Friday, September 22, 2006

Chavez right on one thing: Suggests the United Nations be moved to Venezuela.


Yesterday's featured clown was Venezuelan strongman Hugo Cha vez - who took to the floor of the General Assembly to rip President Bush as "the devil."

Predictably, the applause was significant.

This, just a day after that crackpot from Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fingered the United States for just about every problem under the sun.

Also to applause.

It makes you wonder: Given that America coughs up some $1.3 billion a year to keep the U.N. & Co. afloat, how much would it have to pay to have the organization shut down?

It would be well worth every penny.

Honestly, why should Americans pony up that kind of cash (Washington is Turtle Bay's top sugar daddy) to fund a forum for anti-American leftist kooks like Chavez or an unhinged, suspected terrorist from the '79 Iranian hostage crisis like Ahmadinejad? (And why should New Yorkers pay to live with endless traffic jams every fall?)

On Tuesday, the world body gave the Iranian president a prime-time televised forum in which to . . . bash America.

And lie through his teeth.

Then, yesterday, Chavez performed Act II, insulting Bush and railing against U.S. "domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world."

That wasn't all, of course.

He charged that "hegemonistic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very existence of the human species." Whatever that might mean.

And he demanded that Bush be hauled before a court on charges of genocide.


U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, to his everlasting credit, refused even to dignify Chavez's slurs - what he called "comic-strip" diplomacy - with a response.

(Bolton did defend Chavez's right to state his views, though, whether at the United Nations or in Central Park - adding that it's "too bad the people of Venezuela don't have free speech." Will somebody remind us why the Senate is giving Bolton such a tough time with confirmation?)

On his worst day, of course, Chavez is a cut above his buddy from Tehran - whose tirade not only libeled America, but championed the elimination of Israel while denying the Holocaust.

Same-old, same-old, you say? True.

But Turtle Bay is supposed to be a serious place, where serious leaders meet to resolve serious problems.

Like, say, Iran's nuclear threat.

Alas, the Security Council's Aug. 31 deadline for Tehran to stop enriching uranium or face possible sanctions has come and gone - with Iran vowing to keep the program going.

The council's response? French President Jacques Chirac actually backed off sanctions Monday, arguing for yet more "dialogue."
On a more mundane (though no less critical) level, the world body can't find the will to send in troops to protect the Sudan's war-torn Darfur region - just as it failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide in the '90s.

(On the other hand, U.N. officials did manage to pull off the biggest scandal in the history of the world - the $64 billion Oil-for-Food heist.)
But let's give Chavez credit for one good idea: He suggested the United Nations be moved to Venezuela.

Hey, there you go!

We'll pay for the moving van. And then Donald Trump can build condos with a great East River view.

Hear, Hear!!!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

The al-Qaeda Master Plan

Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design

A very interesting article by a Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein interviewing top lieutenants of al-Qaeda including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in which they layout their long term plan for conquering the world.

Hussein says al-Qaeda views its struggle as a long-term war with seven distinct phases.

Phase one is the "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims worldwide following the September 11, 2001, suicide attacks. The aim of the attacks was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby mobilising the radicals.

Phase two is "Opening Eyes", the period we are now in and which should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the "Western conspiracy" aware of the "Islamic community" as al-Qaeda continues to mould its secret battalions ready for battle.

Phase three, "Arising and Standing Up", should last from 2007 to 2010, with increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and arch-enemy Israel.

Phase four, between 2010 and 2013, will see the downfall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Phase five will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared — between 2013 and 2016.

Phase six, from 2016 on, will be a period of "total confrontation". As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the "Islamic army" will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has so often been predicted by al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden.

Phase seven, the final stage, is described as "definitive victory".
Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "One-and-a-half billion Muslims", the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war should not last longer than two years.

Imagine this is your city in less than 20 years!

The caliphate will undoubtedly succeed! This global movement consisting of militant Islamist towing the radical Jihadi line is not confined to a handful of whacko’s hiding out in the caves of Pakistan, carrying out the occasional bombing!

According to this, the way I see it, they have a long term well thought out plan.

I have a feeling part of that plan included using all means at their disposal, including using our media and politics, to garner outright support and or lull as many people in the west as possible to sleep making them think they are a musicale, insignificant portion of Islam and won’t amount to much.

Seems to be working!!!


President Putin is the one to keep a close eye on, he continues to use Russian energy (most notably natural gas) as a political weapon to regain influence throughout Europe and the Middle East.

Notice how he’s stringently opposed to sanctioning Iran!

Putin (a throwback to soviet hardliners) continues to use sledgehammer diplomacy as he did with Ukraine to gobble up all of the natural gas fields he can get his hands on.

Not a true ally in my view!

I would be interested to know to what extent Putin has exerted his influence (behind the scenes) in the deals between India and Pakistan and the development of a natural gas pipeline! India optimistic about IPI gas pipeline: Deora

Watch for more on Putin and natural gas in the coming months and years. I think Dick Morris is on this story as well.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Israel Warns: Few Months to Avoid Nuclear Iran

Foreign Minister Livni tells CNN’s Late Edition ‘the crucial moment is not the day of the bomb, but the day in which Iran will master the enrichment’; adds: I believe that this is time for sanctions

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Sunday that the world may have as little as “A few months” to avoid a nuclear Iran and called for sanctions.

Livni, whose country is the only Middle East power possessing nuclear weapons, said she did not want to identify a point of “No return” in the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program.

The Iranians, she said, “Are trying to send a message that it’s too late, you can stop your attempts because it’s too late. It’s not too late. They have a few more months,” She said.

“The world cannot afford a nuclear Iran,” Livni said. “I believe that this is time for sanctions.”

Iran, whose president last year called for Israel to be “Wiped off the map,” denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Anti-U.S. allies back Iran nukes


Anti-U.S. allies back Iran nukes

Developing countries yesterday wrapped up a multinational summit with North Korea charging that U.S. threats drove it to acquire deterrent atomic weapons and Iran winning solid support for its nuclear ambitions.

Iran, Venezuela and Cuba joined North Korea in leading efforts to forge an anti-U.S. alliance. Summit leaders, in a statement on Iran, "reaffirmed the basic and inalienable right of all states to develop research, production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes."

They warned that any attack or threat against any nuclear facility used for peaceful purposes was a violation of international law.

North Korea took the opportunity to assail the United States for unilateral actions against individual countries and called for a revitalization of the 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

"The United States is attempting to deprive other countries of even their legitimate right to peaceful nuclear activities," said North Korea's second-ranking leader, Kim Yong-nam.

Mr. Kim blamed Washington for "threatening Korea using all sorts of maneuvers, accusing it of being part of an 'Axis of Evil.'"


Soros Compares President Bush To Nazis; Again

Soros on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer

I hope Soros and the Dean wing of their party keeps focusing on this foolishness through November and into 2008. They really don't get it, You have to show "the folks" how you're going to do it better, hatred and bitter name calling isn't going to get it done!

Sorry for not embeding the video Technical Difficulties...

Friday, September 15, 2006


Muslim fury grows at Pope's speech

The furore over comments made by Pope Benedict about the Islamic concept of Holy War continues to grow. Today British Muslims joined in, fiercely criticising his remarks.

The pontiff was accused of falling into "the trap of bigots and racists" with the comments he made on a visit to Germany.

Muslims must do more to integrate, says Archbishop

Last night Vatican officials were scrambling to defend the comments, saying the Pope had never intended to offend Muslims.

During a speech, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who said the prophet Mohammed had brought "things only evil and inhuman".

But Britain's Ramadhan Foundation, a youth organisation based in Rochdale, reacted angrily to the comments, comparing the Pope unfavourably to his predecessor John Paul II.

In a statement it said: "If the Pope wanted to attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad teachings he could have been brave enough to say it personally without quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor.

So the Pope quoting a 14th century Byzantine Emperor’s critique of Islam in an academic lecture is so ofensive it inspired RAGE! So much for the religion of peace!?!

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Dems Vs. Wal-Mart

Is the name of George Will’s new piece in which he speaks on the Far left or secular progressives views on Wal-Mart and class- politics.
Liberals think their campaign against Wal-Mart is a way of introducing the subject of class into America's political argument, and they are more correct than they understand. Their campaign is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets, because consumer sovereignty results in the masses making messes. Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots and announce — yes, announce — that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by . . . liberals.

Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald's (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?

No. The current issue of the American Prospect, an impeccably progressive magazine, carries a full-page advertisement denouncing something responsible for "lies, deception, immorality, corruption, and widespread labor, human rights and environmental abuses" and for having brought "great hardship and despair to people and communities throughout the world."

What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of servings to Americans of the company's products each week: 2.5 billion).

When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas, liberals do not rush to read a book titled "What's the Matter With Liberals' Nominees?" No, the book they turned into a bestseller is titled "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Notice a pattern here?

George Will is 100% on target on this one! Recently James Carville said something to the effect that if the dems didn’t win in November it would have to seriously reevaluate the core of the party, the parties morals and the parties policies. My advice would be not to wait your party has been hijacked by far left activist wackos who are driving your party down a hole you may not recover from. A strong opposition party with realistic alternative ideas is a good thing and something we have lacked for a long time!

Iran: We can better lead the world

Ahmadinejad: We can better lead the world

Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says nuclear standoff resolvable by dialogue Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday that his country’s nuclear standoff with the West can be solved through dialogue, while calling for unspecified “New conditions” in negotiations.

Ahmedinejad, on an hours-long stopover in Senegal en route to Cuba for a summit of the Nonaligned Movement, said the debate over Iranian nuclear enrichment could be solved peacefully.

"We’re partisans of dialogue and negotiation. We believe that we can resolve our problems in a space of dialogue and justice - together,” he told reporters. "I must announce, we’re available, we’re ready for new conditions” in talks, he said without elaborating. Ahmadinejad spoke in Farsi, with his comments interpreted into French.

"We believe the on the basis of law and justice, we can better lead the world,” he said at an early-morning briefing, amid a powerful electrical storm that brought power cuts to the conference hall, before flying onto Cuba. Ahmadenijad earlier met with President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, a heavily Muslim and deeply impoverished West African nation.

Ahmadinejad last visited West Africa in July, when he addressed an African summit in Gambia, declaring solidarity with the impoverished continent and lashing out at the West.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Reading between the B.S. Amaneedajihad is saying as soon as we destroy Israel and the U.S. we'll be runing the show.

I feel so much better now!

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Path To 9/11 4 Critics, 4 Agendas

The critics of the ABC film "The Path To 9/11" had their own reasons to protest the film; Their own failures and missteps in an attack which was planned and perpetrated on their watch.

Richard Ben-Veniste

A Democratic congressional staffer during the Clinton impeachment proceedings and a 9/11 Commission member who conducted the infamous inquisition of Condoleezza Rice over a presidential daily briefing that allegedly warned President Bush of the attack.

Ben-Veniste asking loaded questions based on false premises, and not letting Rice answer, hinted that the Commission was less interested in looking for the cause of 9/11 than an opportunity to blame the Bush administration for it.

The New York Times quoted Ben-Veniste as saying "As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission's findings the way they had."

But as most of us know the writers of the movie must have actually read the report.

Richard Clarke

It says that on Dec. 4, 1999, the National Security Council's counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan in the last week of 1999. "In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack al-Qaida facilities in the week before Jan. 1, 2000, Berger wrote, 'no,' " the commission found.

The report also says Berger was presented with plans to take action against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida four times, the spring of 1998, June 1999, December 1999 and August 2000. Each time, Berger was an obstacle to action. Berger claims the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions,"

Berger has always been an obstacle to finding the truth about the prelude to 9/11. We haven’t forgotten the he was the guy caught at the National Archives stuffing top secret material related to the 9/11 Commission inquiry into his socks and pants. Some of which were "mistakenly" destroyed. Maybe one of those documents was the Clarke “NO” memo?

Jamie Gorelick

The former Clinton administration deputy attorney general said recently that she "had a problem if you make claims that the TV program is based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission" because the film was "contradicted by our findings."

Gorelick was a participant in the very events that the 9/11 Commission investigated. She also hammered Rice accusing her office of failing to "connect the dots,"

Gorelick knew that she was the one who issued the memo ordering the FBI to erect a legal wall between itself and the CIA, preventing them from sharing information.

Gorelick should have been a 9/11 Commission witness rather than panel member!

I guess the Dems forgot Gorelick was the architect of the policy that established a wall between intel and law enforcement making "connecting the dots" before 9-11 virtually impossible.

Gorelick was the author of the 1995 memo that helped establish what Ashcroft testified was the "single greatest structural cause" for Sept. 11 — "the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents."

Madeline Albright

Clinton's secretary of state insists the film "depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred."

Albright, who spent much of the Clinton administration helping appease North Korea into becoming a nuclear power, certainly never decided that bin Laden should be killed or captured.

In Richard Miniter's book, "Losing Bin Laden," Clarke tells of a meeting after the USS Cole was bombed in a Yemeni harbor. When the subject of retaliating against bin Laden came up, Albright was more concerned about the reaction of world opinion to an attack on Muslims, and the impact of such a strike on the Mideast peace process.

According to Miniter, Clarke recalled Albright saying, "Bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time." Or killing bin Laden prior to 9/11?

The fact is indecision and the lack of resolve on the part of the Clinton administration, repeatedly missed opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden!

And the “The Path To 9/11” got it right!!!

Iran president more dangerous than Hitler!

Bibi: Iran president more dangerous than Hitler

Likud chairman tells international counter terrorism conference ‘Hitler went out on global campaign first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get nuclear arms first - therefore it is much more dangerous’

Knesset member Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be more dangerous than Adolf Hitler.

Speaking at the sixth International Counter Terrorism Conference, organized by the Interdisciplinary Center's (IDC) Institute for Counter Terrorism, Netanyahu told the audience: "Al-Qaeda can't develop nuclear weapons, while the militant Shiite movement is galloping forward towards developing nuclear terror."

You know my view of this maniac is the same as BIBI’s. If we don’t do something soon we’ll all be sorry later…

Minnesota Democrat Could Be 1st Muslim in Congress

Minnesotan May Be Congress' First Muslim

State lawmaker Keith Ellison didn't let questions about his past slow down his campaign to become the first Muslim in Congress.

On Tuesday, voters responded to his liberal message calling for peace, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and universal health care. He beat three contenders in the Democratic primary in a Minneapolis-area district long dominated by his party.

"You're not on your own," Ellison told supporters at an African restaurant in a speech that had the call-and-response of a revival meeting. "We are with you. We do these things together, y'all, and we don't let nobody break us apart."

Ellison, a 43-year-old criminal defense lawyer who converted to Islam as a college student, overcame questions about late parking tickets, overdue taxes and his past ties to the Nation of Islam. He has since denounced black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and was endorsed by a Minneapolis Jewish newspaper. He has also pledged to improve his personal record-keeping.

Leaving his religion out of it this is just what we need, another liberal Democrat who wants to raise your taxes but doesn’t pay his! Let alone his grasp of the English language leaves a lot to be desired! Great...

Monday, September 11, 2006

A 9/11 Tribute to Elsy Carolina Osorio Oliva

Elsy Carolina Osorio Oliva 27, of New York, N.Y. junior translation engineer, General Telecom At World Trade Center.

Each time someone visits this page , a flower is added to the bottom as a small sign that someone remembers this person and wants to honor and appreciate their memory. Please take time to visit.

Elsy is a women I never met but she along with everyone who gave there life that fateful day, is someone I’ll never forget!

To honor her I would like to offer a collection of poems I’ve found to be of some comfort and inspiration.


By Richard D. Martens

From this dim-lit porch my gaze implores

....Beyond the boundaries of these shores,

And seeks that cove chaste covenants

Bequeathed as scatheless harbor.

Where anchor'd taut I'd face no foe,

For augurs proffered that no woe

Should visit there upon that place

Where Angels sing with ardor.

Still the light shines true for just the few

who reach that radiant harbor.

That lucent shore; where soul's delights

Do liken to the feverish flights that,

Flitting midst a child's dream,

Excite a Godly chord.

As child-like must one meet the tryst,

For wavering now would but divest

The seeker of his sanctitude,

And thus, his blest reward.

Leave now the earth give way, for it wields no sway 'pon

the sparrows that circle the shore!

Now, dolefully, a drawn child's plea rips

O'er the dark, dissonant sea

And hurtles toward the alien void

That veils it from its fate.

A plea so urgent that it bores

Into the holds of teary scores,

Whose wanting ears tilt toward the stars

That monk-like whisper w a i t.

W A I T.

...wait? faith is staunch;

the keel that buoys me 'bove the fray;

that sails me through the evil days

that TOIL AND F E T T E R ME !

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and, yes. . . . .the horizon lurks. . .

The porch lamp flickers - the vision fades,

While the venders of this world invade

My wisp of beach - bereft of claim -

And take it as their score.

I'll not render unto them their bill;

Nor cede them now my truest will:

To sing with Angels Joyous paeans

By the Light from distant shore.


By Joseph Campbell

It is only by going down into the abyss

that we recover the treasures of life.

Where you stumble,

there lies your treasure.

The very cave you are afraid to enter

turns out to be the source of

what you were looking for.

A Better Place

By Kirsti A. Dyer

Cry for me no more

the many tears of sadness

My time in this world was over

and it came for me to pass.

Bring the photos of old time

and see them not with tear-filled eyes

But with eyes of joy and laughter

and smile once more with me.

Know that I am in a better place

one without disease

without hatred and without death

This kingdom I now call home

I wait here for you

When your time comes to pass

to ease the transition

from the old to the new.

Cry for me no more.

Remember only the laughter.

For I am in another realm

And I wait to see you again.

Elsy Carolina Osorio Oliva, may the lord continue to bless you and your family, as we continue to remember and honor your memory.


This tribute is part of the 2996 project

Friday, September 08, 2006

Multi-Purpose Slate for ABC

Thanks to TS at Seixon with a Hat Tip to MICHELLE MALKIN
We have this beauty:

If I were the head of ABC, I'd yank the series, citing "chilly wind-like" fears, angry Democrats were planning to revoke the broadcasting license (ahem - censorship- ahem) and toss that steaming pile of crap right back on their laps...BUT , JOM commenter "MayBee" has an even better idea:

Any scene Clinton objects to, they should black out with a screen that says "The Democrats in Congress have threatened to pull our license if we show this scene."

Then at the end, they should run a cartoon of Sandy Berger stuffing documents down his pants, and Madeliene Albright doing her toast with Kim Jong "I'm So Ronery" Il.

So, ever the public service minded at Seixon, we have created a multi-purpose slate for ABC to insert into every scene the champions of free speech nutroots or poor Bill Clinton objects too (because, from the looks of this massive jihad they are waging , it appears ABC will be using this slate quite a bit):

Democrats threaten to pull Disney's broadcast license

Democrats urge ABC to withdraw 9/11 movie

Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."
Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program."

Chronicling events leading to the September 11 attacks, the movie suggests the Clinton administration was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to deal properly with the gathering threat posed by Islamic militants.
The furor comes as Democrats and Republicans jockey for political position in advance of the November 7 congressional elections over who can best secure the United States from another attack.

It totally blows me away the way liberals have absolutely no objections when history is completely fabricated or creative license is taken when it fits their world view or mind-set. But when the same thing is done with an opposite view then censorship is OK and the use of threats and political pressure are warranted. The liberal Democrats have once again seriously damaged this country with their blatant disregard for free speech!

Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions

This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate!

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.


Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

Yep you read it correctly the democratic leadership just threatened to pull Disney’s broadcasting license if they don’t change or cancel the showing of this mini series! Hypocrisy does not even come close to describing the audacity of this move by the liberals to censor art that they don’t agree with! I guess they couldn’t find any books to burn!!!

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Political jujitsu

After further examination of the president’s speech yesterday and the subsequent commentary afterward, I have to say this was a clever piece of Political jujitsu on this administrations part!

Talk about catching your opponent off balance, in one fail swoop the president effectively took the issues of military tribunals, the al-Qaeda bill of rights and secret prisons and flipped them back on his detractors.

Not only did he flip those issues, two months out of the election, the president, in a brilliant move, has moved the focus off of Iraq and onto the topic of detainees and how to deal with them in the fight to keep America safe! This will no doubt be the news buzz and what everyone is talking about right up to election day!

The president even had, what some would call “Star Journalists”, giving him kudos and some very unusal respect.

ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

Charles Gibson, overlooking White House: “George, we've talked in the last couple of nights of the political implications of the series of speeches that the President is making on the war on terror. Is this one political, too?”

George Stephanopoulos, on Capitol Hill: “Well, it certainly will have some political consequences again. And it was really interesting Charlie, here the administration took an admission, and a mandate from the Supreme Court, and turned it into a powerful political statement. That's some clever jujitsu there. And what we can see now is that the White House clearly has a very well thought out disciplined plan to own the air waves on these national security issues, at least through the anniversary of 9/11.”

CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

Katie Couric: “I know, Bob, you believe this is a major change in policy for the Bush administration, but the President has gone about this quite artfully. How so?”

Bob Schieffer, from DC: “Well, he was very deft in how he did this, Katie. And there's no question about it. The President stressed the benefits from this program, he talked about how much information they'd gotten from these people, he said that the CIA had never tortured any of these people. He never used the term 'prison.' This is a real change for the administration.”

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams:

Brian Williams: “The White House is openly wanting to take ownership of the entire issue of national security. If you're the Democrats, what can you do about this?”

Tim Russert, at the anchor desk with Williams: “They remember after September 11th the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a Democratic idea. The President opposed it. He then took it, jujitsu, and drove it and ran against Democrats in the midterm elections, of 2002, successfully. The Democrats today said, the leader of the Senate, 'five years later we haven't had a conviction yet. Finally, Mr. President.' Nancy Pelosi said, 'let's go work together in a bipartisan way.' Then she said, 'what about Donald Rumsfeld and what about Iraq? And the last time we saw a picture of Donald Rumsfeld, he was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand.' We're going to have the administration talking about the war on terror, Democrats talking about Iraq. But the Democrats realize they should try to reach some accommodation because they don't want to be on the losing end of this debate.”

Bravo Mr. President, BRAVO!

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Iranian president issues veiled threat to Bush...

Amaneedajihad issues veiled threat to Bush, official news agency reports
Iran's official news agency reported Wednesday what appeared to be a veiled threat from hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush.

During the same speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad reiterated a proposal from last month to debate Bush, suggesting on Wednesday that the United Nations would be the ideal venue, his official web site reported.

The official Islamic Republic News Agency said Ahmadinejad had warned in a speech that anyone who refused to accept an invitation would suffer a bad fate. It said the statement was a reference to Bush's rejection of an invitation by Ahmadinejad for a televised debate.

The official news agency did not provide any exact quote from Ahmadinejad containing those words, but reported that he said them. It quoted Ahmadinejad directly as saying: "This is not a threat by me. This is a threat by the entire universe. The universal trend is against suppression."

< Action Taken: >Deploy sniper teams ASAP!!!

Interesting Illegal-Immigration Statistics

Here are some statistics from the Los Angeles Times:

40 percent of all workers are working for cash and not paying taxes. Why would they want to be legal and pay taxes? They would be able to start bringing the rest of their families to the USA.

75 percent of people on L.A.'s most-wanted list are illegal aliens.
Over two-thirds of all births are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by the taxpayers.

Nearly 25 percent of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally.

Over 300,000 illegals are living in garages.

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegals from south of the border.

Nearly 60 percent of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

Of the 10 million people in Los Angeles County, 5.1 million speak English and 3.9 million speak Spanish.

21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish speaking.

More statistics:

Less than 2 percent of illegals are picking crops but 29 percent are on welfare.

Over 70 percent of the U.S. annual population growth (over 90 percent of California, Florida and New York) are from immigration.

29 percent of inmates in the federal prisons are illegal aliens.

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative.

They also send between about $15 billion back to Mexico to assist their families and prop up the corrupt Mexican government that keeps most of its citizens in poverty. How about a revolt in their own country!

It cost Los Angeles $276 million in welfare costs for 100,000 children of illegal aliens.

This is the best Real-time Immigration Statistics site I’ve seen so far and the numbers are staggering!!!

I just don’t think people understand the real impact this is having!

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Sen. Obama and American Protectionism

Larry elder has a great article about Senator Obama Defending American protectionism on his trip to Kenya called: OBAMA GOES TO AFRICA, DEFENDS AMERICAN PROTECTIONISM

On his four-nation tour, Sen. Obama -- to highlight the tragedy of AIDS in Africa -- planned to take an AIDS test. He criticized Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, whose forced land redistribution caused that nation to plummet into poverty and starvation. Obama even properly attacked Kenyan corruption. "If the people cannot trust their government," said Obama, "to do the job for which it exists -- to protect them and promote their common welfare -- then all else is lost. That is why the struggle of corruption is one of the great struggles of our time."

But a reporter raised an issue about which Obama possesses more influence -- dealing with American protectionism that hurts Kenyan farmers. Why, asked the reporter, do Americans retain farm subsidies and tariffs that prevent Kenyan farmers from competing in the world's biggest market?

Obama's response? He talked about the soybean farmers in Illinois, and said, "It's important to me to be sure I'm looking out for their interests. It's part of my job." Absolutely incredible.

Larry was responding to an article from all Africa entitled Kenya: Village Beats the Drums for Returning Son he also points to some very good statistics and the way he thinks the senator should have answered the question. Basically blowing a chance to be a leader on this issue instead of talking about soybean farmers Larry would have liked the senator to respond this way:

What should Obama have said? "You're right. America is a rich nation. You are a poor one. Poor nations generally turn into rich ones by starting out with agriculture. So when I get back to Washington, I'm going to tell my colleagues about the devastating real-world effect American protectionism has on poor nations.

I have to agree with Mr. Elder here, not that I expect any different, from Sen. Obama. I believe there is a strong case to be made for ending protectionism in this country by looking to New Zealand as the model. From the CATO institute

Save the Farms -- End the Subsidies
by Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven

This nation has got to eat," President Bush said in a recent speech supporting the $170 billion farm subsidy bill pending before Congress. In the new federal budget, Bush is quoted as saying that "our farmers and ranchers are the most efficient producers in the world . . . we're really good at it."

Does the government really need to subsidize such an efficient industry, then? Do we need farming subsidies in order for Americans to eat?

Evidence from New Zealand indicates that the answer is an emphatic no on both counts. In 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies, which then consisted of 30 separate production payments and export incentives. This was a truly striking policy action, because New Zealand's economy is roughly five times more dependent on farming than is the U.S. economy, measured by either output or employment. Subsidies in New Zealand accounted for more than 30 percent of the value of production before reform, somewhat higher than U.S. subsidies today. And New Zealand farming was marred by the same problems caused by U.S. subsidies, including overproduction, environmental degradation and inflated land prices.

Subsidy elimination in New Zealand was swift and sure. There was no extended phaseout of farm payments, as was promised but not delivered under U.S. farm reforms in 1996. Instead, New Zealand's government simply offered one-time "exit grants" to those who wanted to leave farming when subsidies ended.

New Zealand's plan was initially met with protest marches on parliament and organized resistance by farmers. Bolstering opposition was the government's own prediction that 10 percent of all the country's farms would go out of business. But the subsidies were ended, and New Zealand farming has never been healthier.

A report last year from the country's main farmers' group, the Federated Farmers of New Zealand, documents the positive change and growth in that country's agriculture industry since subsidies ended. While land prices initially fell after reform, by 1994 they had rebounded, and they remain high today. The mass of farm bankruptcies some had expected never occurred; just 1 percent of farms have gone out of business.
Meanwhile, the value of farm output in New Zealand has soared 40 percent in constant dollar terms since the mid-1980s.

Agriculture's share of New Zealand's economic output has risen slightly, from a pre-reform 14 percent to 17 percent today. Since subsidies were removed, productivity in the industry has averaged 6 percent growth annually, compared with just 1 percent before reform. Farming in New Zealand scores well on the export "report card," with producers competing successfully in world markets against subsidized farm production in much of the rest of the world.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) confirms that New Zealand has the least subsidized farm sector among the industrial nations, concluding that its reforms "resulted in a dramatic reduction in market distortions." The OECD's data show that agriculture subsidies account for just 1 percent of the value of agriculture production in New Zealand and consist mainly of scientific research funding. By contrast, subsidies represent 22 percent of the value of U.S. farm production.

Forced to adjust to new economic realities, New Zealand farmers cut costs, diversified their land use, sought non-farm income opportunities and altered production as market signals advised -- for example, by reducing sheep numbers and boosting cattle ranching. Farmers were aided on the cost side as input prices fell, because suppliers could no longer count on subsidies to inflate demand.

The striving for greater efficiency also supported environmental protection as marginal land farmed only to collect subsidies was replaced with native bush, and overuse of fertilizers ended when fertilizer subsidies were removed.

The Federated Farmers of New Zealand believe their country's experience "thoroughly debunked the myth that the farming sector cannot prosper without government subsidies." It is still not too late to revisit the U.S. farm bill and debunk the myth in this country.

Ending protectionism is in our best interest, not just in farming and agriculture but all around, right now Japanese trucks and minivans cost $2,000 more due to import tariffs! Government-mandated price supports force consumers to pay more for milk. Government goodies for the tobacco and sugar industries stiff consumers. Congress imposes a mind-boggling array of rules and regulations to protect declining, inefficient businesses, while taking money away from new ones.

This has got to change but with senators like Barack Obama and others not getting it I’m afraid we’re stuck with this miserable policy!

Friday, September 01, 2006

Bad News For California

Several high-profile bills go to the governor on the last day of the legislative calendar.

Despite heavy Republican opposition, the Legislature sent to the governor a landmark bill that will make California the first state in the nation to cap carbon dioxide emissions, a pollutant widely believed to cause global warming. Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders came to an agreement on the bill Wednesday, ensuring the governor will sign it. There was absolutely no reason for this bill other than to impose more regulation!

The bill requires industries such as utility plants and oil refineries, to reduce their emissions by roughly 25 percent by 2020. Republicans and business groups opposed the bill, saying it would drive business elsewhere and have little effect on a global problem.

They also sent the Governor a bill to increase the state's minimum wage and provide health insurance to all Californians. Under a compromise hammered out by legislative Democrats and the governor, California's hourly minimum wage will increase by a total of $1.25, going from $6.75 to $7.50 on Jan. 1, 2007 and then to $8 on Jan. 1, 2008. Horrible bill IMO!

The universal health care proposal, that would blow up the state's current health insurance structure and create a system where the state provides coverage for all Californians. The multi-billion dollar proposal, which mimics systems in Europe, faces an almost guaranteed veto by the Republican governor. We hope!

The Legislature also sent to the governor bills prohibiting the chaining of dogs and the payment of signature gatherers per signature collected; a bill that would make it harder for religious broadcasters to buy the KOCE television station in Huntington Beach; and a bill to split the Department of Health Services into two agencies.

One good bill that is going to the governor is a plan to deregulate the cable TV industry, allowing telephone companies to become cable providers through a statewide process rather than by negotiating with local governments. Cities staunchly oppose the measure for taking their franchising power, but both Democrats and Republicans support it on the grounds that increased competition will lower cable prices and bring new technology to market. Schwarzenegger has not indicated where he stands on the issue.

All these bills save the last are no good for California, but what should we expect the governor gave the people of this state a chance for real change and advancement into the future and the people (through hundreds of millions of dollars from unions and the like) shot him down in flames. I have a feeling by the time folks understand what’s happening and how bad it’s going to get, it will be too late!

Governor Schwarzenegger has allied himself with the socialists in this state and has cut off our nose to spite our face just so we can feel better!

Charles Taylor Porker of the Month!

the Citizens Against Government Waste CAGW has named Rep. Charles Taylor(R-N.C.) Porker of the Month for August 2006.

As House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, Rep. Taylor shows no shame when it comes to flaunting pork. He was even invited to attend an exclusive reception in Asheville, N.C., for the infamous Sparta Teapot Museum. CAGW gave the museum the “Tempest in a Teapot” Oinker Award in its 2006 Congressional Pig Book for the $500,000 earmark it received in the fiscal 2006 Transportation/Treasury/Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act.

Rep. Taylor has not been shy about his appetite for pork. In a May 2006 letter to the Asheville Citizen-Times, Taylor’s chief of staff, Sean Dalton, proudly compared his boss to Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), two of the biggest porkers in Congress (The Hill, 7/26/2006). Sen. Byrd has embraced his title of “King of Pork,” while Sen. Stevens is well-known for defending the “Bridge to Nowhere.” Anyone who puts Sens. Byrd and Stevens on a pedestal is oblivious to the dire budget realities facing the government.

Rep. Taylor is well on his way to following in Sen. Stevens’ footsteps with his own so-called “Road to Nowhere.” The 30-mile road was promised to residents of Swain County in 1943 to replace one that was destroyed to create a lake and national park, but construction was stopped for environmental reasons in the late 1960’s and never resumed. Rep. Taylor wants to spend an estimated $590 million in federal funds to finally complete the road, despite the county’s willingness to give up the project in exchange for a smaller federal reimbursement of $52 million.

In the mold of Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), the senior Democrat on the House Ethics Committee who had to resign his post for securing millions of dollars in earmarks that may have benefited him personally, Rep. Taylor has come under fire for adding earmarks for the non-profit Education and Research Consortium of the Western Carolinas (ERC), which he helped to create. The ERC gets 100 percent of its funding from government grants and ERC directors have contributed to Rep. Taylor’s campaigns.

For pigging out at the government trough and displaying shameless pride for bringing home the bacon, CAGW names Rep. Charles Taylor the Porker of the Month for August 2006.

Congratulations Congressman Taylor here’s hoping you and your friends get the message and change your ways. Maybe saying ”Pork is not my friend” 20 times a day will do the trick? – Again I’m not holding my breath!