WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS? THIS ASSHOLE IS AN OUT & PROUD TERRORIST OF OUR GENTE. HE SHOULD NOT BE SPEAKING ON OUR CAMPUS...WE CAN'T LET HIM SPEAK ON OUR CAMPUS!
Zeke Garcia wrote at 7:48pm on November 29th, 2006
I think the Latino comunity should form its own political party, we already know that these people want our vote. If they are affraid their country is falling down, why dont we help them to take it down? After all they do not appreciated us. They dont even know that they have color tv because of a Latino, if it wasnt for a Latino they couldnt even tell what teams are playing in tv.
Enough with the word illegal like it's the end-all be-all of the matter. If people think that the law is solely based on what is just and fair, then they haven't been paying attention to their histories. In fact, it rarely is. People and communities have protested unjust laws for centuries, this is nothing new. What is new is this adamant protection of the law on the sole basis that it is the law. The end. Segregation was legal in this country.... it was illegal to marry someone that wasn't of your race.... it is STILL illegal to marry someone the courts deem the same sex as you... do i need to go on?
Whoa...this is getting out of order 1. To everyone that thinks homosexuality is a disorder, I would like to see scientific evidence from a reputable psychologist. 2. Almost everyone that is in America today is here because somebody immigrated here. 3. Is it just me, or it it strange that only certain racial demographics are given a hard time when it comes to immigration? There is obviously a problem that runs deeper than someone being "illegal", there is a underlying current that has been present in our society since its inception, and the current is "rascism". 4. Ok, The Young Americans for Fascism have a right to invite their speaker to the University because America has a free speech policy.Everyone who disagrees with Mr. Tancredo and his followers has a right to counterprotest becuase of the above mentioned free speech policy. 5. I urge everyone to go out tonight and ask the difficult questions. Expose Mr. Tancredo as the eurocentric, warped fraud that he is.
oh my god not one of these again... i find these soooo draining... why is this stuff not taught and dealt with at an earlier age so that people can be somewhat edcuated on respect for human kind BEFORE they are entering their 20's... it makes my work and many others so much harder.... oh by the way... well said Felicia.... clear... to the point!
See this video narrated by the oft-despicable Alec Baldwin to see the unfortunate occurences behind the creation of so much of what I eat. Oddly, I have no emotional reaction to this movie and I am quite apathetic to the plight of the relevent animals.
As it is, this clip basically has two hot babes in bikinis fighting, but the clip is long-winded and boring and I cannot watch it all the way through. As it is I reckon this film will be horrible, based even on fight choreography from this one clip, let alone the fact that it is based on a series of tournement fighter video games.
Well, now we know, folks: a new study has confirmed that teenagers whose iPods are jam-packed with sexually explicit music are more likely than other teens to have sex. (Huuuh!)
The type of music doesn't matter -- hip-hop, rap, rock -- the devil isn't in the details; it's in the music. Songs that "stereotype men as sex-driven studs and women as sex objects," and songs that provide teens with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior. (Huuuh!) Teenagers who admit listening to lots of music with "degrading" sex messages are almost twice as likely to act them out as are teens who listen to "nonsexual music." (Huuuh!)
The study, in the August issue of Pediatrics, was based on phone interviews with almost 1,500 kids between 12 to 17. Lead author Steven Martino says exposure to raunchy lyrics lowers kids' inhibitions and makes them more prone to make sexual decisions they'll regret. According to Martino, the music teaches girls to view themselves as sex objects, and boys learn they should be relentless in pursuit of women.
Folks, a responsible society cannot allow this unacceptable situation to threaten America's yutes. The children are our future. And we cannot afford to have another generation of teenage boys -- oversexed predators -- viewing girls as sex objects.
There's only one solution that makes sense. It is time to get this music out of the hands of teenagers! Parents -- when your kids come home tonight -- confiscate their iPods! (And, by the way, throw away your own Beatles records to save your own life in the bedroom.)
I have some education news folks. A new study that could help "the children" reach their full intellectual potential. One problem: If any of you parents inquire about it, educators will look upon you with utter contempt. And I can guarantee that there will be absolutely no effort to put the findings of this study into effect.
How do I know this? Well, because the study's conclusion is certain to enrage liberals and that means educators. Ready? Here it is: Boys learn better when taught by men; girls learn more when taught by women.
Thomas Dee, visiting scholar at Stanford University, conducted the research, which was vetted and approved by his peers. It appears in Education Next, a quarterly published by the Hoover Institution. But the very notion that a female teacher might hurt a boy's education – and vice versa – has "leading education advocates" disputing the conclusions and methodology. Mr. Dee isn't suggesting schools turn to single-sex education, or any other policy shift; what he wants is more research into the role gender plays in learning.
Fat chance, buddy. Pointy-heads will support junk science like global warming because it fits their agenda. But to an education establishment run by girlie-men and radically feminized women, the mere suggestion that boys might learn best from men, or girls from women is jut plain Neanderthal. Nobody, but nobody is going to challenge their views — no matter how much common sense the research makes, boys and girls.
He was not merely a philosopher, but willing when apropriate to take action in the purest sense. Certainly if he could face a violent mob/army/collective of unionists we can peacefully display cardboard signs and yell in a public place!
Well, I knew it was going to happen, folks: they're unplugged! Our giddy liberal pals can now say exactly what they think. Here's a prime example -- Los Angles Times columnist Jonathan Chait. Some excerpts:
"The debate about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster...Maybe, just maybe," Chait writes, "our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power."
Sure, Chait continues, "Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured, and lived in constant fear. Bringing [Hussein] back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now[.]"
See? I've always told you: elitist liberals don't believe other "peoples" can handle democracy! And Mr. Chait here says it plain as day. First of all, Mr. Chait, not everybody believes the war was a mistake -- including our military in Iraq. Secondly, the violence in Iraq doesn't come close to Saddam's bloodshed and terror! Chait continues with this:
"Consider some of the upside [of reinstalling Hussein]: He would not allow the country to be dominated by Iran, [America's] regional enemy;... Hussein was extremely difficult to deal with before the war," but now he'd "probably" go along with us "because his alternative is death by hanging." (Oh, so we're going to get a kinder, gentler Saddam now!) He says, "I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea...Somebody explain to me why it's worse than all the others."
Why bother with you, Mr. Chait? Your mind couldn't digest it if I told you because...you're a liberal!
The Republican candidate for the 69th District in the Michigan House of Representatives. This district includes the City of East Lansing and Michigan State University, Meridian Township, and Williamstown Township.
"Every time you don't win, it is not nessesarily a defeat. The courage, dignity, and integrity the people who served this campaign demonstrated represents the light in a sometimes dark world. Each of us will go on to other places and pursuits, but a piece of each of us will remain here on the streets of the 69th District."
Thank you to all who supported John Knowles. The campaign has concluded, the "Team" remains alive.
Supporting Organization: Michigan Dove Hunters (looks like an older group, apparently no updates since 2004. If anyone knows of any current organizations say so in the comments.
Opposing Organization: The Committee to Keep Doves Protected.
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 160 OF 2004 - AN ACT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNTING SEASON FOR MOURNING DOVES
Public Act 160 of 2004 would:
* Authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves. * Require a mourning dove hunter to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp. * Stipulate that revenue from the stamp must be split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund. * Require the Department of Natural Resources to address responsible mourning dove hunting; management practices for the propagation of mourning doves; and participation in mourning dove hunting by youth, the elderly and the disabled in the Department’s annual hunting guide.
Well, for those of you planning your holiday dates, be careful how you dress, how you eat -- and how you compost. Otherwise, your ecosexual partner might be offended.
What? You haven't heard? The ecosexuals -- environmentalist wackos who only date other wackos -- are looking for love in all the green places. Claudia, for instance, a 36-year-old writer, sizes up a guy by checking out the green products in his bathroom. "I can tell instantly if he's my type by the deodorant he uses," she says. Stacy, a 35-year-old exec. of a health-products company, swoons whenever her guy wears hemp shoes. (I never heard of hemp shoes.)
San Francisco magazine reports on dating websites for "green-living and environmentally responsible adults." But all is not paradise. Take 33-year-old Rachel, a San Francisco designer of kids' clothing "made from organic cotton that meets international fair-trade rules." She's a vegetarian. She favors clothing from thrift stores. "Not buying new," she says, "eases the toll on the earth." She also says: "I won't date a guy who doesn't recycle. He has to get it." Or he won't...get it. She was dating a producer from LA until he ordered meat and used artificial sweetener in his coffee. "Pork and NutraSweet? I was dumbstruck!" she says. "That was definitely our last date."
For every couple that bonds over the organic tomatoes, though, there's another that never makes it past the compost pile. So again; watch what you wear, guys, and what you eat, and be sure to recycle -- or there'll be no dessert for you! Just trying to warn you and be helpful, here.
Well, as you know, Charlie Rangel caused a stir when he said that he'd file legislation to reinstate the draft. Nancy Pelosi quickly killed that idea (she's got the right poll numbers on this), but not before the Drive-Bys got reaction from college students.
Nora Vail -- poly-sci major, DePaul University, Chicago -- thinks that a draft would be terrible. She told the AP, it wouldn't be "the Bush twins going off to war. It's going to be the poor kids growing up in the South or the inner city who go off to war. The majority of people who'd be drafted would oppose the war. It would just be Vietnam all over again. (Like, you know?)" Little Miss Vail isn't going off to war, but she does get one thing: creating a permanent anti-war movement is exactly what Rangel had in mind.
And here's another one: Atlanta senior Steven Haag, 21, said, "What would I do if I was drafted? I think I probably wouldn't be the best of soldier." (He's right about that.) "I'm not sure other soldiers would want to depend on me." (I know I wouldn't.) South Carolina senior Kyle Massenburg said, "I do not believe that people should be forced to serve in the military for an unstable cause."
Now, rather than focus on these self-centered, spoiled-brat responses, let's focus on people in the same age group -- from all walks of life -- who are in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. You know why they're there? They volunteered to serve and defend their country. So, this Thanksgiving -- as always -- we owe them our love... and endless gratitude!
The Fresno Bee is looking for Nintendo Wii and PS3 fanatics shoppers who are dedicating their lives waiting in line for these consoles.
They want to laugh at you interview you.
Link here: http://fresno.craigslist.org/ele/235383764.html
Hope to mock you in the paper see you proud on the front page!
Oh, this guy from Fresno posted this Nintendo Wii listing: http://fresno.craigslist.org/ele/235398934.html
~j3ku
____
We are not laughing at Jeku. He has a sense of style, I know that he is good with a gun and practices a lot at cutting people.
Where was I? oh. right. Colorado. I am traveling from California to Michigan. Don't expect any more posts until I arrive home.
Now that that is firmly stated... how is it that even when they supposedly grow into a state of maturity, adulthood, this strange exhibitionism still infests them?
Wow, holy Baghdad! America's antiwar paper of record -- the New York Times -- has suddenly found "military experts" who are against cutting and running in Iraq! The same experts who were huge critics of the war before the election.
General Anthony Zinni, who had demanded Rumsfeld step down, now tells The Times that troop withdrawals would likely accelerate a civil war in Iraq rather than stop it. Sounds like Bush; sounds like Rummy.
As part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq, Zinni wants more troops so we can "regain momentum," create gigs, foster political reconciliation, and allow Iraqi security forces to gain a firm foothold.
John Batiste, another retired general who wanted Rumsfeld's scalp, calls Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals "terribly naïve." That would be Congressional Democrats' proposals, by the way. Batiste sounds like Bush. And Rummy.
Kenneth Pollack, former Clinton NSA guy, argues that troop reductions would backfire. "If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the [US] is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow...That is how civil wars start."
My head is swimming. Now that the Democrats have regained power, it's about-face time? Suddenly, the Times has discovered that cut-and-run is a bad option? Suddenly, winning is important? To the New York Times?
Well, Big Labor ran a $40 million drag-out-the-vote operation for Democrats this election. Now they're calling the election results "a mandate for a union agenda" -- and they want their payoff.
First and foremost in this mandate, they say, is a demand for increasing the minimum wage. "But Rush, but Rush," you say. "That doesn't make any sense! Union wages are much higher than the minimum wage!" My friends, here's the game plan: Once the government establishes the floor (minimum wage), Big Labor can hijack the ceiling. With a higher minimum wage, Big Labor will shake down American business for higher union wages (because they're so much more qualifies than those slugs that get the minimum wage)!
Big Labor also demanding changes in bankruptcy laws that allow companies to modify pension and health care deals made during Big Labor's heyday. These "legacy" costs spiraled out of control -- forcing entire industries near bankruptcy. Big Labor wants their glory-day deals honored regardless of present-day economic realities.
Unions are also demanding "workers' rights protections" in trade agreements -- to saddle foreign competitors with American-style labor deals. They also want "increased retirement protections" and "expanded health care" -- deliberately vague phrases that can encompass everything from more anti-Wal-Mart legislation to government-mandated retirement bennies.
The union mandate is for Democrats to royally stick it to American business -- never mind the impact. If more employers decide it's too expensive to keep jobs here or if the economy suffers, that's how the cookie crumbles. It's payoff time -- and Big Labor is first in line.
By the way, Perot Systems hiring now in Mexico. Ha, ha, ha...oh, yes.
Well, within days of losing the House in 1994, Drive-By Media journalists ran stories asking what Democrats had to do to regain power. Those stories intensified with each election cycle...and loss. Now the relentless 12-year campaign has paid off, so there's a new theme.
An AP article titled "Democrats' Two-Year Lease" asks, "Are their new majorities in the House and Senate...sustainable?" In other words, the new question is: What do Democrats have to do to stay in power now? (Not, "Will Republicans gain it back?")
AP says, quote, "[V]oters gave Democrats control of Congress but did not undergo an ideological conversion. The Democrats' success had more to do with anger toward President Bush, weariness over the war, and contempt for the corruption and scandal in Congress -- a confluence of negatives that became a political force." Yeah. A perfect storm of events swept Democrats into power: they didn't run on ideology; they have no mandate; and nobody -- not even their allies in the Drive-By Media -- knows what they stand for (other than opposition to Bush).
The AP warns: "As some Democrats begin looking to 2008 and beyond, the challenge is how to turn antipathy toward Republicans into affection for Democrats." Chuck Schumer says Democrats must try their "best to come up with a full vision and platform" for '08.
Rest assured, the Drive-Bys will do their part. Expect glowing reports about the economy, "the new direction" in Iraq, and every aspect of life -- now that they think they are back in charge! You've never heard about a country doing so well, folks!
Well, the election celebrations are continuing all over the place, folks, here and abroad. Al-Qaeda's guy in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, celebrated the news that Democrats succeeded in forcing Secretary Rumsfeld out. He gloated: "I tell the lame duck [Bush Administration] -- do not rush to escape as did your defense minister [did]." He praised the American people for electing Democrats (Democrats no doubt happy); he also promised that his fighters will never rest until they blow up the White House.
Iran weighed in, too. On Friday the big boss, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the Democrats election success an "obvious victory" for the Iranian nation. He crowed that the election "is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world."
Back home, outgoing Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chaffee now admits the only reason he stayed Republican was to secure federal money for his state. He calls the Democrat win good for America. The Republican Party dropped tons of money to help his campaign; one of Chaffee's final acts of thanks will be to cast the deciding committee vote to help Democrats kill the nomination of the brilliant John Bolton to be UN Ambassador.
New York Congressman Charlie Rangel -- incoming Ways and Means Chairman -- discussing tax policy with the New York Times, made it clear he intends to direct more of your tax dollars to his state, New York. "Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money...[besides,] who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?" Those southern hicks! (He didn't say that, but it's what he meant.)
So, folks, be happy out there! Democrats are back in charge with the Iranians and Al-Qaeda in Iraq helping them out!
Nancy, Harry – you set these expectations. Time to deliver!
Well, according to Reuters, America's pharmaceutical industry could, quote, "face an unfriendly climate in Congress if Democrats take control." A financial analyst is quoted as saying, "The drug industry faces the biggest risk" in the health-care sector if Democrats take over.
But I don't think that's true. Those most at risk in the health-care sector will be American patients. They'll see the quality of care decline and costs explode when Democrats push through big-government "solutions" -- which are designed to fix the problems created by their last fix.
Besides, if we're going to measure who faces the biggest risk, Big Pharma is going to have to stand in line. Democrats and their union allies are already waging war against "Big Retail" -- mainly Wal-Mart. And let's not forget Big Oil, Big Food, Big Technology, and every other "big business" that's not in their big hip pocket.
And when it comes to pondering a change of climate after the elections, American businesses aren't alone. According to the AP, "Arab governments are looking for change in US policy in the Middle East after the midterm elections, [they hope] a politically weakened President Bush will talk with Iran and Syria, show greater interest in the Palestinians, and find a way out of the crisis in Iraq."
Translation: Our enemies, like Iran and Syria, hope that Democrats win -- forcing Bush to fold like a cheap deck of cards, betray Israel, and cut and run from Iraq. Yep; the Arab view is that Big Democrats could mean a smaller, weaker America. And sadly, that's an accurate climate-change forecast.
On September 28th, ABC News broke the Mark Foley story. On September 29th, Foley apologized, resigned Congress, and went to rehab. But that wasn't good enough. Democrats demanded the Speaker of the House's resignation, too. Drive-By Media outlets breathlessly examined every salacious detail of every Foley e-mail and Instant Message. For weeks, it was all Foley, all the time.
At no point did media types agonize whether they had been "too hard" on Foley. Nor did they question why ABC News broke the story so close to the elections.
Now, contrast that with John Kerry's insults of America's military. Again. The wealthy aristocrat, who lied about our military committing atrocities in Vietnam, now accuses our troops in Iraq of being stupid!
First up for the defense: The Foley network, ABC News. Charlie Gibson said, "What happened today is an object lesson in how in this day and age, an idle political remark gets seized upon, becomes fodder for the talk shows, the blogs, and the politicians, and suddenly obscures discussion of all other issues." An ABC website article, dismissing Kerry's troop-slam as "the Kerry kerfuffle," found a journalism professor to complain: "Thanks to the Internet, all life is on the record now. Everything a politician says and does is public and the world can see in a second...that's life now." Well, boo-hoo! CNN -- in a segment entitled "What Kerry Meant" -- said they "hope" the story goes away in a day.
Now, the moment this story broke, I predicted the Drive-By Media would circle the wagons. So let's just call this the November No-Surprise...shall we?
After marching in front of television cameras and declaring, "I apologize to no one" for calling our troops in Iraq stupid, John Kerry released what's being labeled as an apology -- on his website. He "sincerely regrets" that you idiots misinterpreted his words.
When Kerry insulted our troops, my response was... he meant it! This is who Democrats are. Those words accurately reflect his and other liberals' mindset.
Associated Press writer John Solomon dug out 1972 comments from Kerry, opposing the creation of a volunteer military, which we now have. He said, "I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown...We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'"
So there you have it, folks; adding racism to the insult. The "black and the brown" might overrun the military, and -- being the poor, violent, undereducated rubes that they are -- they'll be predisposed to commit war crimes.
This disrespect of the military is widespread on the left. Last week, Seymour Hersh -- liberal Drive-By Media Pulitzer-Prize-winning icon -- told an audience in Canada: "There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq."
The unguarded words of liberals, my friends, will tell you exactly what they think and who they are -- and it is the main reason why they deserve to lose this election. By the way, will Kerry get a Purple Heart for shooting himself in the foot?
A Seattle school bus driver has provided the perfect metaphor for tomorrow's elections. The 43-year-old unidentified woman was driving a busload of middle-skrool kids on a skrool trip, when President Bush and Congressman Dave Reichert drove by in a motorcade. The kids excitedly waved at the President, and he waved back. The bus driver waved too; she flipped the President the bird. After boasting about it to coworkers, she was fired -- not for the political statement, but for displaying an obscene gesture in front of the kids. She has filed a union grievance, demanding her job back.
Now, I said this is a perfect metaphor -- and it is. For the last six years, liberals have given America, and this President, the finger. They opposed the tax cuts that invigorated this economy. They oppose the reforming of entitlements -- like Social Security -- that threaten future generations with economic ruin. They oppose combating illegal immigration. They slandered and obstructed well-qualified judicial appointments.
Their conduct during the war is appalling, of course. They have leaked our nation's security secrets, shown terrorist propaganda of the enemy killing our troops, they've opposed wiretapping terrorists, bragged about temporarily "killing" the Patriot Act, and even now are working to thwart military tribunals for terrorists. A lib attorney who represents Gitmo prisoners threatens: "We will put the United States on trial for this."
Yet, with this middle finger in our face, they want their old job back -- so that they can give us the finger again. And there's an answer to this, folks: Use your finger! In the voting booth! Tomorrow!
Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, delivered his election forecast in an overseas lecture. Typically. Republicans will lose the House, he said, because the Bush Administration has shown a "snarly and angry face" to the world. We exported our anger, fear, and hatred after 9/11. Armitage said: "The message, I think, from the electorate is that fear doesn't work -- we've got to go back to what is traditionally ours...back to those things that made us important in the eyes of the world." (And made him important; not us.)
Nothing about this is accurate, folks. Our response to 9/11 has been determined, measured, and resolved -- understated, if anything. The enemy frames this as a "holy war," a jihad against the West; their goal is to exterminate "infidels": Jews, Christians, moderate Muslims, and unbelievers. We haven't responded by targeting Islam. We don't behead civilians at random, or plant bombs in mosques, shopping centers, weddings, or funerals.
If you're looking for anger or hate, look to the left: The Cindy Sheehans, the Michael Moores, the Bush-assassination moviemakers, the war-secret-leaking New York Times, terrorist-video-propagandizing CNN, the Drive-By Media's nonstop negative coverage of the Iraq war. And perhaps guys like you, Mr. Armitage, -- who leaked Valerie Plame's identity and kept silent while others were falsely accused.
Today, Saddam the tyrant faces justice, in spite of a terrorist-led insurgency. In Afghanistan and Iraq, freedom is taking root. That used to be important in the eyes of the world. But hatred of Bush prevents liberals from seeing it -- and also prevents them from accurately predicting elections.
Before the votes were counted, the Drive-Bys were forecasting gloom for the remainder of President Bush's term. Yesterday morning, AP White House Correspondent Terrence Hunt declared Bush a "lame duck" who's fast losing influence. "Time and history are not on his side," wrote Mr. Hunt.
To support this, Hunt interviewed...ex-Clinton staffers. John Podesta, former chief of staff, predicted the White House "won't be a happy place to work [for] the next couple of years." Leon Panetta, another Clinton ex-chief of staff, speculated: "If there's nothing but gridlock these last two years, mark my words: [Bush] is not going to have a very high place in history in terms of his presidency."
Now, the truth is this: Unlike Bill Clinton, George W. Bush is content to leave his place in history...to history. He's focused on fighting and winning the war on terror. In future years the Iraqi and Afghan people will write their own legacies. Mideast leaders are already worried that Saddam's death sentence is giving ideas to other oppressed Arab populations.
Iran and North Korea are still threatening to nuke up; Islamofascist terrorists are still plotting to annihilate us. So despite what Democrats say, nobody can predict the next two years. As with September 11th, unforeseen events will shape history in unforeseen ways. So before you buy into the "lame duck" theory, remember: one of the most consistent things about the Drive-By Media, Washington's pundit class, and former Clinton Administration officials is how consistently they are wrong.
Well, as Americans woke up to the news that the Democrat juggernaut seized control of the House of Representatives, we also got other news. Saddam Hussein's right-hand-man, his former second-in-command, issued orders for Sunni insurgents...to stand down; to cease their bloody attacks.
The orders were delivered by Izzat Imrahim al-Douri, a fugitive with a $10 million pricetag on his head. Although it got very little coverage, Saddam also called for an end to the insurgency.
Wow! What timing here, folks! Thank goodness terrorists don't pay attention to our political process, eh?
Ever quick to sample reaction from "the Arab Street," the Drive-By Media somehow found Iraqis who "voiced hope" that the Democrats will change US foreign policy. "I'm glad the Democrats won and the Republicans lost. I hope this will change the Bush policy in the Islamic world and especially in Iraq," said one Shiite Muslim.
A prominent anti-American Muslim cleric in Thailand -- no doubt auditioning for a Drive-By Media gig -- provided this analysis: "The Republicans lost in the election because the American voters are now fed up and bored with the war. The American people now realize that Bush is the big liar."
Well, we're still waiting for congratulatory post-election analysis from Mullah Omar and Mr. bin Laden. Due to circumstances beyond their immediate control, they won't be able to send a personal delegation to the hand-off ceremonies in Washington. But rest assured, my friends, they'll both be there -- smiling -- in spirit!
I'll just summarize to say that ghosts and psychics aren't what people think either of them are. Christians should actually learn the truth about this stuff. If they aren't what they appear to be, then they must be something else. What are we they?
Even among people who consider themselves generally pro-life, many believe that if a child is concieved in rape, the mother should be allowed to have an abortion. These people are wrong. This is why:
Abortion is wrong because every child has a right to LIVE. Rape is a terrible crime committed against a woman. It is an experience no human being should ever endure. I cannot imagine the pain and terror these women must feel.
When a child is concieved in rape, many argue for abortion in order to spare the woman any more pain. A pregnancy is physically and emotionally taxing. Hasn't she gone through enough already?
Life is the best choice for mother, child and society. Pro-lifers do not deny that the pregnancy will be difficult. That it will be a reminder for nine months of the terrible events that led to the child's conceptions. But that child is a child just the same.
None of us is better than a person concieved in rape and none of us has any more right to be here than they do. They had no control over the events that led to their conception. They did not ask to be rape babies. Their lives are precious and valuable. They have a right to live.
Are women so fragile that they must kill innocent children to eliminate the physical, and emotional burden of dealing with them? A victim of rape who aborts her unborn child has allowed her rapist to turn her into a killer. We are better than that. We are stronger than that.
What sort of society promotes abortion, the direct and intentional killing of innocent unborn children, as an acceptable solution to any problem?
Abortion will not un-do a rape. Abortion will not help the victim heal. Abortion won't even end motherhood. She will still be a mom, but she will be the mother of a dead child instead of a living one.
The question really is, does an innocent child deserve to be executed for his father's crime?
When we first started work I discovered my co-worker's weblog The Emancipator. Brian Koss also made two new weblogs after his termination, in fact yesterday.
We seem to have a slight verbal backtrack from Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi. AP reports: “Recognizing Congress’s limitation, Pelosi said that when it comes to Iraq, ‘it’s not about the Democrats in Congress forcing the President’s hand.’”
Oh really? That’s news! The entire thrust of the antiwar campaign has been to elect Democrats who’d force Bush to get us out of the Iraq “quagmire” – now.
So that’s the expectation — and not just here. Democrats promised the world…and the world believed. For instance: “In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as ‘the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world’ and gloated that they left the Bush administration ‘seriously weakened.’”
Hugo Chavez called the election a repudiation of Bush’s Iraq policies, and said he was filled with optimism over the Democrat win. In France, Dominique somebody-or-other at the Institute on International Relations said: “There is less White House in America now, and a little less America in the world.”
The money quote is from Iraq. A political ally of Muqtada al Sadr – Mookie –said: “The vote shows the Iraqi and American people are of one mind about withdrawing U.S. troops. We hope the Democrats don’t forget their campaign promises. If they don’t, we will deal with them in a brotherly way once the last American soldier pulls out from Iraq.”
Nancy, Harry – you set these expectations. Time to deliver!
It includes the documentation for the camera and the software, including a Basic User Guide for the Camera, an Advanced User Guide for same, and starter stuff for the software.
It's got good Conservativism, fine principles, and it is most relevent in Davis, California, but still works in the rest of California, quite well, and stands pretty good everywhere else for all that it counts.
I was half-watching Braveheart on Bravo just now and in the middle of a line from William Wallace to Love Interest #1 in which he speaks in a (miscellaneous) foreign language where subtitles pop up (as subtitles are neccessary to understand the line and it's a line we the viewer are meant to understand), an advertisement materializes in the bottom-left corner of the screen during the program. It quickly invades the entire bottom of the screen in one horizontal strip growing high enough to totally obliterate the subtitles and in fact cover all of the subtitles. If it were not for some letters at the right-most extent of the screen one would actually be unaware that those subtitles ever existed.
Of course, it would be illogical that they never existed given that the other [foreign] speech that Wallace utters has subtitled provided. People thinking illogically would not catch it, but as I said we are meant to read the line, understand the spoken words with the written words as proxy and most importantly we know from this that we are meant to see Braveheart on DVD or VHS if we are meant to see it at all.
Mind you that Braveheart has all the historical accuracy of a Paul Bunyan tale told at the fireside. It's a darn entertaining flick, filled with hack and slash and violence and partial nudity and most importantly a right-hilarious speech which is good enough to stir me into fighting the English. That's really not the point. The point is that people watch television for mindless fun, mindless entertainment, and basically entertainment that one need not earn or work too hard to receive. In return for entertainment we suffer through advertisements placed between the actual programming, within assigned intervals and unfortunately programming itself is broken so we see television commercials because people, agencies, companies, purchase these periods of broadcast space and that money is why the programming exists at all. Television advertisements pay for television programming. It's capitalism and it is even trade and we recieve moments of entertainment requested in exchange for wierd stuff foisted upon us, be it entertaining, annoying, or boring. Since people find ways to duck that shite as they please the programmers in television decided to increase the amounts of advertising. There is only so much time existing away from programming. Rather than cut programming in terms of time (and that is too obvious) why wouldn't they do what they have done? Periodically they consume space on the screen of what we watch, and want to see entirely (presumably), and thus we are unable to see something in its entireity because quite certainly part of what programming's creators meant us to see is now covered with wierd trash that exists as the opposite of timeless.
In a way it's meant to break the purity of a recorded show. What can't we watch over and over again? Surely the same program will not always be on the next Thursday at 10/9 central related to the moment right now?
Certainly if this stuff is to be invasive shouldn't it be smarter? Why put up a bit that could break a plotpoint? Once you destroy the atmosphere, of course, who worries about plot?
at 7:48pm on November 29th, 2006
at 4:35am
at 9:34am
1. To everyone that thinks homosexuality is a disorder, I would like to see scientific evidence from a reputable psychologist.
2. Almost everyone that is in America today is here because somebody immigrated here.
3. Is it just me, or it it strange that only certain racial demographics are given a hard time when it comes to immigration? There is obviously a problem that runs deeper than someone being "illegal", there is a underlying current that has been present in our society since its inception, and the current is "rascism".
4. Ok, The Young Americans for Fascism have a right to invite their speaker to the University because America has a free speech policy.Everyone who disagrees with Mr. Tancredo and his followers has a right to counterprotest becuase of the above mentioned free speech policy.
5. I urge everyone to go out tonight and ask the difficult questions. Expose Mr. Tancredo as the eurocentric, warped fraud that he is.
at 10:56am
at 2:15pm
Where's they go?!
Must be intellectual cowards, wiping them out..