Great Parody…I Think

Villainous Company: John Roberts Is Not Healthy For Women And Children and Other Living Things…

John Roberts must be stopped. If confirmed, he will drag this nation, kicking and screaming, back to the days when birth control was illegal and the American Womyn was chained to her Easy Bake oven for hours, forced to get perms and wear frilly aprons and churn out endless batches of tacky, decorated cupcakes with little sprinkles on top for hordes of sticky-fingered, whiny urchins who should have been aborted (like decent Wimmyn do, nowadays) instead of going to law school so she could rack up 80 or more billable hours a week while paying an undocumented au pair from Guatemala to care for her 1.5 children. We must not allow a return to those barbaric living conditions: it’s like something out of Leave It To Beaver.

At least I think it’s a parody. It is difficult to parody Liberals because in order to do good parody you have to exaggerate their ideas to the point of ridiculousness and their normal ideas are so ridiculous that they’re impossible to exaggerate.

Anyhow, great parody, if that’s what it is.

Back In Business

My computer is back. My son fixed it and upgraded it in the process. It was my DVD drive that was causing all the problems. I now have a 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, a 320GB drive and a new motherboard. This ought to last for a while.

I had to call Microsoft to activate my new Windows installation because I have installed ti too many times. You could hardly tell she was in India. The word usage gives them away, no one in America thanks you for “patiently waiting.”

Hugh Hewitt’s Wondering About Katrina’s Effect On Gas Prices

Can you say $4 a gallon gas?

Lousiana has 17 active refineries, producing about 16% of America’s fuel.

Total American refinery capacity utilization was at 93% in 2004.

American refineries are now operating at 97% capacity, processing 17 million barrels of oil a day (American consumes 20.6 million barrels of oil a day.)

If Katrina takes refinery capacity off-line, the effect at the pump will be immediate. Ther is no more capacity available to up output within the counry. Shortfalls will have to be made up from imported gasoline suppliers. They are unlikely to be moved by complaints of gauging from American congressmen.

But you know that if gas does rise to $4 a gallon, it will be becaause of greedy oil companies, not the hurricane.

Hog on Ice makes it clear that the effect could be even worse.

Andrea Harris Is Not Happy With “Mother” Sheehan

Least Loved Bedtime Stories v. 2.0 » This is your brain on women

I have had it with my sex. I hereby proclaim myself Female By Accident; it’s just an “F” on my driver’s license and a mistaken chromosome set; otherwise I have nothing to do with the mewling, puling, totally lacking in anything like dignity or character half of humanity known as “women.” Men say you can’t trust anything that bleeds once a month and doesn’t die; fellas, you don’t know the half of it.

Even “The Miracle of the Grilled Cheese Sandwich” has not swayed her.

I don’t think I’d want to get on Andrea’s Sh*t List.

Dan Rather’s Replacement Found

Chicago Tribune | HOAX!

CARBONDALE, Ill. — Word that Sgt. Dan Kennings had been killed in Iraq crushed spirits in the Daily Egyptian newsroom. The stocky, buzz-cut soldier befriended by students at the university newspaper was dead, and the sergeant’s little girl–a precocious, blond-haired child they’d grown to love–was now an orphan.

They all knew that Kodee Kennings’ mother had died when Kodee was about 5. The little girl’s fears and frustrations about her father being in harm’s way had played out on the pages of the Daily Egyptian for nearly two years, in gut-wrenching letters fraught with misspellings, innocent observations and questions about why Daddy wasn’t there to chase the monsters from under her bed.

It turns out Daddy didn’t exist. And neither did Kodee.

The Tribune went to southern Illinois to learn about the bond between Kodee and Dan Kennings, and the life Kodee would face without her hero.

Instead, eight days of reporting revealed elaborate fabrications and intricate lies. There is no soldier named Dan Kennings. The charming girl people came to know as Kodee Kennings is someone else entirely, a child from an out-of-state family led to believe that she was playing a part in a documentary about a soldier.

I’m sure that after this, Brenner will be getting calls from the New York Times and CBS. They’ve found a replacement for Dan Rather and Jason Blair.

It’s so easy when you tell people what they want to hear, and they want very badly to believe that the Iraq War is an unremittingly bad thing. It was a story too good to be true. A soldier as victim, the soldier’s child as an orphan, all the pieces to make a good tear-jerker. So what if it wasn’t true.

Do you think the tern pathetic weasel is too harsh?

Opponents Of Robert’s Nomination Reveal Themselves As Petty Whiners

In Article, Roberts’s Pen Appeared to Dip South

When John G. Roberts Jr. prepared to ghostwrite an article for President Ronald Reagan a little over two decades ago, his pen took a Civil War reenactment detour.

The article, which was to appear in the scholarly National Forum journal, was called “The Presidency: Roles and Responsibilities.” Roberts was writing by hand a section on how the congressional appropriations process had evolved.

A fastidious editor of other people’s copy as well as his own, Roberts began with the words “Until about the time of the Civil War.” Then, the Indiana native scratched out the words “Civil War” and replaced them with “War Between the States.”

One first examination it would seem to be a petty thing. But on closer examination it reveals that the Democrat opposition can’t find anything substantial to object to.

Robert’s choice of words in this case is meaningless, both appellations have been commonly used for years, but the people trying to make an issue of it are showing themselves to be petty whiners who are unable to find anything substantial to complain about.

No Surprise Here

Except for the fact that there is someone doing this story at all.

abc7news.com: PR Machine Behind Cindy Sheehan?

Aug. 25 – With the President back at his Crawford ranch, the anti-war protest right outside his ranch is getting a lot more media attention. ABC7 looks at who is financing the operation and who’s providing on-the-ground support.

The camp at Crawford is full of Cindy Sheehan supporters, people from all walks of life, but off to the side are a small group of professionals skilled in politics and public relations who are marketing Cindy Sheehan’s message.

Not to surprisingly it is the same bunch of people that we last saw spending millions campaigning for John Kerry.

These people have invested their entire existence on opposing George W. Bush. They will do anything, say anything if they think it will hurt Bush. They would rather see the Baathist dictatorship with its torture rooms and hundreds of thousands of people in mass graves, win in Iraq if it means that George W. Bush would lose.

How long before they move from funding PR campaigns to funding IEDs. It’s not a big jump for many of them, they did it during the Vietnam War.

Clueless Democrat Blowhards

Democrat Party Leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have a op-ed that their staff wrote for them in USA Today, not a newspaper that I pay much attention to.

The column is supposed to demonstrate their far-reaching vision while lambasting President Bush. But all it really does is show them to be clueless blowhards.

The title of the column is “How to effectively confront nuclear threat from terrorists”. But any reading brings the conclusions that they bring nothing to the discussion but pointless blather. Their three step method for keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists shows a serious misunderstanding of the world outside the beltway.

First, track down and secure loose nuclear weapons and material. Russia alone has enough usable material for 80,000 nuclear weapons, and less than half of its nuclear weapons and materials have been protected from theft. We need to move from a policy of assistance to a partnership so that Americans and Russians work together on a plan against this common threat.

Well. This is a great idea. In fact it is so good that it has been going on for years. In fact it started waay back before President Clinton took office and has been continuing. Pelosi and Reid seem to think that all we need to do is show up with a bunch of trucks at the Kremlin and tell Putin that we’re there to pick up his nukes. I think that the Russian government, such as it is, would think that they might have a say in that. That is an on-going process that is being pursued by the State Department. At least it is when they’re not calling the Washington Post to complain about Secretary Rice and the Bush administration. This isn’t a serious proposal, it’s a whine.

Second, stop nations such as North Korea and Iran, which on President Bush’s watch have greatly expanded nuclear programs, from joining up with the evil ideology of al-Qaeda.

In the past three years, North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, kicked out the international inspectors monitoring its nuclear activities, and claimed to have reprocessed fuel rods yielding enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons. Iran is working on processes that can produce fuel for nuclear weapons. And neither regime has shown much hesitation in working with terrorists.

Yet, with both Iran and North Korea, the Bush administration has sat by for years and let others deal with the threat. We can no longer outsource national security to the European Union or nations such as China.

We propose a program of “carrots” combined with an old-fashioned, American “big stick.” That means pursuing diplomacy and trying to convince these nations to act in their own best interests. But it also means backing that up with a real commitment to use whatever form of pressure is most likely to produce results.

North Korea is under the control of a megalomaniac that does not bargain in good faith. You would think that after the embarrassing failure of Jimmy Carter’s 1994 agreement they would know better. But still they insist that they have a plan.

Judging from their column what they propose is to acquiesce to every demand of the North Korean poofty haired pygmy.

The Norks want direct one-on-one talks with the United States. Bush wants to pursue the six-party talks involving South Korea and other neighbors. The Democrat proposal? Give in. More food? Sure, no problem. More direct aid to the North? Sure, no problem. The United States is facing a problem with imported oil. The Democrats want to send oil the North Korea. The Democrats plan for negotiation with North Korea seems to be to give in to their every demand and trust them to keep their word.

On Iran they are doing a pirouette. They blasted Bush for being trigger happy, ready to take military action at the slightest provocation. “Diplomacy,” they said “That’s the ticket. We should be talking and not rattling sabers.” So we let Europe try to deal with the Iranian diplomatically while we stayed in the background as a threat. No dice. The Iranians didn’t go for it. Now the Democrats are upset that diplomacy was used. They think Bush should be more forceful. Exactly how is a mystery.

Do you thing Reid and Pelosi want us to invade Iran? Is that what they’re proposing? I thought they were upset about invading Iraq and Afghanistan, now they want to add Iran to the list? May be they think we can “stop” Iran and North Korea from obtaining nukes by sending them a note signed by Reid and Pelosi saying “Stop.”

Like I said, not a serious proposal.

Third, if Iran and North Korea continue on their course, their actions could set off a nuclear arms race in the world’s two most dangerous regions — the Middle East and Asia. This highlights the need to revitalize the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for a new century to account for new technology and new terrorist networks that operate without direct ties to any nation. The threat of terrorists unleashing a nuclear strike on an American city is here, and it is all too real.

Ooh, a treaty. What makes them think that the Norks and the Iranians would be amenable to a non-proliferation treaty. Didn’t they just say that the Norks withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and kicked out the UN inspectors. Why would they change their minds? And why do they think that a new Non-Proliferation treaty would be any more effective than this biological warfare treaty?

If this is supposed to be considered a serious proposal rather than a Bush-bashing screed they’re going to have to do better than that.

For a “How To” proposal it seems to be bereft of any actual proposals. They can identify the problems but their proposal to deal with them, if that’s what they are supposed to be, show one of two things. Either they have no idea how to proceed or they do have proposals but are going to withhold them in order to score political points. So which is it. Are they clueless or are they willing to compromise the safety of the country for political gain?

Pat Robertson’s Raw Deal

The MSM has been puffed up and bellowing in faux outrage over Pat Robertson’s remarks calling for the assassination of Fidel wanna-be Hugo Chavez.

After all, Robertson is a Christian leader and, as every good reporter know, Christians are awful people who should be banned from participating in political matters.

But back in 1997, things were different. Clinton was President, the stock market was riding high on faked balance sheets and cash for coffee was the rule of the day at the White House.

Like I said, things were different. I know you’ll find it hard to believe, but I’m going to link to Mother Jones, the trade journal for wacked out leftists. In November 1997 they ran the following:

Kill Saddam!

U.S. journalists agree: If you can’t beat him, assassinate him.

By Eric Umansky

November 25, 1997

The latest saber-rattling with Iraq has an odd twist: As the United States government shows restraint and revives the lost art of diplomacy, this time it’s the U.S. press that’s howling for blood — the blood of Saddam Hussein personally. The press, of course, has the distinct advantage that nobody really follows their policy suggestions anyway, so their advice doesn’t have to be diplomatic, or even legal:

The law:

Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
— Executive Order 12333, issued Dec. 4, 1981, by President Ronald Reagan, continuing the policy of his predecessors Ford and Carter. Neither Bush nor Clinton has rescinded it.

The handy (and illegal) tips from the press:

“Conventional Wisdom,” Newsweek, Nov. 17: “Take him down.” (next to a photo of Hussein and a downward-plunging arrow)

Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist, New York Times, Nov. 6: “Saddam Hussein is the reason God created cruise missiles. …So if and when Saddam pushes beyond the brink, and we get that one good shot, let’s make sure it’s a head shot.”

George Stephanopolous, former Clintonite and current ABC News analyst, on ABC’S “This Week,” Nov. 9: “This is probably one of those rare cases where assassination is the more moral course…we should kill him.”

Sam Donaldson, co-host of “This Week,” Nov. 9: We should kill Saddam “under cover of law…. We can do business with his successor.”

Bill Kristol, ABC News analyst, “This Week,” Nov. 9: “It sounds good to me.”

Cokie Roberts, co-host of “This Week,” Nov. 9: “Well, now that we’ve come out for murder on this broadcast, let us move on to fast-track…”

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, Nov. 17: “It won’t be easy to take him out. …But we need to try, because the only language Saddam has ever understood is force.”

Newsweek, Dec. 1: “Why We Should Kill Saddam.”

Wow, if I didn’t know better I could swear that they were condoning assassination. But, I don’t understand, I thought that Saddam was not a threat. Why were they wanting to assassinate him?

So, what’s different now? Wrong President, wrong political party, wrong religious belief.

You can only talk about killing foreign leaders if you’re a journalist or a Muslim Imam.