Tuesday, 17 July 2007
SAN FRANCISCO STATE U. AND HEZBOLLAH
Some stories need no commentary. And this story, courtesy of the New
York Post, is one of them.
Are they out of their minds over there? See what you think:.
When Hezbollah trumps Old
July 16, 2007
New York Post
Most Americans know that burning our
nations flag is protected by the First Amendment. No matter how distasteful to
some, the Supreme Court has consistently held flag-burning to be protected as
expressive political conduct.
So if burning an American flag is protected
speech, burning other flagssay, the flags of political parties considered to be
terrorist groups by our governmentwould also be protected speech, right?
Rightexcept at San Francisco State
University (SFSU), where the First Amendment takes a backseat to Hamas and
Hezbollah. As part of an anti-terrorism rally held on campus last October,
SFSUs College Republicans stepped on homemade replicas of Hamas and Hezbollah
flags drawn on butcher paper. Unbeknownst to the group, both flags contain the
word Allah in Arabicprompting a student to file a complaint accusing
the College Republicans of walking on a banner with the word Allah written in
Even though the flagstomping was
protected speecha fact pointed out twice to SFSU President Robert
Corrigan in letters from the Foundation for Individual Rights in EducationSFSU
administrators decided to put the College Republicans on trial for
attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment and actions of
incivility. An SFSU spokesperson even told the San Francisco Chronicle that the
real issue was the desecration of Allah. The ensuing investigation and hearing
lasted more than five months before SFSU finally dropped the charges against the
group under intense public criticism.
The College Republicans filed a federal
lawsuit this week, arguing that SFSU violated the groups First Amendment rights
by subjecting the group to an investigation instead of dismissing the charges
out of hand. The suit also challenges SFSUs speech code, which requires
students to be civil to one anothera rule that can only be selectively
enforced against dissenting opinions on a campus as polarized as SFSU.
Constitutionally speaking, this case isnt
even close: Theres no exception for Hamas, Hezbollah or even Allah under the
First Amendment. Now SFSU has to answer for violating the Constitution in court.
NANCY PELOSI-RICARDO STRIKES AGAIN
Here is another episode in the whacky, zany reign of Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo as
speaker of the house.
First, let's see what she said today about how we should protect
ourselves against terrorism. Following is her verbatim comment (bold print
The Bush Administrations unnecessary,
ill-conceived, and ill-planned war in Iraq has made America less secure by
turning our nations full attention away from fighting terrorism. As the
National Intelligence Estimate released this morning makes clear, nearly six
years after the 9/11 attacks the group responsible, al-Qaeda, remains the most
serious terrorist threat facing our country. Al-Qaeda has regained its
strength, terrorist attacks have increased, and extremists are using the war
in Iraq to attract new recruits.
We must do more to protect the American
people from terrorism. Today, the Democratic-led House took a strong
step toward protecting America doing by agreeing to go to conference on
legislation to enact the recommendations made nearly three years ago by the
independent 9/11 Commission. Prompt passage of the final 9/11 legislation and
the Presidents signature on the bill will make America
Ok, got it. We should enact the 9/11 commission recommendations, and
how dare Bush not do so.
Now....let's look at the specific recommendation of the 9/11 commission
regarding troops in Iraq. As before, this is verbatim and the bold
print is mine:.
1 A Military Strategy for Iraq
2 There is no action the American military can
take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq. But there are
actions that the U.S. and Iraqi governments, working together, can and should
take to increase the probability of avoiding disaster there, and increase the
chance of success.
3 The Iraqi government should accelerate the
urgently needed national reconciliation program to which it has already
committed. And it should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security
by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. As the Iraqi Army
increases in size and capability, the Iraqi government should be able to take
real responsibility for governance.
4 While this process is under way, and to
facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the
number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and
supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin
to move combat forces out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in
Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over
primary responsibility for combat operations. We should continue to maintain
support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special operations forces, intelligence
units, search-and-rescue units, and force protection
So there you have it. Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo is demanding that President Bush adhere to the 9/11 commission
recommendations. But the 9/11 commission recommended that there be an
increase of US troops in Baghdad - otherwise known as a TROOP SURGE.
That's what President Bush IS doing.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the disparager of the house, Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo, along
with senate malaise leader Harry Reid, who not only attacked the idea
of a troop surge but literally declared it a failure before it was ever fully
So help me, if I were the CEO of Desilu Productions I would sue her for
copyright infringement. Other than the fact that she is not funny, Nancy
Pelosi-Ricardo's schemes and comments are a dead ringer for Lucy's.
~~~Da da daaaaaaaa, dada DA da-daaaaaaaaaa~~~
JOSEPH WILSON ENDORSES HILLARY CLINTON
It is a measure of how misinformed some people are that joseph wilson, a
proven liar of the first order, can support Hillary Clinton for president, and
she can acccept and thank him for it.
It is deliciously ironic that Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo, today, demanded
that the 9/11 commission recommendations should be implemented.
That point of view requires respect for and belief in the findings of
the 9/11 commission, doesn't it?
Well, the 9/11 commission determined that joseph wilson is a liar. He
lied about how he got his mission to niger by claiming his wife had nothing to
do with it - the commission uncovered her e-mail RECOMMENDING him for it.
And the 9/11 commission determined that wilson lied when he claimed that he
found Iraq was not trying to buy yellowcake uranium there. In point of
fact, the CIA said that wilson's findings BOLSTERED their belief saddam was
trying to do so.
There were other lies by wilson that were also uncovered by the 9/11
commission, but you get the idea. If you want to read a superb chronology
of what a lying scoundrel wilson is, fully referenced and absolutely
devastating, go to http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame.
You'll finish reading this and be slack-jawed that anyone in his or her right
mind would want to be associated with joseph wilson, let alone accept his
There is exactly one reason and one reason only that this lying piece of
excrement can stand up in public, support Hillary Clinton, and not be a gross
embarrassment to her. Media bias.
Media have given joseph wilson a virtual free pass and not come close
to educating the public as to how much of a liar he is. So,
by reason of public ignorance, wilson becomes respectable. Respectable enough
to make Hillary Clinton - who surely knows better - treat him as if he's an
asset instead of an albatross.
Shameful doesn't even begin to describe this.
YOU SNOOZE, YOU...WIN
Let's start at the end: John Edwards, the human oil slick, is going
nowhere as a presidential candidate. His numbers are way down the list,
with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama far ahead of him....and Al Gore waiting in
the wings to potentially blow by all of them.
Edwards is also a non-starter as a vice presidential hopeful, because of his
uselessness to John Kerry in 2004 - i.e. he was supposed to deliver at least
part of the south for Kerry, but the ticket lost every southern state, even
Edwards' own state of North Carolina.
These days, the only way Edwards can make a ripple is by doing distasteful
things like making a campaign event out of a statement concerning his wife's
cancer and calling the global war on terror nothing more than a "bumper
You could say that, politically, Edwards is putting people to sleep.
But, as it turns out, that opinion is more than just a sarcasm. Read
this, courtesy of www.newsbusters.org,
--- and be sure to link to the video: .
Man Snoozes During John
Edwards's ABC Town Hall...Then Vanishes
Scott Whitlock on July 16, 2007 - 15:59.
Did "Good Morning America" physically remove a
man who appeared to be dozing off during Democratic Senator John Edwards's town
hall meeting on Monday? Early in the 7am hour, the man appeared to be sleeping,
or at least dozing, while Edwards discussed his plan for Iraq.
Around 7:11, the individual, who was seated to
the back and right of Edwards, mysteriously disappeared (see video below). Diane
Sawyer even remarked how audience members for the New Orleans-based event had
"gotten up early" to join him. Perhaps the network found it unacceptable that
someone might perceive the former trial lawyer to be less than
Real (1.34 MB) or
.....when the camera cut back to him
(the) mysterious individual is now gone, though the shot is clearly the
same. For more information on Mondays town hall meeting, click
To read an account of Hillary Clintons March
26 special on GMA, click here. In total,
"Good Morning America" has devoted 64 minutes worth of air time to the two
Democratic candidates and zero, so far, for the Republicans.
Finally, for a look at the disparity between
Senator Clintons town hall and the tougher questioning that Edwards endured,
Usually the clich is, "you snooze, you lose". But in the case of
having to endure a speech by a man who is not going to win his party's
nomination, who is a demonstrated non-vote getter (and, let's not forget,
is utterly unqualified to be president), maybe if you snooze you win.
Hey, if they remove you from the stage, you win because you don't have to
listen anymore. Unless, of course, you need a good catnap, in which case
listening to Edwards apparently does the trick. This guy probably thinks
of him as Sominex with an expensive haircut.
On the serious side, though, how did you like that comparison of air time
that ABC gives to Democratic candidates versus Republicans? So far, 64
minutes to Democrats and 0 minutes to Republicans.
If you're a partisan Democrat you will love it. If you're a partisan
Republican you will hate it. And if you want to hear both sides so you can
have an informed decision? On this issue, you're a
ANYTHING BUT LEGISLATING
Here is the latest Democratic stunt, the latest attempt to divert you from
the fact that they are not legislating anything to benefit you:.
Senate Dems Push All-Night Debate on Iraq
Tuesday , July 17,
Republicans dismissed as political theater a
Democratic plan for an all-night session of the Senate to debate
President Bush's military strategy in Iraq amid bipartisan
proposals to redeploy U.S. troops.
The round-the-clock debate Tuesday night
through Wednesday morning was intended as a way of pressuring Republican
senators as well as Bush to act sooner rather than later on a change of course
"How many sleepless nights have our soldiers
and their families had?" Sen. Dick Durbin, No. 2 in the Democratic leadership,
Bush, meanwhile, paid a surprise visit to a
gathering of GOP congressional staffers and White House aides trying to
determine an effective strategy for communications about war policies. One
participant said the president told the staffers he would not rethink his Iraq
policies until after a critical military assessment in
Bush also said he had no confidence in the
ability of international institutions a reference to the United Nations to
salvage Iraq if the U.S. were to withdraw, according to the participant, who
spoke anonymously because the meeting was intended to be
Also on Monday, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said the service chiefs were
developing their own assessment of Iraq to present to Bush in September.
Options include another troop buildup or maintaining current troop levels
beyond September, Pace said.
Bush on Monday told Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki and other officials that continued U.S. support depends on
political progress in Baghdad, White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
Republicans are sometimes right and they're sometimes wrong. In this
instance they are dead-on right. What is this BUT political
theater? What exactly does an "all-nighter" accomplish other than to
get a few cheap headlines?
If Reid and Durbin want to tie this to soldiers' lives, how about
if they live in a tent and eat military food, instead of dining at the fine
restaurants in Washington DC? How about if they try to live on a soldier's
salary until the war is over? How about if they dress in fatigues and
carry what soldiers carry on their backs during patrols?
Childish political stunts instead of legislation that might benefit the
country. That's what we voted into office and that's what we therefore
deserve. And if this country doesn't do something about it in 2008, we
deserve it all the more.
ANOTHER 'BUMPER STICKER SLOGAN' ALERT
Here, courtesy of the Associated Press, is the latest example
of global terrorism and how it can (and, I'm sure, eventually will) impact us.
The bold print is mine:
|Terror Threat Against
U.S. Said Serious
17 09:07 AM US/Eastern
By KATHERINE SHRADER and ANNE
Associated Press Writers
|WASHINGTON (AP) -
The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its
contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an
attack on U.S.
soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate
on threats to the American homeland.
The declassified key findings, to
be released publicly on Tuesday, were obtained in advance by The
The report lays out a
range of dangersfrom al-Qaida to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim
radical groupsthat pose a "persistent and evolving threat" to the
country over the next three years. As expected, however, the
findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror
problem: Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.
The report makes clear that
al-Qaida in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to
U.S. soil, could become a problem here.
"Of note," the analysts said, "we
assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and
capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable
affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to
attack the homeland."
The analysts also found that
al-Qaida's association with its Iraqi affiliate helps the group to
energize the broader Sunni Muslim extremist community, raise
resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives"including for
National Intelligence Estimates
are the most authoritative written judgments of the 16 spy agencies
across the breadth of the U.S. government. These agencies reflect
the consensus, long-term thinking of top intelligence analysts.
Portions of the documents are occasionally declassified for public
The new report echoed statements
made by senior intelligence officials over the last year, but
provided some new depth on their thinking and concerns.
For instance, the report
says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have
constrained al-Qaida's ability to attack the U.S. again and
convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.
But, the report quickly adds,
analysts are concerned "that this level of international cooperation
may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of
the threat diverge."
In other words, not only is global terrorism real, but there is a good
likelihood that we are going to be hit in the near future. And one of the main
reasons this hasn't happened for 6 years is that we have FOUGHT them.
I implore you to remember this when you think about how Democrats have tried
to end the patriot act, have fought every serious attempt at surveillance for
terrorist suspects and have generally done everything they could to impede or
completely circumvent policies that make us safer.
And, for god sakes, remember who disdains this international threat as a
"bumper sticker slogan". And remember that the only reason this imbecilic
statement still stands is that media have given the Democrats who said it and
who agreed with it a free pass.
Yes, the AP has put this out. Credit to them for doing so. Now,
has your newspaper picked it up and published it? Did you see a story, let
alone a feature story, on the network news about it?
But one thing I guarantee; If they should hit us again, the first
person who will be blamed is the one who has paid, and continues to pay, a
huge political price for trying to protect us, rather than the people who fought
every one of his efforts to keep us safe.
That man is President George Bush.