Friday, 15 February 2008
MORE ON THE OBAMA FAINTING EPIDEMIC
I just saw this on www.orbusmax.,com. And since I blogged
about four Obama faintings, I thought you might want to know about 2 or 3
|******** CLIP COLLECTION: 710 KIRO DORI MONSON EXLUSIVE
UPDATE - 7TH CLIP
SAID TO EXIST, FROM RALLY AT MADISON, WISCONSIN, 10/15/07...
NOW IT'S UP TO 6! 2 MORE CLIPS OF "FAINTING" WOMEN AT OBAMA RALLIES:
VIDEO: circa Feb. 24th, 2007 - Obama in Los
VIDEO: Dec. 8th, 2007 -- Obama in
CLIPS FROM BARACK
OBAMA RALLIES... EACH IS A WOMAN... EACH WOMAN STANDS DEAD CENTER, RIGHT
IN FRONT OF THE STAGE WHERE OBAMA IS STANDING AND SPEAKING... OBAMA SAYS
"GIVE HER SPACE", REFERENCES EMT, AND HANDS THE WATER BOTTLE EACH TIME!...
AUDIO: Feb. 8th, 2008 -- Encounters fainter at Key
Arena speech in Seattle...
VIDEO: Feb. 4th, 2008 -- Obama in Hartford (START AT
VIDEO: Jan. 8th, 2008 -- Obama in Hanover,
VIDEO: Sep. 8th, 2007 -- Obama in Santa Barbara, CA
(START AT 6:29 MARK)...
ANOTHER: Madison, Wis., Oct. 22,
******** JAMES TARANTO: Why do women keep fainting at
Obama rallies *******
You have to start wondering if it's always the same person, don't you?
What's left of Oral Roberts must be smiling broadly in his grave.
Maybe Hillary can answer this by scaring up a series of women in her
audiences who spontaneously get on their knees when she mentions Hubby
ISRAEL AGAIN? NOOOOO, NOT US.
Israel must be getting tired of denying it had a hand in the deaths of high
ranking terrorists with histories of attacks against them.
Sort of the way you'd be tired after winning $1,000,000 at blackjack.
Here are the particulars, courtesy of www.captainsquartersblog.com:
First Umad Mughniyeh takes the 72-virgin ride with
a Bashar Assad Special. Now Ayman Atallah Fayed gets blasted in the
most literal sense of the word. Both men were high-ranking members of terrorist
groups arrayed against Israel. Coincidence?
A powerful blast went off in the house
of a senior Islamic Jihad activist Friday, killing him, his wife and daughter,
along with three neighbors, medics and an Islamic Jihad spokesman said.
Islamic Jihad claimed Israeli warplanes struck
the home of Ayman Atallah Fayed. Israel denied it had launched any airstrike
in the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza where Fayed lived. Hamas police
said the cause of the blast was not clear.
Witnesses reported seeing fragments of what
looked like locally produced rockets at the scene, suggesting the house may
have been used to store arms
Of course, the explosion could have something to
do with the fact that Fayed had his family living on a pile of bombs. Perhaps
someone was tinkering with one in the house and connected the right wire at the
wrong time. That also could have created the huge scope of the blast. With a lot
of ordnance inside, a single explosion could have been amplified greatly through
the secondary explosions of the other rockets.
It does seem more than a little coincidental,
though. Leading members of two of Israel's biggest enemies getting their
martyrdom visas stamped within days of each other would be awfully lucky for the
Israelis. Unless, of course, the Israelis were the ones stamping those visas in
the first place.
I love that title, don't you? It is a great pun on "Who is Killing the
Great Chefs of Europe". And the 72 virgin ride is a terrific turn of
phrase. Ed Morrissey is a first-rate writer.
But the best part? That this subhuman scumbag and his bomb factory are
Yeah, I know he'll be replaced. There seems to be no shortage of
lunatic murdering islamic Jew-hating scum. Even so, it's nice to see
one of the worst of them get his.
MURTHA'S BOONDOGGLE TO NOTHING
Have you ever wondered why a relatively moderate to conservative congressional district
in Pennsylvania keeps electing the corrupt, often semi-coherent defeatist
weasel john murtha in his congressional seat? Want to see
the answer in one sentence? Okay, Im happy to
oblige. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's your sentence.
The following report, from a local TV station in murtha's district, offers
an excellent example of what I'm talking about:
The following is a transcript of a report by Paul
Van Osdol that first aired Feb. 15, 2008, on WTAE Channel 4 Action News at 5
A Team 4 investigation found millions of your tax
dollars going to a local government agency that many in Washington, including
President George W. Bush, believe is a waste.
But a powerful local congressman has kept the
In July 1977, a flood devastated Johnstown,
killing 80 people and destroying the downtown. Many businesses never recovered,
including the Penn-Traffic department store.
But in the early 1990s, U.S. Rep. John Murtha
persuaded Washington to move a new federal agency, the National Drug
Intelligence Center, into the old department store.
Now, more than 300 people work there, and it's one
of Johnstown's biggest employers.
"Our payroll represents several million dollars a
year to the Johnstown economy," said Michael Walther of the NDIC.
That's good for Johnstown, but critics said the
NDIC has not been good for taxpayers.
Team 4's Paul Van Osdol talked to a former top
administrator at the federal Drug Enforcement Agency who helped create the
intelligence center in the early 1990s. He had serious concerns about its
effectiveness back then, and he said nothing has changed.
There's no question that all the senior people in
law enforcement, federal law enforcement, saw really no reason for it," said
former DEA deputy Jim Milford.
"We don't tell the police which doors to kick in
or which cars to search, but what we do is we look at the big picture," said
They also do something called document
exploitation, which is analyzing records seized in drug raids.
Critics of the intelligence center said it's an
important function, but it makes no sense for agents working along the Mexican
border to haul those records to Johnstown.
"It would be better if there was a document
exploitation computer forensics group in each field division of the FBI and
DEA," said Milford.
Sen. Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, has been a
persistent critic of the center.
"When you talk to the justice department, when you
talk to the military, when you talk to everybody that's been involved in this,
very rarely do you get a supportive statement about what happens at NDIC," said
In fact, for the past three years, Bush has tried
to eliminate the $40 million-per-year center by taking it out of the budget.
But Murtha, one of the most powerful members of
Congress, has made sure the money stayed in the budget. It's called earmarking,
and Murtha has used it to funnel millions of dollars into local projects, making
him, according to the New York Times, the "King of Pork."
Van Osdol: "Where would you guys be without (John)
Walther: "Well, he has been very good to us."
Murtha declined Team 4's request for an interview.
But Van Osdol caught up with him in Washington where he was speaking to a group
of Pentagon contractors.
Van Osdol: "Congressman, what about the National
Drug Intelligence Center?"
Murtha: "You're from WTAE?"
Van Osdol: "Yes sir."
Murtha: "Nice to see you."
Van Osdol: "What are you going to do to secure
funding for that, sir?"
When Van Osdol tried to keep asking questions, one
of Murtha's men tried to block the camera.
Van Osdol: "Congressman, can you respond to the
criticism that people say NDIC is just a pork barrel program?"
Murtha: "No comment. How's that?"
Van Osdol: "Why don't you want to talk about that
Murtha: "Just talk to them about it. Talk to
Van Osdol: "We've talked to NDIC."
Murtha: "What did they tell you?"
Van Osdol: "They say you are the man who keeps it
Murtha: "That's right. You got that right."
But Murtha had plenty to say when Michigan Rep.
Mike Rogers tried to take the Intelligence Center out of the budget last year.
Murtha allegedly told him, "I hope you don't have
any earmarks in the Defense Appropriation Bill, because they are gone, and you
will not get any earmarks now and forever."
An attempt to reprimand Murtha over that statement
failed to get enough votes.
Sen. Coburn said the Intelligence Center
symbolizes all that is wrong with Washington.
"We can't continue to have members of Congress on
a whim because they want to help somebody throw $500 million at a problem
without expecting legitimate, measurable results," said Colburn.
But the center's director expects the flow of
money to continue.
"Everybody knows in their heart of hearts at the
end of the day, we're not going anyplace," said Walther.
Milford said he's semi-surprised the center still
"I'm surprised form a standpoint of the resources
that are available to law enforcement today, that people continue to push a
center such as that, that, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, has never been
effective," said Milford.
A study by the group Taxpayers for Common Sense
found Murtha led all house members in earmarks this year with $176 million in
local projects. Congress passed 12,000 earmarks, costing $18 billion.
In his State of the Union speech, Bush proposed
eliminating earmarks, but political experts said there is little chance of that
In fact, Murtha's committee has already set up a
link on its Web site for congressmen to make earmark requests.
john murth is arrogant. He is abusive. He thinks he is above having
to answer for his actions.
murtha is a political bully who threatens fellow congresspeople with retribution
if they dare to question the useless porkbarrel money that he relentlessly
thows into his district (he had to publicly apologize for the incident you just read
about, by the way).
But as long as murtha greases his district with $$$$$$$, regardless of whether
there is any value received for it, he is going to continue being
Remember how many attacks there were on Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska because
of his proposed "bridge to nowhere"? He deserved every one of those
attacks. The bridge would have cost almost $400 million dollars.
Well, here is a boondoggle to nothing from john murtha. It has cost
$500 million dollars. Not "would have cost", but DID cost. And I'm
betting that this is the first you've ever read about it.
When it comes to media, folks, that is the difference between having an
R or a D after your name.
As a kid growing up in the '50's. I remember looking forward to watching Oral
Roberts on Sunday morning. I couldn't wait.
No, I was not an evangelical Christian at the time. I was a Jewish kid
growing up in Queens. But that segment where he appeared to magically heal
sick people was great! After confirming some old lady's faith in the lord,
he would put his hand on her forehead, scream HEAL! HEAL! and
that would do the trick. Every week, just like clockwork.
Politically, it appears that Barack Obama may now be doing something very
similar. Except he doesn't put his hand on a woman's head and scream
HEAL! HEAL! Instead, the woman stands up in a very conspicuous place
in the audience and goes FAINT! FAINT!
Here, let me show you, courtesy of radiovice.blogspot.com. Hang onto
your hat, you're not going to believe it (if you have any trouble linking to the
video, just click here:
Update: Coincidence?: Our
morning show host Ray Dunaway pointed this out after sifting through DU. A
little research and this is what I came up with. Coincidence? The Obama version
of "crying"? Or am I just cynical (hard not to be these days)? There seems to be
a trend at Obama rallies ... women fainting. And interestingly enough the
Senator responds the same way every time, almost as if ... naah, couldn't
It happened here in Hartford ....
Throughout the speech, Obama kept a close eye on
the crowd. Upon hearing a small group begin chanting We cant wait a phrase
Obama had just used he pointed them out with an outstretched arm, and within
seconds the entire arena was chanting the phrase in unison.
And when a woman
appeared to faint in the standing-only VIP section in front of the podium, Obama
paused his speech for over a minute as he directed the crowd to make way for an
EMT team and tossed a bottle of water from the stage.
here in New Hampshire
oh yeah ... and here ... in
Climate change, the Iraq war and Obama tossing a bottle of water
to a woman about to faint all received big cheers. As Obama told the crowd to
part so that the woman in question could leave and called for help, a young girl
in the crowd shouted out, "What a man!"
and In LA ... maybe
this one started it all.
He spoke for about 20 minutes, hitting his core
themes of optimism and accountability."What's called for is a level of
responsibility and seriousness that we haven't seen in a very long time," he
told the cheering crowd, which included college students in short sundresses and
big sunglasses and older couples in peace symbols.A woman standing in front of
the stage appeared to faint as Obama spoke about Iraq. The candidate paused and
asked the crowd to make way for firefighters.One supporter shouted, "You're a
good man," leaving Obama momentarily at a loss for words."Well, I'm not the only
one stopping to help her," he said, sounding almost embarrassed.
wait ... here too in Madison ... and that
was before he even got there.
Obama exited to an exuberant crowd
shouting, fired up! and ready to go! Before the senator arrived, students
were tossing around an inflatable cow above the crowd. Three people fainted in
the midst of all the enthusiasm.
This could be a really
swell game ... count the number of people on the campaign overcome by the
"vapas". OK ... one more time ... it has to be hypnosis.
Thanks to Jim Geraghty at
National Review for giving us a link. Thanks Jim!
Now let's be fair. This could just be a coincidence. A
regularly scheduled, once-a-month-or-so-like-clockwork coincidence.
Or maybe Obama's message of "change" is, in reality a message of "the
more things change the more things remain the
THIS IS THE NEW POLITICS?
So you think that Barack Obama is the new politics and Hillary Clinton is the
old? Better think again.
Mr. Obama, a veteran of Chicago Democratic politics (which should
already disabuse you of that thought) is about as "old politics" as it
Want proof? Read this
article from Capitol Eye, an arm of the Center for Responsive
Politics, and see for yourself. I'll show you a couple of the key excerpts
February 14, 2008 | At this
summer's Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state
governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense
contest between Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama. If
neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the
primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in
November's presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to
these "superdelegates"the candidates' friends, colleagues and even financial
beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.
And while it would be unseemly for the candidates
to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged
to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are
superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the
form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of
pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to
superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected
officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would
go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received
campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling
$228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't
held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign
contributions from him.
Clinton does not appear to have been as
openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to
superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who
have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling
about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates
support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their
endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.
And t isn't that Hillary can't play the game either, I assure you. It
is just that Barack is playing it longer and more extravagantly.
You may like and prefer to vote for Barack Obama. If so, that's fine
with me. It is 100% your right to do so.
But if your preference is in any way based on the belief that Mr. Obama's
message of "change" applies to politics as usual, then you maybe should think
THE NEW YORK SUN EDITORIAL ABOUT OBAMA'S AND CLINTON'S SYRIA CONNECTION
In my previous blog I implored you to read the links which detail how Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton have quietly been conducting meetings with assad, Syria's
terrorist, murdering head of state. I pointed out that this is being done
with almost total cover from mainstream media and questioned why that would be
Well, here's one link you won't have to click on. I've decided to put up
the New York Sun's editorial on this subject so you will have no doubt about
what is going on here.
Read every word. Then you can wonder, along with me, why the New York
Times and/or Washington Post and/or LA Times and/or other major dailies and/or
network news shows are ignoring it:
New York Sun
February 15, 2008
What in the world are advisers to both Senators Obama and
Clinton doing in Syria in the middle of a
presidential campaign and why are the two campaigns so unforthcoming about the
details of the visits? The same week that a terrorist mastermind harbored by the
Baathist regime in
assassinated by a car bomb, both one of Mr. Obama's foreign policy counselors,
a long-time critic of Israel, and one of Mrs. Clinton's
national finance chairs, Hassan Nemazee, were
meeting with President Assad.
Mr. Brzezinski himself issued a statement to the
Baathist controlled press in Damascus, where he was quoted by the official Sana
News Agency as saying that the "talks dealt with recent regional developments,
affirming that both sides have a common desire to achieve stability in the
region, which would benefit both its people and the United States." There
was no indication in respect of whether Mr. Brzezinski queried the Syrian
regime, officially listed by our own State Department as a terrorist-sponsoring
state, about the assassination of Hezbollah's Imadh Mugniyah, who was slain by a
car-bomb as, according to the Lebanese Broadcasting Channel, he was leaving a
ceremony at an Iranian school in Damascus.
When our Eli Lake, telephoned the Obama campaign
to see what it had to say about its adviser's doings in Syria, a spokesman said
it was the first they had heard about it. Mr. Nemazee's office would not say
anything about the trip, nor would Mrs. Clinton's campaign. When Mr. Lake rang
the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus, he was informed that Mr. Nemazee had left
with the delegation yesterday.
Where is the sense of reality about who President
Assad is and what his regime is all about? To suggest, as the Syrians report Mr.
Brzezinski said, that they share some kind of common interest in respect of
"stability" is disingenuous. Mugniyah, whom the Syrians had been harboring, has
been among the FBI's most-wanted terrorists since 1983, when he authorized the
attack on the American Marine barracks in Beirut. Mr. Assad runs a police state.
Dictatorships can only thrive if the population is in constant terror and
convinced the state itself is all knowing.
This has lead some to speculate that the Syrian
regime itself might have been complicit in the killing of Mugniyah. We wouldn't
gainsay the possibility entirely. Terrorists like drug dealers and mafiosos
fight over turf all the time. What we would gainsay is that a benign
construction could be put onto the role of the Assad family's Baathist regime in
Syria. If the assassination of Mugniyah is a sign of anything, it is most likely
that the Baathist regime is itself losing its grip on power. After all Mugniyah
was a valuable asset for Mr. Assad, who relied on his capabilities to continue
to threaten the prospect of a stable Lebanon.
* * *
So where's the "realism" on the part of Mr.
Brzezinski and other so-called foreign policy "realists," who have accused
President Bush of foreign policy malpractice for downgrading relations with
Syria after the Syrians threw in with the Iranians to sabotage Iraq? Why are
advisers to Senators Clinton and Obama in the Syrian capital at a time like
this? Are they pressing for a separate peace with the regime? It is something on
which Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will be challenged in the coming campaign, we
have little doubt. Where do they stand in respect of Syria and why can't they
bring themselves to explain what their advisers are doing in the capital of one
of the countries most hostile to America and
OBAMA DRUG & GAY SEX SCANDAL: CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE TRUE?
I have no idea if what you are about to read in the following two articles is
true. I want to be 100% clear about this up front.
But if it is? Goodbye Barack Obama. End of campaign.
I do know that Robert Novak wrote what is referenced in the first
piece. I read it myself at that time....and made nothing of it because
there were no specific names mentioned.
The second piece details charges that have been filed against Senator Barack
Obama and implicate him in drug usage and gay sex.
This is entirely new to me and, as mentioned at the beginning, I do not
know if there is any validity to the story. But I am posting it for you to
make up your own mind:.
Robert Novak revealed this weekend that the long rumored sitting
Democratic senator with a devastating scandal in his background is presidential
candidate Barack Obama.
Agents of Sen. Hillary
Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has
scandalous information about her principal opponent for the partys presidential
nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it, Novak reported. The nature of the
alleged scandal was not disclosed.
The Clinton campaign has denied it
has such information, but, still, tongues are wagging. Could Obama have cheated
on his wife, Michelle, which is the most likely scandalous
scenario? Or is something even more sinister involved?
For his part, Obama was quick to
strike back, calling the Novak article slime politics.
Sinclair filed suit in Minnesota District Court on
Monday against Barack
Obama, along with Obamas campaign strategist David
Axelrod and others, regarding issues stemming from Sinclairs allegations that he used cocaine
and performed a sexual act with Obama in 1999. Abbreviated excerpt:
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1981, 18 U.S.C. 241 and the First Amendment of the United States
Constitutions right to Freedom of Speech. Defendants have and continue to
conspire against the rights of citizens in that they are actively engaged in
ongoing internet intimidation, claim to be conducting illegal investigations
into plaintiffs personal life, actively involved in preventing allegations of
illegal drug use and sexual activity involving Defendant Obama from becoming
Plaintiff states that he personally engaged in
sexual activity and personally used illegal drugs in November 1999 with U.S.
Senator Barack Obama on two separate occasions. Plaintiff states that he
attempted to contact defendant Obama in the fall of 2007 to advise defendant
Obama to make his 1999 use of illegal drugs public himself and that if he did
not do so then plaintiff would have no choice but to come forward as
defendants actions were relevant to his running for President of the United
States. Defendant Obama ignored plaintiffs attempts to allow defendant Obama
to reveal this information on his own.
Both of these come from the web site www.bigheaddc.com. I don't know a thing about
this website and cannot vouch for (or against) its credibility.
But, just for a moment, think about how many times
you'd already have read about it if the person in question was a
Republican....I don't know, maybe a Mark Foley or a Larry Craig for example. Would media be waiting for proof positive before running with the
allegations? DID they in the case of Foley (never charged with even
one count of anything) or Craig?
Is it possible that this is
Hillary's nuclear option?
If so, and there is any credible evidence (there certainly would have to be more
that what I just posted), you'll have Ms. Clinton on the ballot in
November. Because this would summarily end Mr. Obama's campaign run and
possibly his entire political career.
HENRY WAXMAN: A LITTLE MAN WITH A BIG GAVEL
I hate that Mike Gallagher wrote this before I did. I hate that I
didn't post my exact same opinion - the one I railed about to my wife this
morning - before reading Mr. Gallagher's column. I fully intended to do
But I am nothing if not honest. He wrote it first, and his version was
so good that I am conceding defeat and just putting it in front of you.
I am, however, using the above title, which I came up with after my wife rolled her eyes
and left the room.
You can read Mr. Gallagher's entire piece right
here. The key part, however, is shown below:
Should Worry About Its Own Business Not Baseball's
By Mike Gallagher
Friday, February 15, 2008
The headline in my morning paper was the height of
mediocrity: A Standoff Over Steroids.
Edward R. Murrow would be proud.
Watching Congressman Henry Waxman interrogate
baseballs Roger Clemens this week was maddening. In the middle of a war, while
the right to intercept electronic messages by our terrorist enemies is being
thwarted by anti-war Democrats, as the economy lumbers down some shaky railroad
tracks, and illegal immigrants continue to stream across the border siphoning
social services from our local communities, a bunch of grandstanding Congressmen
have decided to grind Washington, D.C. to a halt and decide if some pampered,
spoiled millionaire baseball player is telling the truth when he denies having
Human Growth Hormone injected into his butt.
In the grand scheme of life, I wonder how many
taxpayers are on the edge of their seats wondering if some trainer named Brian
McNamee is being truthful when he testified that Clemens is lying about his use
of steroids and HGH.
It ranks right up there with concern about what
Brittney Spears is going to do next in her train wreck of a life.
Id like to believe that most of us have full
enough lives that the personal habits of baseball players or pop divas dont
even register as a blip on our collective radar.
Its one thing to see paparazzi (what a stupid
word) stalk Hollywood celebrities like a bunch of crazed vultures and realize
what a ridiculous environment could lead to such a debacle in la-la land.
Its quite another to recognize that our tax
dollars have funded this baseball/steroid three ring circus, a giant waste of
government resources if there ever was one.
Wait, there's more: Today's New York Times sports section has an article headlined "Waxman
Regrets Hearing Was Held". Incredibly, he is quoted as saying:
Im sorry we had the hearing. I regret
that we had the hearing. And the only reason we had the hearing was because
Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it.
You can't say Waxman doesn't have chutzpah. Here is a man on a life-mission to "investigate" anything
and everything that allows him to sit in a big chair and wield a
big gavel. He realizes after the fact what a jerk he looked like
yesterday. So who does he blame? Roger Clemens.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Roger Clemens and his lawers FORCED the
congress of the United States to hold this hearing. Roger is always
doing things like that. Why just last year he prevented the
Democratic congress from doing just about everything on every issue
too. DAMN that Roger Clemens. If it weren't for him the country
would be on the move again.
Like the title says. A little man with a big gavel. And,
apparently, an even bigger propensity for making imbecilic statements to cover
his little ass.
BERNIE AND MIKE
I don't know how Michael Savage got his hands on Bernie Ward's arrest report,
but he did. And he put it on his website. All 23 pages.
This is obviously far, far too long for me to post in a single blog. So
if you want to see it - complete with Ward's actual chat comments (which I
assure you are both graphic and perverse), just click
Make sure you have antacid and a barf bag - a big one - close by.
I see a combination of irony and justice in the fact that Michael Savage has
made this report public.
The ironic part is how similar Savage and Ward are as radio
personalities. Michael Savage is the right wing answer to Ward -
a hardline, extremely blunt, sarcastic and offensive advocate for his side
of things and against the other side. In this respect Savage and Ward are
two peas in a pod (albeit at opposite ends of the pod).
But I'm sure that, as Savage sees it, there is an element of justice in what
is happening to Ward. Savage, you see, has for months been under siege
by CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) because of his
aggressive comments about radical Islam.
I have no doubt that Savage considers CAIR a terrorist-supporting front
group posing as an Islamic civil rights and charitable
organization. If so, he certainly has good reasons, since several of
CAIR's leaders have been directly associated with anti-USA and/or terrorist
groups. And I'm sure that Mr. Savage believes media have bent over
backwards to allow this attack to continue smoothly, without a hitch, while
giving all sorts of slack to Bernie Ward:
-Media initially reported Bernie Ward's arrest, with most venues happy to
present Ward's side of the story as well. That's certainly fair
enough. But those same media have buried this story ever since,
including the surfacing of the absolutely dead-to-rights report I have given
you the link to above.
-By contrast, media have not only reported only sporadically about the ties
between CAIR's leaders and terrorist groups, but have allowed CAIR
to go after Savage with virtually no mention at all of who they are and what
their motives could be.
I'm guessing that Mr. Savage feels this is a double standard. A big
double standard. An 800 lb gorilla in the middle of the road double
standard. And his way is not to go into defensive mode, but rather to
attack even harder.
Personally I am no fan of Michael Savage's at all. But given who he is
up against, I wish him every success in his fight.
One other thing about Ward - which I mean literally,
not sarcastically at all: If I were someone who cared about him (and
he does have a wife, children and plenty of sympathizers if what I've read on
line is any indication), I would keep a special suicide-watch eye on him.
Now that the verbatim narrative of what Ward talked about and the description
of pictures he passed along (child sex featured among them) are available to the
public, his shame and humiliation might very well be at a level where he would
consider the possibility.
WHAT DOES ISRAEL HAVE TO FEAR FROM DEMOCRATS?
Do you care at all about Israel? Do you want it to survive? Do
you want the USA to remain its staunch ally and not give away the store to its
enemies - enemies that we ourselves define as terrorist states?
If so, I beg you to read every link in the following story from Scott Johnson
about foreign policy either
Yesterday I noted Eli Lake's New
York Sun story on Zbigniew
Brzezinski's trip to Damascus. In Damascus Brzezinski met with Assad and senior
officials of his regime, whose security he seeks to promote. This at the same
time that the world was reminded of the Syrian sancturary of terrorist mass
murderer Imad Mugniyeh. On Wednesday Brzezinski issued a statement affirming
that both Syria and the United States have a common desire to achieve stability
in the region. Zbigniew Brzezinski is the kind of "realist" who can't see what's
in front of his nose.
Today Lake returns to report that one of Hillary
Clinton's national finance chairmen for Ms. Hillary's presidential campaign --
Hassan Nemazee -- left Damascus last night after a visit there as part of the
same RAND Corp. delegation that Brzezinski headed. The Clinton campaign offered
Lake no comment on Nemazee's Syrian visit last night. The New York Sun is more
forthcoming in its editorial on the subject.
A Google News search on "Brzezinski Damascus" reveals again today that the Obama/Clinton delegation to
Syria remains a deep secret confined to readers of the New York Sun, Power Line
and Martin Peretz..
I have little doubt that you did not know about this until now. The
reason is that, as a hopeless news junkie who works at getting dramatically more
information of this type than the average guy, I didn't know about
this until now.
Explain to me, if you can, why mainstream media are burying the dealings of
both Obama and Clinton with the terrorist state of Syria?
Can it simply be that they hate Republicans so much that it is ok to suppress the possibility of both Democratic candidates
backstabbing Israel? Do they figure that ignorance of
these dealings will help the eventual nominee with supporters of Israel --
especially Jewish voters who, if they knew about it, might have to
think harder about supporting the Democrat?
Or is it that they are that much against Israel?