About Me

Name:Lady Logician
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Endorsements

Posted by Lady Logician on Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:44:10 PM
 
Well, well....the timing of this certainly could not have been coincidential, could it?
 
"SILVER SPRING, Md., Aug. 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The political action committee of Peace Action, the nation's largest grassroots peace organization, has lent its support to candidates who have consistently supported peace positions, in an election year that is likely to turn on public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and the generally militarist policies of the Bush Administration.
Topping the list is the endorsement of Ned Lamont, the Connecticut businessman running to unseat three-term Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman's, a consistent support of Bush policies in Iraq has helped galvanize support for Lamont's rise from little-known underdog to potential victor in next week's primary.
Peace Action PAC also endorsed Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who expressed his gratitude and appreciation to Peace Action. "I am honored to work with Peace Action in stressing the need for a clear exit strategy from Iraq," Akaka said. "I will continue my efforts in support of Peace Action's mission to establish international peace." Senator Akaka has also aggressively fought the development of new nuclear weapons and supported ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Other just-announced endorsements from the nation's largest peace group include:
-- Jerry McNerney, Democratic Nominee for California's 11th Congressional District against U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo
-- Patricia 'Pan' Godchaux, running in the Republican primary for Michigan's 9th Congressional District against seven term incumbent Joe Knollenberg.
-- Rep. Sherrod Brown, the Democratic nominee for the Senate in Ohio; in the last 3 years Rep. Brown has averaged 95 on the Peace Action voting record.
-- Coleen Rowley, challenging John Kline in 2nd district of Minnesota
-- Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), who has averaged 93 percent on the Peace Action voting record over the past two years and is in a tough primary race.
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), who has averaged 90 percent on the Peace Action voting record over the past three years." (emphasis mine)
 
It was exactly 1 year ago that Coleen Rowley and State Senator (and now Gubernatorial Candidate) Becky Lourey went to Crawford TX to join Cindy Sheehan in her protest outside the President's ranch.  It was one year ago that Ms. Rowley started polishing her anti-war credentials. 
 
Note the company that Ms. Rowley is in.  Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Rep. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Robert Byrd all staunchly left and anti-war.  You would think that Ms. Rowley would be proud to be held in such esteemed company and would have the endorsement prominently displayed on her campaign website, wouldn't you?  Well if you did think that, you would be incorrect.  She lists all sorts of endorsements - the NEA, Clean Water Action, the National Women's Campaign Fund, the Council for a Livable World, the Teamsters - but no mention at all about this endorsement.  I wonder why that is? 
 
It is becoming clearer (by the company that she keeps) that Coleen Rowley will toe the line established by the Kos left should she be elected to the US House of Representatives.  It is also becoming clearer why Coleen Rowley is the wrong person for the job.  Hopefully the residents of Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District will see that as well.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Baby bust!

Posted by Lady Logician on Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:13:23 PM
 
I mentioned this theory before, but it came up again.  This time in the Wall Street Journal.
 
"Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today."
 
Now of course, the article does not take into account the "rebellion" factor.  I know more than a few college Republicans who are Republican partly out of rebellion, just as many of their parents became liberal out of rebellion to their parents.  However, are we are seeing with the Junior Logician, politics is partly a learned behavior.  The Junior Logician has, on more than one occasion, argued a conservative point of view on a political issue.  Heck, he has already stated that he WILL be campaigning for Senator Coleman when he is up for re-election in 2006!  However, the liberal indoctrination that he will get in High School and College so who knows what will happen between now and then.
 
Rebellion factor aside, the fact is that the liberals are just not having kids like the conservatives are.  Even if the liberals DID start having 2-4 kids (to catch up with the conservatives) it will take 18 years for those kids to hit the voter rolls.  Either way, this will have an effect on future elections.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What part of the war on terrorism do they support?

Posted by Lady Logician on Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:35:50 PM
 
Love her or hate her, Ann Coulter does bring up a lot of logical points about the ideas and ideals of the left.  She usually has the audacity to ask the question that everyone else is afraid to ask.  This week's column is not different.  What makes this week different is that she finally asks the question that the Democrats are afraid to answer.
 
"What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support?"
 
Ms. Coulter is right - time after time the Democrats say that they support the war and support the troops.  Yet time after time, they vote against giving the President, the Intelligence Community and the troops the tools they need to fight the war on terror.
 
Ann lays it out better than I ever could.  Please go read the article NOW!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A-Klo at the fair

Posted by Lady Logician on Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:10:39 AM
 
I was just finishing up the last post listening to Channel 9's morning news when they cut to a shot of Democratic Candidate Amy Klobuchar. Now the guys at KvM have long (and well) covered the lopsided treatment that the local media has given our Senatorial candidates, but I thought I would chime in on this interview.

Tom Butler drew the interviewing duty. He started off welcoming her to the show. Amy talked about her "house" that they just opened there at the fair for people to come get info on the campaign and invited all the viewers to come visit her.

Tom Butler then asked - you and your opponent differ on issues, why should people vote for you?

A- Klo answered "Mark Kennedy has been in Washington for 6 years - we need a change. Gas prices are up, helath care costs are up. We should be helping the middle class and not the wealthy like Paris Hilton" (maybe A-Klo should read my last post and look at her own donor base before she goes down that road).

Tom Butler asked what is your favorite fair food and thing to do.

A-Klo answered favorite food is cheese curds - favorite thing is Princess Kay and the ladies league when ladies knit sweaters from wool shorn from sheep at the fair and then they lead the sheep around in the sweaters they knitted.

Whoa - such biting questions (she snarks). Honestly, most politicians get softballs like this in fair interviews. Mark Kennedy will be on later this week we'll see if that truism holds for him as well. I hope that the KvM boys make sure to cover that.

Oh and AAA - be nice to the media!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'll take Pot-Pourri for $100 Alex.....

Posted by Lady Logician on Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:19:09 AM
 
Well we certainly couldn't see THIS story coming, could we?
 
"One of the first tests for Washington's new gay civil rights law has an intriguing twist: The complaint was filed by a heterosexual woman. The state's discrimination watchdogs are investigating the case, which claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers."
 
I won't say that "I" told you so, but a lot of well known conservative pundits DID tell you that this was going to happen!
 
Then there is this newsflash:
 
"Forty-five percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14% say the news media are too conservative. These perceptions of liberal inclination have not changed over the last three years. A majority of Americans who describe their political views as conservative perceive liberal leanings in the media, while only about a third of self-described liberals perceive conservative leanings. "
 
This article says it all (when it comes to the Democrats understanding of basic economics):
 
"One of the most poignant moments in the presidential debates prior to the 2004 election occurred when Sen. John Kerry was pontificating about how he would halt the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.After outlining his approach—which predominantly consisted of giving incentives to American businesses to refrain from such nefarious behavior—Kerry was stopped cold by moderator Charles Gibson. To his everlasting credit, Gibson asked how Kerry could reasonably expect this to be effective when any incentives that could be offered would still pale by comparison to the amount companies would save by paying so much less per worker abroad than American workers would have to receive. To this, Kerry could only sheepishly reply that he never said he’d be able to stop all outsourcing.This exchange largely served to puncture Kerry’s balloon on an issue the Democrats had pinned high hopes on in seeking to derail President Bush’s re-election.This anecdote is highly relevant to numerous issues today in which even an elementary knowledge of economics is all that would be required to discern the folly of very dubious (albeit politically popular) proposals." (emphasis added)
 
Lastly is this.  Remember the cannard about the Republican Party being the party of the "rich"?
 
"In this analysis, we examined only those Fortune 100 companies that operated nonprofit charitable foundations that made grants to groups we identified as on either the political right or left. That reduced the number to 53 corporate foundations. (See page 20.) We examined the most recent tax- return filings for these foundations (IRS Form 990) and compiled the dollar values for grants and matching gifts to left-wing groups and right-wing groups.
The results are the exact opposite of the common perception. The Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about $4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1. " (emphasis again added)
 
Hmmmmm......that certainly gives one pause for thought, doesn't it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats or Socialists

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:46:25 PM
 
I got this via email this week and was unsourced.
 
"The following is a list of members of congress that also belong to an organization called the Democratic Socialists of America.  Also included are web pages and e-mail addresses for contact, and demand that they stop promoting their socialist agenda in Congress.  For more information about the Democratic Socialists of America, you can go to their web site and find out for yourself what it is all about. The URL is (http://www.dsausa.org) 
     At one time, the following list of members could be located on the DSA web site.  However, Once this list was made public, The DSA removed the link to the Web page that listed the following members.  Although they removed the link, they did not remove the Web Page.  You can go directly to the Web page that contains the list of names by clicking on this link (http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html ).  Now that this is exposed also, I wonder how long it will take them to remove the page altogether?" (emphasis in the original)
 
Well it didn't take long.  Following the link gets you a "404 page not found error".  However, the email lists out some of the Congressional folks involved.
 
"Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL), Chair
2202 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
bsanders@hr.house.gov
sanders@igc.apc.org
http://www.house.gov/bernie/

Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04), Co-Chair
124 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
No e-mail address found
http://www.house.gov/mckinney/
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04), Co-Chair
2134 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
pdefazio@hr.house.gov
http://www.house.gov/defazio/
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26), Co-Chair
2431 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
hinchey@mail.house.gov
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/
Rep Major Owens (NY-11), Co-Chair
2305 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Major.Owens@Mail.House.Gov"
 
The list went on - a lot of the usual suspects.  One thing that surprised me is that none of our Minnesota delegation was on this list.  One that didn't surprise me though (based on my conversations with my friend Steve Beren) was this one:
 
"Rep James A McDermott (WA-07)
2349 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
No e-mail address found
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/"
 
Now if you take a look at the voting records of the folks on this list you can certainly understand why the connection is made.  Any socialists piece of legislation that has been brought up on the floor of the House or or the Senate was either proposed by one of the folks on this list or voted one of the names on this list.  Legislation for greater re-distribution of wealth, greater centralized government powers, you name it.  Take a look at the voting records of all of these folks - many of whom are running for re-election and compare it to the stated ideals on the DSA website.  The parallels are there.

Seattle certainly can do better than what they have now.  Good Luck Steve.  Fight the good fight and may November 8 find us all calling you "Congressman-elect".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The promise of stem cells

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:18:13 PM
 
Adult stem cells that is.  I wonder why we don't hear about this kind of stem cell research out of the Red Star and the NY Times?
 
"Ryan Schneider was born in late 1992. He's been through a lot in his young life.
Ryan's mom, Mary, said, "His main means of communication was screaming, pointing and crying...He was so frustrated in his own body -- it was very, very difficult. He just couldn't get his point across. It was…impossible...Last summer, doctors came up with a diagnosis for Ryan's afflictions: cerebral palsy, a brain affliction with no certain cause and no certain cure.
But the Schneiders had saved cells from Ryan's umbilical cord in a special blood bank. Those cells are rich in adult stem cells.... In October, doctors put those cells into Ryan's blood through an IV inserted in the back of his hand...Mary recalled, “after the first week, Ryan said his first sentence to us, and we were shocked. And we were even more shocked -- it was about giving him some food, which was even more shocking -- he ate it all and wanted more!"
 
Now the doctors can't say for sure that Ryan's turn around was because of the adult stem cells or not, but they say that Ryan's recovery is "consistent" with other adult stem cell successes. 
 
One thing that they do seem to be sure of.  There appears to be more potential (and cures) from adult stem cell research.  I wonder why we don't hear more about this?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whose rights are more guaranted?

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:33:50 PM
 
A lot has been said about "rights" lately.  The ACLU has been pushing for the Constitutional rights of NON US citizens.  However there is one right that they have not been talking about.  The Constitutional rights of US citizens to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. 
 
One right that is no where to be found is the right to aid those that want to kill millions of Americans.
 
"The ACLU says the NSA surveillance program makes it difficult for its attorneys to represent its clients. Especially when your attorneys help fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah...
 
 One of the lesser known plaintiffs in the case, Noel Saleh, attorney for the ACLU's Michigan chapter, said the NSA program made it difficult for him to represent his clients, some of whom the government accuses of terrorist connections.
Saleh has had a number of terrorist clients, such as Ibrahim Parlak, a member of the PKK, the Kurdish Islamic terrorist group on the State Department's terror list, who was found responsible for the deaths of two Turkish border police.

Not to mention Imad Hamad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine member."
 
What about the right to life of the 3000 people killed on September 11, 2001?  Do their rights not matter?  Apparently not to the ACLU.  What about the right to pursue happiness for the families of those that died?  Their happiness died the day that the terrorists flew airplanes into those 3 buildings on that sunny September morning.  What about the rights of US citizens to live in liberty on our own shores?  Apparently the ACLU doesn't care about those rights.
 
"The ACLU seems to have a fondness for attorneys who send money to terrorists or act as couriers for them and an agenda that opposes any activity that protects the American people from those who would kill them. "
 
Yep, this is the organization that claims to be the defenders of OUR Constitutional rights.  Don't you feel better?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religious Persecution

Posted by Lady Logician on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:01:17 PM
 
Over the last few months, you have heard CAIR warn the Western World that it should not "persecute" Muslims because of the actions of the terrorists. Recently we heard the story of a Muslim pilot who claimed that he was persecuted because he was not allowed to board a flight England because the other passengers were concerned about them. Well for the benefit of these two (and for CAIR), I thought I would give you a couple of examples of REAL persecution.

"Reporters Without Borders today condemned the months of harassment bythe authorities in Qina (near Luxor, in central Egypt) that forced Hala Helmy Botros to close down her blog Aqbat Bela Hodood(Copts Without Borders) about the persecution of the Christian Copticminority, and to stop writing on this subject for other websites.

Botros, 42, who wrote under thepseudonym of Hala El-Masry, is now the target of a judicial investigation and is banned from leaving the country."

It seems to me that not being allowed to board an airplane is mild compared to what this woman is going through. Here is another one:

"Last month, CBN News brought you the story of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who was thrown in prison for converting from Islam to Christianity. He has since been released and has left Afghanistan.

But countless other ex-Muslims continue to face persecution--even here in the West."

Hmmmmmm - countless Christians are persecuted by MUSLIMS!!! Yet we are not supposed to persect them for their beliefs....does anyone beside me see the incongruity in that? ANYBODY?????

Meanwhile the American left (you know, the tolerant ones) not to be outdone has their own method of discriminating and denegrating Christians.

"A slew of new books have emerged with titles like ``American Theocracy,'' and ``Kingdom Coming,'' that tackle the perceived emerging Christocracy, while op-ed-ists opine that right-wing evangelicals are directing foreign policy through the White House. Words like ``theocrats'' and ``American Taliban'' have become commonplace in describing those who fill televangelism's La-Z-Boys. "

Kathleen Parker is one of the wonderful logical ladies that I love to read and highlight here.

"Doubtless (Pastor John) Hagee holds his audiences in thrall, but that audience does not happen to include George W. Bush or even (cue thunderclouds) Karl Rove. Nor millions of other Christians. Despite what the anti-Christianists seem to believe, the evangelical movement is not monolithic on such issues and Hagee doesn't have an office in the State Department. "

That is what I am talking about. The anti-Christian left will tell you that Evangelical Christians, like you humble author, are h*ll bent on bringing about the second coming of Christ. The conspiracy minded will tell you that the Zionists (which is a code word for Jews and their Evangelical supporters) are willing to sacrifice all in order to bring about their version of "heaven on earth" (sound familiar?). As Ms. Parker points out, there is one little problem with that theory.

"Although both groups may be ``true believers,'' those who try to connect the dots of Christian belief, specifically evangelical Christianity, to Islamism seem willing to overlook the fact that Islamists praise Allah and fly airplanes into buildings while Christianists praise Jesus and pass the mustard.

And though both groups of people may use scripture to shape their approach to the public square, Islamist interpretation of doctrine permits religious expression through suicide-murder, beheadings, public stonings (preferably of women) and Jew-hating, while Christianist doctrine deals in such wimpy notions as forgiveness, tolerance, redemption and cheek-turning."

Yeah - that is a big difference between the two. Something that those suffering from BDS will never be able to see until the day they remove the blinders of hatred.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Duck and dodge - cut and run

Posted by Lady Logician on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:26:46 AM
 
I recently received a press release for a Congressional candidate from Seattle .  This candidate happens to be a friend of mine which is why I got the press release.  In the release is below:
 
 Beren: McDermott weak on terrorism and avoiding debate
Steve Beren for Congress (WA - 7th C.D.)  www.berenforcongress.com
 
Britain has successfully broken up a terrorist plot to blow up planes flying to the United States. The uncovering of this plot drives home the fact that we are a nation at war with Islamic fascism. But Jim McDermott and the Democratic Party are weak on national security, with a pre-9/11 mentality. They don't have a clue how to fight terrorism. McDermott opposes the terrorist wiretapping program and the Patriot Act - precisely the tools we need to continue successfully disrupting the enemy's plans.
 
I am sick and tired of hearing Jim McDermott say this is a so-called war, that this is a so-called threat, that this is so-called terrorism, that it's all hype.
 
The war is real, the threat of terrorism is real, the effort of Islamic fascists to acquire nuclear weapons is real, the attempt to destroy Israel. National defense, homeland security, protection of our ports, and disruption of the terrorists must remain priorities.
 
McDermott says there is no way we can win the war, and he says we should completely withdraw from Iraq before election day. Such a defeatist approach is not only wrong - it is dangerous. McDermott is entitled to his opinion, but he also needs to be held accountable. He should defend his views in an open forum, and that's why I've challenged him to a series of debates. So far, he has tried to avoid my challenge.
 
But Jim McDermott and I WILL debate! I won't let him be a debate dodger. He can cut and run - but he can't hide!
 
Steve Beren for Congress (WA - 7th CD)
(206) 240-1841
* Lower taxes and limited government
* Protect our ports and borders
* Victory in the war against terrorism
This communication paid for and authorized by Beren for Congress
 
Now, reading this it struck me that there has indeed been little debate so I did some digging.  In the Klobuchar/Bell/Kennedy race, only Ford Bell and Mark Kennedy debated.  Ms. Klobuchar declined to attend all debates.  In the 7th CD, incumbent Collin Peterson was a no show at a debate that included a primary challenger to Peterson, the Republican candidate AND the Constitution Party Candidate.  In the 2nd CD, Coleen Rowley has finally accepted (after many local attempts) an invitation to debate incumbent John Kline.  The debates that she finally accepted were RADIO debates and not live in front of constituent debates!  The same scene is playing out in Minnesota's 6th CD as well.  All over Minnesota (and apparently all over the country if my friend's campaign is any indication) Democratic candidates for office are engaging in the same tactic that they are advocating for our troops - avoid engaging the enemy at ALL COSTS.  It's the same old cut and run that they advocate for our troops. 
 
If they can't even stand up to defend what they believe in a debate format, how are they going to defend the country if (God forbid) we are ever attacked again!  The choice is becoming clearer by the minute.  If the Democrats can't even stand up for their "firmly held beliefs" how are they going to stand up for the country?
 
I would be very interested in hearing of any similar situations out there. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats vs Wal-Mart

Posted by Lady Logician on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:37:17 AM
 
What do you do with a company that employes over 1 million Americans and makes $316 billion in revenue?  If you are a Democrat, you turn them into a campaign target. 
 
"DES MOINES, Aug. 16 — Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, delivered a 15-minute, blistering attack to warm applause from Democrats and union organizers here on Wednesday. But Mr. Biden’s main target was not Republicans in Washington, or even his prospective presidential rivals.

It was Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer."
 
Forget Islamic terrorists, Wal-Mart is apparently the largest single threat to American safety!  Instead of focusing on the danger that terrorists they cater to unions.
 
Never mind the fact that Wal-Mart makes life better for the middle class by making more products available at a more affordable price.  Never mind the fact that many of Wal-Mart's employees are the very voters that the Democrats say they are reaching out to.  Never mind the fact that many of Wal-Mart's shopers are the same "values voters" that the Democrats  are trying to court!    Instead, focus on the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't "provide benefits" - never mind the fact that most Wal-Mart employees are PART TIME employees and companies are not required to give full time benefits to part time employees.  Never mind that over 10 million Americans shopped at Wal-Mart on the Friday after Thanksgiving last year.
 
Yep - that is a winning strategy.....
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Multiculturalism bad? Really?????

Posted by Lady Logician on Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:04:58 AM
 
WOW - I didn't think anyone would have the intestinal fortitude to print this headline.
 
" Multiculturalism is to blame for perverting young Muslims "
 
While the article itself does not say that, it does do an admirable job of putting to rest the myth that there is a "reason" for the hatred that the radicals have for "the West". 
 
"Islamic radicalism did not begin with Muslim grievances over Western foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan. It has deep roots, going back to the 13th-century reformer Ibn Taimiyya, through Wahhabism to modern ideologues such as Sayyid Qutb in Egypt or Maududi in Pakistan. "
 
The telling thing, that most people will miss, is this:
 
"Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement, and new demands will continue to be made" (emphasis added)
 
That is the one thing that the left just will never get!  No matter what we do it will never be enough for the Islamofascists.  If you don't believe me look at what happened to someone who had the audacity to question CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).
 
"I went to the event because CAIR had advertised that it was open to the public, and regardless, it was held on a public sidewalk in front of a Federal building. I had every right to be there. It was clear that they had a message they wanted to express, and I hoped to get them to speak beyond their scripted press release comments…to get some straight answers about how they really feel about the violence and terrorism committed by Hezbollah that provoked the Israeli response.
 
I wasn’t there more than a couple of minutes when I began to interview a gentleman wearing a kafiyyeh that concealed everything but his eyes. I was asking him about his support for Hezbollah when Dr. Al-Akhras approached us and began telling everyone in the vicinity not to speak to me. I then asked him what his message and I kept rolling as he explained how they were there opposing terror. He was clearly agitated. It was when several of them were telling me about Israel bombing innocent civilians, and I responded by asking them about Hezbollah missiles being fired into Israel killing innocent civilians that Al-Akhras lunged at me and grabbed ahold of my camera as I was filming.
 
At 5’3” and 100 pounds, “ciaospirit” is not a physically intimidating figure. Yet she says Dr. Al-Akhras assaulted her a second time as she was filming him as he addressed the rally – again, all captured on a video she made available on her blog."

One thing that Americans need to be made aware of is this:
 
"Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law."
 
Read that again and let it sink in....30% of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia law than live in a free democratic society!  But wait there is more:
 
"Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. (they must be the ones that watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann - ed)  This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy. Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.
 
When asked, "Is Britain my country or their country?" only one in four say it is. Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law. According to the report, "Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws."
 
Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year's Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it. " (emphasis added)
 
Are you starting to see yet, dear reader, what it is we are up against? 
 
Cross posted at Savage Republican
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Delving further into the swamp

Posted by Lady Logician on Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:22:57 AM
 
If you really want to see how bad the fever swamp left has gotten, you need look no further than "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann.  Last week brought us a classic example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) courtesy of Newsbusters.  In opening his show Olberman hinted that the attack that was thwarted by British Intelligence was "not quite as real as advertised".  He then went on to imply that the administration used their campaign plan to paint the Dems as "soft on terror" to push the Brits into arresting the terror plotters right after the Connecticut primary - to push Ned Lamont's victory over Bush lackey Joe Leiberman!
 
Well first off the Administration doesn't have to do much at all to push the impression that the Dems are soft on terror.  They demonstrate that to the world day in and day out. 
 
Even one of Olbermann's guests, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, thought that Olbermann was carrying this a bit far as this excerpt indicates:
 
"Olbermann: "None of us can say for certain why the Bush administration would have pressured British authorities to move early on the terror arrests, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, even doing that, did not the pounding by the Vice President, by Ken Mehlman, by others, still leave the administration wide open for doubt and even suspicion about the timing of all this?"

Milbank: "Well, Keith, that's just the kind of question that emboldens the al-Qaeda types."

Olbermann: "Thank you very much."

Milbank: "Well, it's not really even a matter of suspicion. I mean, Karl Rove came out earlier this year and said, look, this is what our fall campaign is going to be about, it's about stirring up terrorism and then saying that we can protect you better than the other guy. I wouldn't get too bogged down in the timing issue because, if anything, the Bush administration politically would have wanted to wait until September or October when everybody was paying attention. But it's not even an open secret, it's completely out in the open that terrorism is politicized routinely over and over again." (emphasis added)
 
Milbank is correct - terrorism HAS been politicized over and over in the last 5 years - it was a staple of the 2004 election.  He is also correct in his analysis that if the administration was indeed looking for an "imminent attack" to exploit they would have waited until October when people were actually paying attention to the elections.
 
The fact that Keith Olbermann has any viewers is astonishing.  That 375,000 people in this country actually watch this tripe and take him seriously is disturbing.  Then again, I do know some people who think that the Popular Mechanics article (and soon to be book) debunking the 9/11 myths is a government conspiracy so.....
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Buh bye now....

Posted by Lady Logician on Friday, August 18, 2006 8:22:16 PM
 
That is what the Democratic Party is saying to 2004 VP Candidate Joe Leiberman.  Now that the Kidz have successfully ousted the Senior Senator from Connecticut they are looking for the next hawk.....Hillary Clinton.
 
"The same activists are now seeking to bend Senator Hillary Clinton to their anti-war side or face defeat in the Democratic presidential primaries. Her supporters are concerned that the “jihadist” left, galvanised by the victory of East Coast millionaire Ned Lamont, are on the rise in the Democratic party, starkly affecting its national electoral prospects. "
 
Well you have to give the Kidz credit - they aim high!
 
"Mike McCurry, White House press secretary during Bill Clinton’s presidency, said: “The very idea of centrism is under attack now in the party. We have our own loony left too.”
 
Too?????  Mike - I hate to tell you this buddy, but you own the rights to the loony left!  They are yours and yours alone!
 
I wouldn't worry about Mrs. Clinton though.  She is the one that master the tactic of triangulation.
 
"Clinton quickly shored up her position on the left last week by telephoning Lamont to congratulate him on his victory and dropping $5,000 (£2,650) into his electoral coffers.
 
She also declared that “there is a great deal of difference” between her position on Iraq and Lieberman’s. Days before the primary vote, in a nifty use of her influence on the Senate armed services committee, she summoned Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and then demanded his resignation for mismanaging the war (a position Lieberman has not taken). "
 
See she's already working her way back to the left.  Not a worry!  Madam Hillary will survive.  That is what she does best.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A trip into the swamp

Posted by Lady Logician on Friday, August 18, 2006 9:25:54 AM
 
I don't normally delve into the depths of the fever swamp, but a friend sent me this and I just had to look.  Now the diarist in question is of interest to me and it was interesting to see his side of the story but what was really amusing were the comments of the Kidz.
 
"You're already news, since he's personally attacked you twice. Also talk to a lawyer. If he sent a mass mailing to the whole district attacking you personally, that's libel and slander and you have grounds for a lawsuit. So talk to a lawyer and to the local paper."
 
Said one commenter. Another chimed in with this:
 
"and call a press conference to announce you're suing the b_____.  You're NOT a public person, and this is damaging in so many ways it's not funny.  Call the ACLU too, while you're at it. And the FEC, to find out what money (and whose time) was used to create that flyer. He might be in violation of some FEC regs.  But I'd definitely call a lawyer right now. John Edwards might not be too busy... ;-)"
 
There was lots of advise to "sue the b______"  and that led a self professed lawyer to chime in with this.
 
"I would advise Bailey not to bother any attorneys with this garbage, and to quit "helping" congressional candidates.  "
 
That led to an accusation of the poster being a troll.  Her response is classic!
 
"I am attempting to point out that the people here talking about defamation claims don't know what  they are talking about.  What Kline says is a slight exaggeration at best -- it is essentially true.  And its not actionable.  If this guy sued,he would end up paying John Kline money.  Although the diarist is not a public figure, he is working for a public figure and the allegations relate to his work on Rowley's behalf.  This is political speech, and as such, the most first amendment protection is afforded to it, making it is very difficult to prove up a defamation claim.  

If a staffer for a Republican congressional candidate had his own political website with controvertial positions, people on DailyKos would be all over it.  The diarist screwed up bigtime, and writing a diary about it is even more of a disservice to Rowley.  If he really wanted to help her out, he would delete this diary and shut up" (emphasis added)
 
Common sense out of a Kos commenter.  Whoa - whodathunkit....but wait - there is even more common sense out of the poster in question.
 
"What frustrates me is the reaction to this.  Republicans are dirty cheaters?  Tell me something I don't know. Four years ago, Minnesota Republicans spun Paul Wellstone's funeral into electoral victory.  They are going to keep doing it, especially if we keep making it easy for them.  Instead of talking about suing them or exposing Kline for this we should work on not giving the Republicans easy material to work with.  Maybe some self-reflection instead of cheerleading.  Despite all the bitching here, if you read the linked article about this with any objectivity, its Rowley who looks bad.  Time to stop pretending everything is ok when its not.Rowley needs to:
1) issue a statement explaining that this guy was not with the campaign when he went to Kline's office, and that the content on the website was not authorized by the campaign.
2) Sh__can him. "(not a direct quote - Kos may allow that kind of language on his site, but I don't!)
 
What was the reaction of the Kidz to such advice....when they couldn't "shout" the poster down, they ignored her.  Keep on ignoring the views that don't agree with you Kidz and you will continue to loose elections!  It's your choice...  It makes no difference to me whether you pay attention to the common sense advise of a lawyer who knows better or not.  Go ahead, distract yourself with a frivolous lawsuit and while you are off doing that, the Kline campaign will continue to do the work that needs to be done in order to win the election. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…5253545556575859606162Next »