named Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) puts up a sign denouncing religion and the existence of God in the Wisconson state capitol building. They have every right to do this. It's ridiculous, bigotted and asinine, but they have the right to be that way.

Well, now they're mad because someone put a couple "God bless America" signs outside a city hall in New York state:
One of the signs, an 11-foot banner, reads, "Thank You to Our Troops, God Bless America." The other sign reads, "God Bless America" and displays a community calendar on the reverse side.

Two groups, including the Freedom from Religion Foundation, reportedly have complained to Bellone that the signs violate the so-called "separation of church and state."

No doubt, FFRF will pay for this battle using currency printed with the phrase "In God We Trust."

Canada signed Kyoto... but apparently just for show

More bad news for Canada's environmental record.
Six weeks before it hosts a major United Nations climate conference, the Canadian government has been stung by a report questioning its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for reductions in "greenhouse gas" emissions blamed for climate change.


Ottawa is clearly worried that the U.S.-Australia "beyond Kyoto" campaign will gain momentum. The two countries, together with India, China, South Korea and Japan, unveiled an Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate last July, aimed at cutting emissions by developing energy technology.

Canadian PM Martin criticized the U.S. for not signing Kyoto, yet it seems we now know who's actually got their money where their mouth is.

(Cue CanadianCynic to attempt to dismiss this by liberal use of swears and the word "wanker." BTW, CC, here's lots more people you need to call "wankers:" lots of Canadians reporting failure of Canada's pollution reduction - and America's impressive pollution reduction (happy now, CC?).)

Friday, October 14, 2005

The "staged" Bush event that wasn't

The media was in a tizzy over it, but here's the truth:
Thursday's NBC Nightly News led, yes led, with how, as anchor Brian Williams put it, President Bush had that morning conducted “a staged event" via satellite with ten U.S. soldiers and one Iraqi soldier in Iraq. “Today's encounter was billed as spontaneous,” Williams intoned. “Instead, it appeared to follow a script.” Andrea Mitchell warned that “the troops were coached on how to answer the Commander-in-Chief” and, indeed, not until two minutes into her three-minute story -- after showing clips of how a DOD official had told the soldiers the questions Bush would ask -- did Mitchell note how “the White House and at least one of the soldiers says the troops weren't told what to say, just what the President would ask." So, the answers were not staged. The soldiers, naturally nervous about appearing on live TV with the President of the United States, were simply told who should answer which question and to “take a breath” before answering. Scandalous!

Using their own logic, the MSM stages all their press conferences with President Bush. They prepare questions and very likely practice and rewrite them beforehand.

UPDATE: SGT Ron Long, one of the fine soldiers who participated in the event, speaks out: Speaking with President Bush. [Tip o' the hat to Michelle Malkin, who says, "Read it. Send it. Spread the word."]

UPDATE 2: This guy makes a great point.

UPDATE 3: CanadianCynic and other liberals seem to think "orchestration" (i.e. practice to make sure things like passing the microphone so you don't strangle someone don't happen), having "scripted" (i.e. prepared) questions from President Bush and running through who you are and what you are doing in Iraq means "staged." You know, as I said, that would make lots of what the MSM does "staged," too: interviews, reports, etc.

UPDATE 4: BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! CC thinks SGT. Long is a liar and the MSM (esp. NPR with it's short little soundbite with doesn't prove anything) is telling the truth. Yep, the media isn't taking the same things they do everyday, blowing them way out of proportion and context and then serving it all up to the mindless mass of drooling, deranged Bush-haters as "a staged event." Nope. All this is understandable, though. They went through 8 years of watching Clinton stage - well - his entire presidency. It's ingrained in their psyche and is what they expect of presidents now. It's really rather pathetic.

More proof that the media and the liberals are wrong about NO's floodwaters

Lake Pontchartrain water improving rapidly
The quality of the water in Lake Pontchartrain is improving much more rapidly than anticipated, according to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation.

Director Carlton Dufrechou said sampling of eight spots in late September showed that 75 percent of the samples met the criteria for swimming safety.

“We knew Lake Pontchartrain would heal itself,” said Dufrechou. “The rate of recovery is a welcome surprise. Eight dolphins were sited on October 11 near Mandeville and if the big critters are back, the lake is definitely coming back.”

Following the storm, floodwaters that included sewage, oil, gas, household chemicals, paints and decomposing materials were pumped into the Lake to help drain the city.

Yeah, but those "long-term" effects will start showing up, you know, 20 to 30 years down the road. There's no question about it. The liberals looked into their crystal balls, cast some animal bones and travelled through time, so they know the future.

We're doooooooooooooomed!!!

Columnist: Jeb Bush forcing Christianity on kids with "the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"

Once again, you just can't make this stuff up, folks:

State shouldn't be promoting a blatantly religious message (remember that word: "blatantly")
Now, this is what I call intelligent design.

When you can combine the forces of Disney, the McDonald's Happy Meal and Gov. Jeb Bush in one tidy package - all working together to cram thinly veiled Christian theology down the gullets of Florida's schoolchildren - you've got yourself a hell of a plan.

Oh, please...
This December, just in time for Christmas, the movie version of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" will be in theaters everywhere, much to the delight of Christian evangelicals, who see the children's tale as it was intended - a way to subtly introduce the Christ story to young people.

Wait a minute. Which is it? Blatant or subtle? Is it "blatantly subtle?"
Yes, of all the books the state might encourage children to read, Bush just happened to pick the book that coincides with the Disney movie, which just happens to be co-produced by Walden Media, which just happens to be owned by a Colorado billionaire, who through his family and foundation has donated nearly $100,000 to the Republican Party. But that's just the icing on the cake.

It's the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy again! RUN!!!
And the movie will spill into marketing opportunities for breakfast cereals, video games, dental hygiene products and a long line of other marketing tie-ins.

All meant, of course, to introduce the blatantly subtle Christian message to the populous. Blast that evil VRWC!!!
But what's the state of Florida doing in this cabal of Christian commerce?

Oh, all of a sudden, it's "Christian commerce." Just because it ties in with the movie and book. Yep. Expect McDonald's to start offering communion-themed Happy Meals and General Mills to put Bibles in their cereal boxes.
Oh yeah, that's right. We're opening up the public schools to some back-door catechism lessons in the guise of getting kids to read.

Hey, but it's quite alright to make kindergarteners read "Who's In a Family" and "Heather Has Two Mommies."

Today Show reporter paddles a canoe in a flood...

...that was inches deep (video at the source).
Today's timing couldn't have been worse. A preceding segment focused on the incessant rains and ensuing flooding in the northeast. For days now, beautiful, blonde - and one senses highly ambitious - young reporter Michelle Kosinski has been on the scene for Today in New Jersey, working the story. In an apparent effort to draw attention to herself, in yesterday's segment she turned up in hip waders, standing thigh-deep in the flood waters.

Taking her act one step further, this morning she appeared on a suburban street . . . paddling a canoe. There was one small problem. Just as the segment came on the air, two men waded in front of Kosinki . . . and the water barely covered their shoe tops! That's right, Kosinski's canoe was in no more than four to six inches of water!

Ridiculous! Why was she in the canoe? Why, to give the illusion that the flooding was much worse that it was, of course. It's not very dramatic when you're standing in inches of water.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Study: NO floodwaters "typical of storm water runoff in the region"

Another media falsehood exposed:
The floodwater that covered New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was not unusually toxic and was "typical of storm water runoff in the region," according to a study published yesterday.

Most of the gasoline-derived substances in the water evaporated quickly, and the bacteria from sewage also declined over time, the scientist leading the study said. The water's chief hazard was from metals that are potentially toxic to fish. However, no fish kills have been reported in Lake Pontchartrain, where the water that once covered 80 percent of the city was pumped.

"Fake, but accurate." The falsehoods increase the drama and make for a better story. Why should they worry about the truth?

UPDATE: My willfully blind critics don't like the truth, but here it is from the same article in black and white:
Although some experts and many news stories had warned of long-term contamination from the floodwater, yesterday's report was one of two suggesting that those fears were unfounded.

Tests results released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found no human or animal fecal bacteria in fish or shellfish sampled in the Gulf of Mexico a month ago.

Industrial chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), either were not found in the fish or were in the same concentrations as before the storm. Previous studies had shown no contamination from oil-derived chemicals.

Well, if you can't trust scientists, who can you trust, right liberals? Yep, always trust scientists except when they tell you things you don't like to hear. Tell me, kids, how can there be long-term effects from contamination yet to be seen when there's no contamination present now?

[Pilfered from Captain Ed. Yargh, matey!]

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Gee, Shannon... For not being obsessed with me, you sure visited here a lot

Well, folks, pagan commentator "Shannon" (who thinks it's mature to use a four-letter term for female sexual anatomy to insult me) is gone. And good riddance. After a childish outburst against me upon shutting down one of her websites, I decided to prod her one last time to see if she was ever going to get around to admitting being wrong on some issues and apologizing. No such luck. People like her like to pontificate at length about being loving, caring, open-minded, tolerant and benign and portray themselves as superior to Christians, but when it comes down to it all, they are selfish, egotistical, closed-minded, intolerant and hateful. Typical. Facts are meaningless to people like her. Facts make them run and hide.

In her final emails to me, she claimed I was stalking her and Witchvox/Wren's Nest. Well, let's see... I've visited her journal maybe 6 times total since she first came here to harass me a few weeks ago. In just the past two days, Shannon has visited no less than 13 times! From my Site Meter information:
Domain Name ? (Network)
IP Address 68.66.20.# (Adelphia)
Operating System Macintosh MacPPC
Browser Internet Explorer 5.23

All that information matches everything I know about her: same IP from comments and same OS that she mentioned in an email (saying that I almost made her spit her drink on her Mac). Here are the times she's visited in the last two days:
Oct 12 2005 9:31:39 pm
Oct 12 2005 8:40:32 pm
Oct 12 2005 7:43:12 pm
Oct 12 2005 4:18:37 pm
Oct 12 2005 3:27:31 pm
Oct 12 2005 1:54:03 pm
Oct 12 2005 11:59:42 am
Oct 12 2005 12:34:52 am
Oct 11 2005 8:02:13 pm
Oct 11 2005 6:14:29 pm
Oct 11 2005 1:46:19 pm
Oct 11 2005 12:31:13 pm
Oct 11 2005 10:13:26 am

Site Meter cuts off referrals after that point (5 pages of 20), so it's likely she visited more than that before the earliest time recorded. There was also one instance of the same IP, but a different OS: Windows. This might have been her on another computer - perhaps at work or something.

As for WV/WN, I visit there maybe once per day. Usually, I see no news stories that interest me. When I do, I rarely comment on them. I do know, however, which stories tend to draw out the more anti-Christian comments. It's pretty predictable.

So who's the real stalker here, Shannon (since I know you'll be reading this)? Well, you can't comment since I banned you, but I think the answer is obvious to everyone.

And with that, Shannon's tale is brought to an end. For me, at least. I'm sure she'll continue to visit here and comment about and link to me on her "secret journal," which will amuse me when I see it on Site Meter. C'est la vie, que sera sera and all that.

A worse polluter than the U.S. ...Canada?

Believe it!
Between 1995 and 2002, Canada cut its air pollution by 1.8 per cent while the United States achieved a cut of 45 per cent, says the report by Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

But! But! How can this be??? Chimpy McBushhitler is an evil, oil-loving, pollution-spreading conservative Christian, right-wing Republican, capitalist pig-dog who wants to destroy the planet!!! He doesn't reduce pollution!!! He creates it with every breath!!!

Goll. 1.8%. That's just plain insulting. Stupid Canada. Bunch of hosers.

UPDATE: Some people here and elsewhere have asked about that Canada's pollution output was compared to the United States'. To them I ask, does it matter? Certainly Canada is going to have a lower pollution output than the U.S. because there are less sources of pollution, but that should mean Canada can reduce the output faster and cheaper than the U.S. Think about it, kids. Canada, with less sources of pollution, reduced its output by less than 2%, while the U.S., with more sources of pollution, reduced its output by a whopping 45%. The reduction by the U.S. is just plain outstanding while that by Canada is a slap in the face for everyone. Come on, you liberal Canadians. You pontificate (I love that word) about how Canada is so much more progressive than the U.S. Why can't you guys get your act together and be more progressive with pollution reduction?

Mt. Soledad Cross battle continues; hateful, intolerant mentality of plantiff exposed

First, more proof that the will of the [liberal] judges usurps the will of the people:
A San Diego Superior Court judge has let stand her August ruling that invalidated a July ballot initiative that would have transferred city land, a war memorial, and the historic cross in La Jolla to the U.S. Department of Interior. Judge Patricia Yim Cowett ruled the transfer as unconstitutional. In her 35-page position paper, Cowett made only a one sentence reference to the vote that was approved by 76 percent of San Diego voters.

So this decision effectively invalidates the votes of 197,125 people. Nice.

As I mentioned before, the atheist plantiff, Philip Paulson, has dubbed supporters of the memorial "Jesus Jihad Republicans." Here's another sampling of the bigotted garbage this man spews:
I called the Thomas More Law Center, and they sent me a .pdf file that contains print-outs of Mr. Paulson's (aka hasd1973, "Humanist Phil Osophy") postings. I found them on their Yahoo Group (the URL is This is the main excerpt:

Why should such ideas be protected from ridicule? I say, Atheists should rebut the anti-Science religious right with their own claims about talking snakes, plankton eating whales swollowing up one of their biblical characters and spitting him out on land, ad nauseum. Then, we need to make a full attack on Jesus. Jesus wrote nothing of himself or his life, not a line of the New Testament in his own hand. All the books of the New Testament were written after his death, not only of Jesus, but also only by the men to whom they are attibuted. Well, Jesus believed that the earth was flat when he went up to the pentacle and saw the four corners of the earth. When Jesus was carried to the top of the highest mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the world, how is it America was not included? Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the temple. And the religious right republicans put the name of God on the currency. The Bush Bible reads, "And Supply-Side Jesus wept "verily I say unto you, blessed are the wealthy for they shall receive tax cuts and corporate welfare." But then of course there is Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV - "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord..." Well according to the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ was a bastard and a rape baby. After all, the christian god the father raped the Virgin Mary when she was only 13 years of age, and then the all-knowing and all-powerful god became a dead-beat dad who later set up his own bastard son's execution.

He later sums up this last sentence in message 2629 when he said, "America was not around when Jesus, the bastard son of the dead beat father, was living."

Why is this guy being taken seriously?

Spy in the White House? Or have we been hoodwinked by the media again?

A belated update to an ABC News story I briefly mentioned recently. As it turns out, ABC might have been playing fast and loose with the facts. Captain Ed dug up this information a few days ago:
The New York Times provides important clarification this morning, noting that Aragoncillo did his spying after his security detail at the White House, and that no evidence exists (yet) of any such activity during his tenure as a security staffer for Al Gore and Dick Cheney:

The F.B.I. agent, Leandro Aragoncillo, 46, of Woodbury, N.J., an American citizen who was born in the Philippines, was charged Sept. 12 with passing classified information to government officials in Manila.

The charges filed against Mr. Aragoncillo relate only to classified information that officials say he took from F.B.I. computers after joining the agency in July 2004. ...

ABC News reported Wednesday night that Mr. Aragoncillo was accused of stealing classified material from White House computers at the vice president's office, including information damaging to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

On Wednesday, government officials said they had no corroboration that any material had been taken from the vice president's office, but they acknowledged that investigators had been focusing on Mr. Aragoncillo's work at the White House.

Once the FBI and CIA identify and detain an espionage suspect, a thorough investigation of his or her previous access takes place. This case only looks unusual because of his assignment at the White House under two administrations. That doesn't make it a "White House espionage case". Aldrich Ames may have been to the White House on a number of occasions as well, but he didn't do his spying from there, either.

Aragoncillo may well have been an active spy for a decade or more, but that isn't want the charges filed thus far claim, and the FBI and CIA specifically say that they haven't discovered any evidence yet to show otherwise. One wonders why ABC seems so anxious to tie Aragoncillo to the White House. Or, perhaps, it doesn't seem that mysterious at all.

So he was employeed at the White House and he is accused of spying, but is he accused of spying at the White House? All the information I can find says maybe, which could just as equally be maybe not. If he did, how far back does it go? All the way back to the Clinton-Gore regime? Who knows? Time will tell, I guess.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Blogger/Blogspot users, turn on your site feeds!

I've noticed that some Blogger/Blogspot blogs don't update on Bloglines. The only thing I can think of that would cause this would be that people don't have their site feed turned on. It's easy to do. From your Blogger dashboard, click the "Change Settings" cog, find and click the "Site Feed" option, change the "Publish Site Feed" box to "Yes," then choose if you want full or short "Descriptions." That's it.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Your "Well, DUH!" moment for the day

Click here and then click on the link titled "Banking on a giant fall."
The Chronicles of Narnia:

The Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe. (Dec. 9)

Is this the next super-franchise? The series starts with the most famous of C. S. Lewis's Narnia stories, about English kids who go through the back of a wardrobe into a new world, where they must overthrow an evil witch with the help of a messianic lion.

Be alert for hidden Christian messages.

Yeah. As hidden as an elephant behind a toothpick. Twit.

(Note: I had you do the mouse-clicking gymnastics because a direct link to the article doesn't give you the whole thing for some weird reason.)

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Abbas: reports of Bush saying God told him to attack Iraq "completely false"

Another liberal media lie exposed:
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A statement in Abbas's name released by his office said an excerpt from an interview with Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath due to be broadcast by the BBC in which Shaath described a meeting with Bush in June 2003 gave a "completely false" account.

Don't expect any corrections or apologies from the media, the Democratic Underground, and left-wing bloggers like DailyDean and Canada's Biggest LiarTM.

UPDATE: Right on cueCanada's Biggest LiarTM defends his unquestioning, dogmatic belief that President Bush said this by reaching into his nether regions and pulling out this alleged Bush quote:
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."

The problem is that this alleged quote comes from a private meeting President Bush had with an Amish group in 2004. No reporters were present at the meeting and the quote cannot be verified. Does that stop CC and other people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome from believing the quote to be completely verified truth? Of course not. And, of course, their belief that the alleged quote is true means that this most recent quote is absolutely true, too. Nice non sequitir.

And just to complete the record, here's another "Bush says God told him to do it" quote that the left likes to trot out as true, even though it has never been verified, either:
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
--Reported by Haaretz on June 24, 2003

Friday, October 07, 2005 lies about father seeking parental notification

This is a news story from (a prominent Google News source) about a father in Massachussetts who is protesting the fact that his kindergarten-aged son was given the book "Who's in a Family," which portrays gay couples as a "normal" family. This is what the article says about the father:
David Parker became enraged last April when he discovered his six-year old son had brought home the book "Who's in a Family.' (story)

The book by Robert Skutch, and illustrated by Laura Nienhaus is aimed at children between three and seven. It catalogues a variety of multicultural contemporary family units, including those with single parents, lesbian and gay parents, mixed-race couples, grandparents and divorced parents.

But, it was the inclusion of same-sex parents that angered Parker. He confronted officials at the Joseph Estabrook School.

I like that. He was "enraged" and "angered." Nothing like using inflammatory words to help you portray someone you disagree with as a raving lunatic.
Parker, who is a member of the Article 8 Alliance, an organization fighting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, demanded that the book be removed from the school library and that his son be pulled from discussions about homosexuality whether they are in planned lessons or arise spontaneously.

And there we have the big, fat lie. Mr. Parker is NOT a member of Article 8 and he has nothing against gays, as we see here:
The attacks on Parker have been so intense that Tassel recently found it necessary to write a defense in the local paper denying that his client is a shill for or member of Article 8, a controversial organization opposed to same-sex marriage.

He pointed to Parker's Ph.D. to deflect criticism of his client as an ignorant book burner. To counter the charge that Parker hates gays, Tassel described him as "an exceptionally kind hearted man" whose best friend was gay.

And here:
The Parkers believed the public school, Estabrook, is right to be teaching tolerance of gays but wrong in raising the subject in kindergarten and then indoctrinating 5-year-olds on gay marriage.

The real issue here isn't homosexuality, but parental notification and parental rights. All Mr. Parker wants is to know what his son is being taught and to be able to exercise his rights as a parent. Parental notification and parental rights are something that the leftists don't like, however, especially when they get in the way of their agenda of indoctrinating kindergarteners.

Not surprisingly, the ACLU has no problem with what the school is doing:
Reports recently surfaced that Estabrook School mandated that all kindergarteners read "Who's in a Family," a picture book that endorses the controversial topic of gay marriage, and invited gay parents to come into class to talk to the young children about the topic. The story came to light when David and Tonia Parker -- two parents who ironically support gay marriage but do not want their son exposed to the topic -- sought and failed to get their child exempted from the controversial curriculum. Their protests have not only fallen on deaf ears, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts has intoned that it supports the school's decision to have five-year-olds learn about homosexuality over their parents' objections.

That's right, folks. When it comes to something the ACLU supports, the school trumps parental rights. Of course, when it comes to something the ACLU hates - take mandatory reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance - then they change their tune to exactly the opposite. They'd say something like, "It's wrong to force it on kids." Could they be any more obvious (and hypocritical)?

Howard Dean: Chairman of the Democratic Nincompoop Committee

You just can't make this stuff up, folks:
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the president can claim executive privilege?

DEAN: Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called. He's got to go out there and say something about this woman who's going to a 20 or 30-year appointment, a 20 or 30-year appointment to influence America. We deserve to know something about her.

Um, wrong president, Howie. I think you want the one in office 5 years ago.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Dishonest headline and story fools people about the Catholic Church and the Bible

Screaming across the internet today was this headline and story:

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

Just going by the headline and first paragraph, you'd think that the Vatican just went bat-guano crazy. Fortunately, the truth lies in the next paragraph (which a lot of people are glossing over):
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

That's right, folks. It's not the Catholic Church (as headed by the Pope) that has issued this document. It was a handful of clergy in the U.K. The headline is bogus. I have little doubt that the author is being deliberately dishonest with the headline in order to draw attention and positive praise to the article. Lo and behold, a bunch of suckers fell for it, too.

Furthermore, the article is littered with further dishonesty:
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

Uh, no. The "literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis" is Creationism, NOT Intelligent Design. Creationism and ID actually have very little in common. (They are not, as some have said, "two sides of the same coin.") In fact, ID and the Theory of Evolution have far, far more in common.

Also, most Christians actually don't want the schools teaching students about what they think the Bible says. The schools have screwed up just about everything else they've been teaching, so why would we want them teaching our religion to kids?
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”.

Ah, yes. The old "two different versions of Creation" canard that skeptics love. I won't go into detail here (esp. since others have done so elsewhere online), but the short-short explanation is that Genesis 1 contains a detailed account of the whole Creation while Genesis 2 concentrates on the creation of man.

UPDATE: It's really kind of sad when certain people can't admit error in regards to this story (and these two, too) and try to distract people's attention by going off on some crazy rant and hurling elephants.

UPDATE 2: Just to give you a clue as to how whacked out these clergy in the U.K. are, here's one of the passages they claim is untrue:
Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

Yep. A prophecy from Revelation that has yet to come to pass. "Well, it hasn't happened yet, but we know it's false!"

These two verses are still okay, though:
Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection

So the story of Creation and prophecy from Revelation are too fantastic to believe, yet the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus are still believable to these clergy? Strange...

White House staffer accused of espionage

Espionage Case Breaches the White House
Officials tell ABC News the alleged spy worked undetected at the White House for almost three years. Leandro Aragoncillo, 46, was a U.S. Marine most recently assigned to the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney.


Federal investigators say Aragoncillo, a naturalized citizen from the Philippines, used his top secret clearance to steal classified intelligence documents from White House computers.

WHAT??? How is this possible??? What kind of people is President Bush hiring???

Oh, wait...
In 2000, Aragoncillo worked on the staff of then-Vice President Al Gore.

Well, that explains a lot.

Bill Bennett is racist, but not these folks

No white women allowed.
On Sept. 25, the Women's Studies and Graduate Consortium at Northeastern University in Boston held a public on-campus meeting called "Breaking Bread: Women of Color Dialogue." White women were barred.

No racism here! Nope.
The SGA demanded that no student be denied entry to a public, on-campus event because of skin color. This was not merely a moral stand but also a demand that the university-sponsored event comply with the university's non-discrimination policy. (Exclusion on the basis of gender seems to have raised no comment.)

Bah! Such policy stipulations don't apply when people of color are putting on events.
Rather than cancel the event, Dr. Robin Chandler — director of women's studies and an organizer of the event — cracked the door wide enough for white women to walk through. Only one attended — a senator from the SGA. Her presence was obviously meant to make the point that students cannot be excluded from campus events due to race.

In NU, Northeastern's student newspaper, Chandler described her response to allowing a white woman to attend.

"I welcomed her anyway, in addition to telling the audience to conduct themselves with integrity even though the presence of a white woman was unwelcome," she said.

"But I'm not racist," she quickly added.
Chandler continued, "I think it's a shame that one or two white students based on white privilege, a lack of awareness of racial issues and a lack of generosity of spirit complained to the office of the provost and were able, because they were white, to gain admission to the morning session that I was forced to open up."


Nevertheless, attendees said they would feel "threatened … if white women were present." White women, they claimed, could not understand issues like prostitution and truancy.

"Again," she stated, "I'm still speaking as someone who isn't racist."

Come on! Don't people know that only whites can be racist? When colored people exclude whites, that's not racist. When colored people say white people are "unwelcome," that's not racist. When colored people say they are "threatened" by the presence of white people, that's not racist. When colored people say white people can't understand certain issues because of their skin color, that's not racist. Nope. Not in the least.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Bill Bennett's comments: the new "niggardly"

Bill Bennett’s comments are akin to someone using the word “niggardly.” Ignorant people who want to be offended will see it as a racist word. The rest of us intelligent, rational folk won’t.

Sadly, too many people just hate Bill Bennett (and every other conservative) too much to think rationally and intelligently enough to give up the “HE’S A RACIST!!!” mantra.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Bill Bennett: not racist, not advocating abortion

La Shawn Barber gets it. Other people don't.
Third, Bennett’s hypothetical is based on fact. Blacks are 12.3 percent of the population, and about half are black men, which means black men are approximately 6 percent of the U.S. population. [Note: Until I remember where I got a certain statistic and link to the source, I’m deleting it. Look for an update tomorrow. In the meantime, the stats found at BJS are still alarming.] (see Bureau of Justice Statistics). Why aren’t you outraged over those shameful statistics?

Hypothetically speaking, if fewer black boys were born, there’d be fewer around to commit crimes. Bennett didn’t (and couldn’t if he wanted to!) say that all blacks commit crimes. In the aggregate, however, blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes relative to their numbers in the general population. It follows, statistically speaking, that the fewer blacks there are, the fewer crimes will be committed. This is not a racist statement, people. It is a statistical reality. Blame black criminal thugs for preying on their own people, not Bill Bennett for pointing it out. Illogical!

Here's what Mr. Bennett said in context:
But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Most liberals complaining about Mr. Bennett's comments are using only the first sentence, which is completely dishonest and, well, typical of them.

Monday, October 03, 2005

The stalker just doesn't give up

Does CC ever let a day go by without making some reference (usually vulgar and insulting) to me? Just barely, it seems. Someone really needs to tell him that such obsessions are unhealthy.

Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!