Howard Dean caught flat out lying

This just astounds me. How can he get away with this?

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.

The exchange on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer went like this:

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

Are you kidding me? I ask, why is Hillary Clinton giving back her Abramoff money if it didn't come from Abramoff? Is the senator just giving away free money and openly admitting she took it, if she actually didn't? I think not. It's well known that about 2 million dollars was given to democrats....TWO MILLION. While this number does not exceed that given to Republicans, it is still quite significant.

Gateway Pundit says that 40 of the 45 democratic senators took money from Abramoff.

It just astounds me at what these people are able to get away with. And by these people, I mean the likes of Nagin (a chocolate New Orleans), Clinton (calling the running of the House like a plantation), Dean, and the list goes on and on. It sickens me.

Kerry and Kennedy pressing for a filibuster...dems divided

Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy called Thursday for a filibuster of Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination. They did however acknowledge the bid is likely to fail and Alito will be confirmed Tuesday. But they said extended debate may draw more Americans' attention to Alito's conservative stands on abortion, civil rights, presidential powers and other matters.

"Judge Alito will take America backward, especially when it comes to civil rights and discrimination laws," Kerry said. "It's our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court."

Are you kidding me? He was nominated what back in November or so? They've had TWO MONTHS in order to "draw" Americans attention to the matter. They have failed to do so because Americans believe he is a well qualified judge. 47% of Americans would vote to confirm Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, while only 32% would oppose him. Most of this 32% would never endorse a Bush nominee anyways, so I believe this means the vast vast majority of Americans approve of Alito.

Kennedy said Alito "does not share the values of equality and justice that make this country strong. He does not deserve a place on the highest court of the land."

It just doesn't make any sense. They don't have the votes to keep a filibuster going. What's the point in all of this? One again, the democrats are going to take a hit for what they're about to do.

"Continuing to threaten a filibuster, even after it is crystal clear that Democrats don't have the necessary votes ... is needless, strange and at odds with many of their fellow Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

At least three Democrats — Sens. Ben Nelson, Robert Byrd Jr. and Tim Johnson said they will vote to confirm Alito. Others have said they would not support a filibuster, regardless how they vote on confirmation. This means the Republicans should easily have the required 60 votes to break the filibuster.

I think the bigger story here is this: the democrats are very divided on this issue. Sen. Harry Reid (yeah, thats right, Reid) repeatedly told colleagues this week that he wanted to avoid a filibuster. "This matter will be resolved without too much more talking, but ... everyone has the right to talk" Reid said.

Once again the democrats are sharply divided. I cannot believe how many times in the past couple months they have shot themselves in the foot in the eyes of the American public. They are losing and will lose on this issue, just as they are and will on the TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE program.

Conservatives take back Canada

On Monday, 65% of Canadians (yes 65%!, a number we Americans should be envious of) voted. Stephen Harper, a conservative, won the position of Prime Minister. The conservatives now hold 124 seats in Parliament. The liberals have 103, Bloc Québécois have 51 and New Democratic Party have 29. The conservatives fell short of a majority by 31 seats.

Seems Canadians were sick of liberal leadership. The liberals have been in power for quite some time in Canada (the liberals had won the previous four elections and were in power the vast majority of the last 30 years).

It will be interesting to see how the relationship between President Bush and Harper grows. Hopefully some fences can be mended in our relations with Canada.

Osama and Michael Moore...BFF?

Chris Matthews recently said that on his lastest tape, Osama Bin Laden sounded a lot like Michael Moore.

Ankelbiting Pundits has the full story.

Here's a couple of the highlights:

On Polls About Iraq
Osama:
But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.. .And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake.
Michael Moore (In a writing titled "Sorry, George, I'm In the Majority ...from Michael Moore"...haha, right)
I would like to extend my hand and invite you to join us, the mainstream American majority. We, the people -- that's the majority of the people -- share these majority opinions:
1. Going to war was a mistake -- a big mistake.
2. You and your administration misled us into this war
3. We want the war ended and our troops brought home.
4. We don't trust you.


On Who Will Win The War And Those Fighting Against America In Iraq
Osama:
Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that. . ..Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing. In that there is a lesson for you. Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in this course.
Michael Moore
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

GOP and College also has an excellent post on the subject. Go there and read the last paragraph, its an interesting one.

Ted Kennedy has a love child!

Haha, it appears Ted Kennedy hooked up with a woman back in 1983 who then got pregnant. Apparently, Kennedy wanted her to terminate the pregnancy, but she wouldn't. Kennedy proceeded to pay her off with large sums of money to keep it quiet.

The whole story at GOP and College.

Documents linking Saddam to terrorism set to be released?

About a week ago, I posted about documents which are indicating that Saddam trained some 8,000 terrorists between the years of 1999 and 2002. At that point, the papers, hard drive records, cd's, etc. were not released. Apparently the Bush Administration is strongly considering releasing these records. I will keep you up to date on this important story. If true, it would serve as justification (as if there already was none) for this war that the liberals have been crying for.

Nagin's latest comments

In an attempt to rectify his outrageous comments about hoping New Orleans will be a "chocolate" city, Mayor Nagin later had this to say:

"How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about," he said.

No, that's how you make chocolate milk, so this is clearly not what he was originally referring to. He went on to say:

"New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina. It is going to be a chocolate city after. How is that divisive? It is white and black working together, coming together and making something special."

Are we seriously expected to believe this? Give me a break, this guy is clearly a racist and should not be in office.

When asked today on Fox News if he wishes he could take back any of his comments, his only reply was that he wishes he didn't make the comment about God. That's it....ridiculous.

Al Gore: Unhinged

Courtesy of Gateway Pundit:

These were the words of Al Gore yesterday:
"Yet, just one month ago, Americans awoke to the shocking news that in spite of this long settled law, the Executive Branch has been secretly spying on large numbers of Americans for the last four years and eavesdropping on "large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States." The New York Times reported that the President decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program "without search warrants or any new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection."

"At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently."

Yet back in the 1990's here is what Al Gore and Clinton thought about warrantless searches when they were in office:

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power"...

...Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

Bill Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches in 1994:
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

Interesting. I'm surprised the Democrats have not yet given up on this issue like they have on so many others recently. This is obviously a losing issue for them, seeing as most of the American public agrees with the President.

Nagin's outrageous remarks

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin used Martin Luther King Day to say that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country." He went on to say, "surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses."

That's not even the worst:
"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

WOW. That's all I can think. How can he get away with this? Just think about this....if New Orleans was 60% white, and this was a white mayor who came out and said "It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans - the one that should be a vanilla New Orleans." This city will be a majority white city, because that's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans any other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

Can you imagine the outrage? There would be protests. How can he say things such as this and get away with it? On a day that is supposed to celebrate one of the most courageous Americans in history, this is absolutely ridiculous.

Nagin is nothing but a racist, and somehow gets away with it. I don't think New Orleans deserves any more of our tax money in order to rebuild his "chocolates only" city until Nagin is gone.

US, EU, Russia, and China meet over Iran

The United States, EU, Russia and China met Monday to discuss Iran's nuclear program, with Washington and the European Union pushing to bring the Islamic state before the U.N. Security Council. It seems that the EU is finally on board with agreeing to refer Iran to the UN security council for sanctions. Britain, France, and Germany finally agreed to give up two years of negotiations, declaring them a "dead end."

Bush and the US has been saying for quite a while now that Iran should be referred to the Security Council. This attempt was always stopped by the EU, because they believed that Iran could be dealt with through negotiations. Well, they were wrong, dead wrong, and Iran is now a more dangerous place because of it. The continuous cycle of Iran pushes the envelope, EU forces talks, Iran backs down seems as though it has ended. It was just ridiculous how the EU kept getting fooled. They would say to the US, look they're cooperating again. Then a month later, Iran was defying them again, so they would call for more talks. The sooner this issue is dealt with, the better and easier it will be (or would have been).

It seems obvious that Iran never intended to comply with the EU negotiations. This is evident in the fact that they have openly admitted to wanting a nuclear program (apparently for peaceful purposes). Yet, the EU and the rest of the world was not able to see this. The US, however, did. We told the rest of the world all along that this was the case. Yet everyone continued to ignore us.

Well, now that seems to have all changed. The only problems with referring Iran to the Security Council might be China and Russia. China is highly dependent on Iran for oil, and has said that referring Iran to the Security Council will only escalate the confrontation.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with this. Hopefully the world will not back down this time.

Wrap up of Alito's Confirmation Hearings

Well, it was an interesting week in the world of politics. The biggest story was the Alito confirmation hearings. I happened to watch quite a bit of the hearings because I didn't have anything better to do. One of the most shocking moments came at the hand of Judge Alito's wife. Martha Ann Alito became teary eyed and distraught when Sen. Lindsey Graham apologized for the ugly grilling her husband had been subjected to near the end of a long day on Wednesday. She left the room. "Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this," the South Carolina Republican Graham said.



I think the tears of Alito's wife sent a powerful message around the country. The headlines up til then were mostly about Alito and Roe v. Wade. The country finally was able to see what the democrats have done and how out of line they were. Interesting how the MSM did not report on the brutal attacks by the dems, but tears were just not something they could ignore.

Earlier in the proceedings, Sen. Ted Kennedy challenged Alito over his 1980s membership in The Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Quoting from an article critical of affirmative action written - not by Alito - but by a fellow CAP member, the Massachusetts Democrat suggested that the prospective Supreme Court Justice was racially insensitive. Alito had no ties to this person, and apparently didn't even know him. The democrats somehow spun this to try to portray Alito as a racist. Interesting to note that Kennedy belonged to an all-male social club — the Owl — at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s. Hmmmmm....

One of the other points which democrats brutally attacked Alito on was the VanGuard issue. On a questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, Alito said he would avoid a conflict of interest by not voting on cases involving First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, NY, and two investment firms, Smith Barney and Vanguard Group, because he held accounts with them. However, this statement apparently only applied to his first couple years in the position.

Over a decade later, in 2002, Alito upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed against multiple investment company defendants, including Vanguard Group. When notified of the situation, Alito denied doing anything improper but recused himself from further involvement in the case. The case was reheard with the new panel coming to the same conclusion. So, let me get this straight, he did not break the law, did not go against what he said he would do, and even rectified the situation after it was brought to light. So, why is this apparently such a big deal? Because the democrats have nothing better to attack him on, that's why.

The worst part of all of this was that these democrats already knew going into the hearings that they would vote Alito down. They did not give him a fair shake and used their time to push their agenda and bash bush. I believe this was obvious by the fact that many democrats spent a vastly greater amount of time talking than asking questions.

The democrats were just ridiculous and out of line in these hearings. They went nothing like they should have. The point is to understand more about the nominee and decide whether or not they are qualified to be on the highest court in the land. This did not happen. Everything the democrats brought up and attacked Alito on amounted to nothing. They tried to dig up whatever they could, but in the end they really didn't find much. I believe Alito will be confirmed

Some Blogthings things:

I'm bored today, and I found the Blogthings website and decided to fill out some surveys:

You Are 60% Weird

You're so weird, you think you're *totally* normal. Right? But you wig out even the biggest of circus freaks!

How Weird Are You?

Your Dating Purity Score: 89%

You are an innocent dater. You're either lacking in dating experience or have had a long serious relationship. Either way, there's still plenty of fish in the sea out there for you to sample!

Dating Purity Test

Your Elf Name Is...

Fuzzy Snow Bunny

What's Your Elf Name?

Your Pimp Name Is...

Big Playah Dogg

What's Your Pimp Name?

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 9/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

Saddam's Terror Training Camps

Documents found in Iraq and Afghanistan may be revealing that the Iraqi regime was training thousands of radical Islamic terrorists.

Roughly 2 million "exploitable items" have been found in Iraq and Afghanistan since the end of 2001. These include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Only 2.5% of these items have been thoroughly examined. However, those that have been reviewed seem to be indicating that Saddam's elite military units trained some 8,000 terrorists from 1999 to 2002.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis in the years since the invasion.

Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, says David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group.

It should be noted that this information comes from the Weekly Standard, a conservative publication. However, they claim they have confirmed "the existence and character of these documents" by eleven U.S. government officials.

Not quite something you'll see in the MSM, eh?

Study shows strong liberal bias in the media

A recent study shows that 18 of 20 major media outlets studied scored left of center on the political spectrum. Of those, the most liberal were the Wall Street Journal, CBS Evening News, New York Times, and LA Times. The two programs deemed conservative were Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume and the Washington Times.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third. "Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill,"
Another interesting find is that the fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News. This program is often cited by liberals as an example of a right-wing outlet. Yes, it does have a conservative bias, but not nearly as much as many media outlets are left wing biased.

Click here for a chart of all 20 media outlets studied.
Click here for more information on how this study was conducted.

Your cell phone records are for sale

Yes, that's right. Anyone can get a list of the numbers you have called from your cell phone, for $110 (you can get land line records also). Just go on over to locatecell.com, give them a credit card number and a cell phone number. Apparently you can get the list of anyone you would like, no questions asked. Is it just me, or is this a bit ridiculous? I don't think the people I call should be public information for anyone with a bit of curiosity and money.
To test the service, the FBI paid locatecell.com $160 to buy the records for an agent's cell phone and received the list within three hours.
It appears Congress might soon take action on this matter, as Sen. Charles Schumer has called for legislation to criminalize phone record theft and use.

Communication disaster in the West Virginia Miner tragedy

A terrible tragedy took place last night. There was an explosion in a mine in West Virginia several days ago. Throughout yesterday I watched some of the coverage, with increasingly discouraging news. It was reported that air tests of where the miners were believed to be trapped showed very high levels of CO2.
Everyone believed there was no chance of survival. Many family members gathered at the local church. Around midnight, they were given the news that 12 of the miners were found alive. Jubilation spread throughout the church like wildfire. The church bells rang, and people sang "Amazing grace." It was truly quite a scene. The people seemed happier than they've probably ever been in their lives, just minutes after they were completely devastated thinking their loved ones were dead.
No one seemed to know though when they would get to see the miners, or what their medical condition was. The original plan was to bring in helicopters to evacuate those who needed medical help. Apparently firefighters even cleared a landing zone for this purpose. The helicopters never came. There were even very few ambulances. Even the media did not know anything. Something seemed very peculiar. It seemed like no one minded though, because 12 of them were apparently alive. Life was good.
I went to bed last night, thinking a miracle took place, and very happy for the families of the survivors. Just the looks on their faces said it all.
I woke up this morning to realize that there was some sort of miscommunication, and in reality only one miner survived. After watching some of the footage of the families leaving the church, I was horrified. The looks on their faces showed exactly the opposite of what I saw before bed. I just can't imagine what these families had been through. It's bad enough that they originally thought that their loved one was dead. Then they were told they were alive, only to discover three hours later that this was not the case. What an awful roller coaster ride of emotions.
Don't get me wrong, after that long trapped in a mine one survivor could be considered a miracle. However, the way it all played out is just awful.
My heart truly goes out to those families, who have been through so much due to one simple miscommunication.

Latest comments from Murtha

When questioned in an interview taped on Friday "Would you join (the military) today?"
"No," replied Murtha.
"And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," the interviewer continued.
"Exactly right," said Murtha.
Are you kidding me? First, he started off (last November) with criticizing the war in Iraq. I don't have a problem with that as long as it is done responsibly. Constructive criticism can only help our troops. I do however have a problem with him undermining our military. This is exactly what he has done with this comment. He's telling those considering joining the military not to do so. The fact that he is allowed, with no repercussions to undermine the credibility and the power of our military absolutely astounds me.
This goes far beyond the defeatism policy which he has held since November. If he really is a strong supporter of the military, like he is portrayed to be in the media, he would have never spoken these words. Even though he does not agree with the war, that does not give him any justification in weakening the military.
The one thing that does bring me joy in the defeatism point of view is that the American public is and will continue to realize that democrats are weaker than ever on national security. Just remember, this is the issue that carried Bush in the last elections.

100 things we didn't know this time last year

Very cool article listing just what the title of this post says. Some of the more interesting ones I found were:
2. Mohammed is now one of the 20 most popular names for boys born in England and Wales.
18. If all the Smarties eaten in one year were laid end to end it would equal almost 63,380 miles, more than two-and-a-half times around the Earth's equator.
32. "Restaurant" is the most mis-spelled word in search engines.
41. Tactically, the best Monopoly properties to buy are the orange ones.
67. Giant squid eat each other - especially during sex.
73. One in six children think that broccoli is a baby tree.
Take a look for yourself.