Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Ward Churchill says FRAG and MURDER Officers in Military

Why this stupid bloodthirsty bastard is not at the end of a noose is beyond me.....

Ward Churchill advocated the following:

Churchill: "For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same level of support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"
"...Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect." - Ward Churchill, Portland, Oregon- 6/23/05

This guy needs to be lined up and shot. Conscientious objectors cease becoming objectors when they SHOOT and KILL other soldiers. They become mutineers and traitors. Both of which SHOULD be SHOT or HANGED. Not stateside, but infront of the whole unit. Ward Churchill is a degenerate and is advocating MURDER of our troops commanders. These same commanders who also have wives and kids. These are also men who want home, but want home after business is finished.

Of course, the moonbats cheered for this assclown. Oregon, you can keep him.

I hope someone can defend this bastard's rhetoric. The first soldier or soldiers that die from fragging, their deaths should be tacked onto Ward's list of seditious and disgusting charges of treason against the US.

In WWII, if you shot or killed another trooper for any other reason other than friendly fire accidents, you got hanged in a prison, OR shot by the CO who lived through it. Your pic was taken and your name was Mudd. Now, if you do it, CNN explains that the trooper felt stress and should not have been deployed. Horseshit, they're troops, and they go where they're sent. They wanna throw a fit and endanger lives, they best be prepared for the reprecussions, namely a US Army Service Pistol to the head.


Hat Tip to Trey Jackson's Blog:

Spain Added to List of Countries Legalizing Gay Marriage

Another one bites the dust. Europe, figures that comes from their sewer.....


Although, there are other countries that have legalized it and/or are thinking of doing so. The US included......


The following is a look at gay marriage in nations where it is legal in all or part of the country or where such legislation is pending.
NETHERLANDS — Legalized in 2001. Same-sex couples also have the right to adopt children, either within the Netherlands or from abroad.
BELGIUM — Legalized in 2003. Gay couples cannot adopt children, although that is being discussed by lawmakers.
SPAIN — Legalized on Thursday. Gay couples have all the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, including for adopting children.
CANADA — The House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage by July 31 as long as the Senate also passes the bill, which it is expected to do.
UNITED STATES — Massachusetts is the only U.S. state that allows gay marriage. Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.

No 9/11 and Iraq Connections, Ms. Pelosi? THINK AGAIN!

Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Howard Dean all rant on how there was NEVER a Terrorism Connection to Iraq, nor would there have been a 9/11 Connection.

Well, chew on this you Dumbascraps.....

Saddam's Iraq Was Motel 6 for Terrorists

In the wake of President Bush's speech to the nation Tuesday night, Democrats are complaining that he talked too much about 9/11, falsely implying that Iraq was a terrorist threat. Too bad Mr. Bush didn't cite the mountain of evidence proving that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a veritable Motel 6 for the world's worst terrorists - a gang of mass murderers who had killed hundreds of Americans - well before the U.S. invaded. According to a report last year by the Hudson Institute, the short list of terrorists laying low in Iraq would include:
• Abu Nidal. Before Osama bin Laden arrived on the scene, Nidal was the world's most notorious terrorist. His terror gang is credited with dozens of attacks that killed over 400 people, including 10 Americans. He also threatened to kill Lt. Col. Oliver North.
Abu Nidal moved to Baghdad in 1999, where he was found shot to death in Aug 2002. Rumors swirled at the time that Nidal was rubbed out by Iraqi intelligence because he knew too much about Saddam's terrorist activities.
• Abu Abbas. Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, where wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer was pushed over the side to his death. U.S. troops captured Abbas in Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He died in U.S. custody last year.
• Abdul Rahman Yasin. Yasin was Ramzi Yousef's partner in the 1993 World Trade Center bomb plot, aiding the al Qaeda explosives mastermind in prepariing the bomb that killed six New Yorkers and wounded 1,000.
In 1996, an ABC News reporter spotted Yasin outside his government owned house in Baghdad. The key WTC 1993 co-conspirator remains at large.
• Khala Khadar al-Salahat. Al-Salahat, a top Palestinian deputy to Abu Nidal, reportedly furnished Libyan agents with the Semtex explosive used to blow up Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. The attack killed all 259 passengers, including 189 Americans. Al-Salahat was in Baghdad April 2003 when he was taken into custody by U.S. Marines.
• Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Zarqawi was training terrorists in Afghanistan for an attack on the U.S. embassy in Jordan when the U.S. defeated the Taliban, forcing him to flee. He relocated to Iraq, where he set up terrorist cells in the Northern part of the country.
In an indication that he enjoyed the status of guest of the state, Zarqawi was reportedly treated for a leg wound at one of Saddam's exclusive private hospitals.
After years of media reports denying that Zarqawi had ties to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden himself dubbed Zarqawi his chief of operations in Iraq last year.


And to add to this, why would a group of 9/11 Survivors and Next of Kin sue Iraq and Saddam IF there was no connection between Saddam's regime and 9/11? Saddam has no money for any of the costs. Could it be, because, I dunno, he was evil and had some logistical support to terrorists at some point?


Take that, you leftwing trolls.


Here's the article link:

I can't post too much of this leftwing moron's tripe, for my eyes bleed at this bloviating Bolshevik.

Although, there's time to RIP this punk a new one....

NEW YORK The darkness at ground zero just got a little darker. If there is anyone still clinging to the expectation that the Freedom Tower will become a monument of the highest American ideals, the current design should finally shake them out of that delusion.
Somber, oppressive and clumsily conceived, the project is a monument to a society that has turned its back on any notion of cultural openness. It is exactly the kind of nightmare that government officials repeatedly asserted would never happen here: an impregnable tower braced against the outside world.

Wow, make it like the Nazi Reichschancellory you ass! America is oppressive my butt! Were it not for the oppressive GIs of yesteryear and right now, you'd be speaking German or you'd be air pollution from der krematorium.

There's more from this embittered toad....

Unfortunately, the tower is too loaded with meaning to dismiss. For better or worse, it will be seen by the world as a chilling expression of how the United States is reshaping its identity in a post-Sept. 11 context.

Yeah, we're making it stronger as we are America, you spy.

The most radical design change is the creation of the base, which will house the building's lobby and mechanical systems. Designed to withstand a major bomb blast, the base will be virtually windowless. In an effort to animate its exterior facades, the architects have said they intend to decorate them in a grid of shimmering metal panels. A few narrow slots will be cut into the concrete to allow slivers of natural light into the lobby.

He prefers facade and appearance to practicality and safety. Thank God this schmuck did not design the old Towers. Those suckers would have fallen in 1 minute, not an hour and hour and a half.

But if this is a potentially fascinating work of architecture, it is, sadly, fascinating in the way that Albert Speer's architectural nightmares were fascinating - as expressions of the values of a particular time and era. The Freedom Tower embodies, in its way, a world shaped by fear.

And of course, Mr. Culture brings in yet another Nazi reference. Difference between the FREEDOM TOWER and REICHSCHANCELLORY. This one won't be shelled by the Soviets nor is it the seat of the Final Solution. The Tower is a center or commerce and symbol of rebuilding.....

What the tower evokes, by comparison, are ancient obelisks, blown up to a preposterous scale and clad in heavy sheaths of reinforced glass - an ideal symbol for an empire enthralled with its own power, and unaware that it is fading.

What Empire? Talk to the British and Russians about empires, you twerp!

This obsession with symbolism extends all the way up to the tower's spire. Childs has long been itching to reposition the original spire, which as Libeskind envisioned it had to be set at the edge of the tower to echo the outstretched arm of the Statue of Liberty.

And he slaps Lady Liberty in the face.....

All of this could be more easily forgiven if it were simply a result of bad design. But ground zero is not really being shaped by architects. It is being shaped by politicians.

I know, damn those political bastards! How dare they make a tower safe for us to work in and visit! How dare they rebuild in defiance to your terrorist buddies! Tell you what, how dare you waste oxygen that should be used by the likes of Todd Beamer, Captain Terry Hatton, and James Gartenberg, and the other 9/11 victims and loved ones.

Soon after the new security requirements were announced, it became clear that the entire building would have to be redesigned. That could have been seen as a last chance to repair what had become a confused master plan - one that had little connection, except in the minds of Libeskind and Governor George Pataki, to the original. Instead, the quality of the master plan has been sacrificed to the governor's insistence on preserving hollow symbolic gestures.

Hey why don't you blame Rudy Guiliani? Oh and Red Square was no less a hollow gesture, you sicken me!

Absurdly, if the Freedom Tower were reduced by a dozen or so stories and renamed, it would probably no longer be considered such a prime target. Fortifying it, in a sense, is an act of deflection.

Shut the f#ck up you moron! Any tall tower is a target and the newest biggest towers in NYC will be a prize for your kooky buddies. Don't go in it, since you hate it sooo much.

It announces to terrorists: Don't attack here - we're ready for you. Go next door.

Which you are welcome to do. Do not go in. And America, we are ready for the enemy outside as long as we keep an eye on the enemy within.

Cancer like Nicolai Ourousoff, will weaken and kill us......

Too bad for this scum, that the Towers WILL BE BUILT and will stand as a Memorial to the US, the victims of 9/11, and NYC.

GOP Gets the Final Scream on Howard Dean

Howard Dean was supposed to go to Myrtle Beach, but his party got crashed. Gotta love Young Republicans and Conservatives....


Dean cancels Columbia visit; GOP cashes in

JIM DAVENPORTAssociated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Howard Dean was a no-show for a state Democratic Party fund raiser Wednesday after bad weather in Philadelphia kept the Democratic National Committee chairman grounded.
But Dean's absence didn't stop state Republicans from screaming all the way to the bank.
"The weather just made it impossible to get down there," DNC spokesman Luis Miranda said. Dean is committed to help the state party raise money and grow and he will reschedule the visit, Miranda said.
Lachlan McIntosh, the party's executive director, said $5,000 in Internet donations had come in for the event. Plans had called for around 300 people to show up at the minimum $50-per-person event, generating at least $15,000 more.
When word came that Dean's plane wouldn't be off the ground in time to make it to Columbia, the party sent out a note saying it would be refunding money instead of putting it in the bank.
"Unfortunately, rain and travel delays have prevented me from attending tonight's fund-raiser with the South Carolina Democratic Party, but nothing has dampened my enthusiasm for building the party so that we can elect Democrats in South Carolina," Dean said in a statement released after he canceled his trip.
Dean has been stirring interest at the state level and has reinvigorated efforts to reach people who give small donations to political causes and candidates. Dean can keep those people engaged and interested as the 2006 contests looming, said Furman University political science professor Jim Guth.
"Our commitment to the South Carolina party is clear, which is why the DNC has included it in our most recent round of investments in state parties," Dean said
While Democrats waited for the former presidential candidate, the state GOP held a Dean scream contest in anticipation of Dean's arrival. A week ago, the party sent out a flier inviting people to a "No-show send Howard home rally" and garnered $22,000 in contributions, said Scott Malyerck, the state GOP executive director.
"We hope Howard Dean comes back every month," Malyerck said.
The state GOP's scream-off was intended to poke fun at Dean, whose attempt at a troop-rallying "yeah" after the 2004 Iowa caucus became the most laughed about moment of the campaign. Dean lost the next 16 contests, including a next-to-last showing in South Carolina a couple of weeks later.
The scream-off drew a handful of high school and college Republicans who were judged on "lack of poise in appearance" and "extent of angry, insane ranting."
Contestants had to repeat Dean's cry that his campaign was "going to South Carolina and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico. We're going to California and Texas and New York, and we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House - yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
Richard Hahn, a Dreher High School student, won the contest - embellishing Dean's itinerary by adding Canada and Puerto Rico as campaign trail stops.
The contest didn't impress McIntosh, who said it is time for Republicans to "stop screaming and start trying to lead again."
But not all the state Democrats support some of Dean's recent comments.
He recently said the Republican Party is "pretty much a white, Christian party" and said many Republicans "never made an honest living." It prompted Democratic Chairman Joe Erwin to write to Dean and complain.
"I'm trying to recruit white Christians for the Democrat Party, and we are recruiting - white Christians and African-American Christians and people of all faiths and races," Erwin said at the time. "We don't need to ostracize anybody."
For South Carolina Republicans, "Dean is a gift from heaven," Guth said.

Student Gets F for writing about God

Don't send your kids to Victory Valley Community College, unless you are atheist, or pussified Christian poser.

A prof said to the student, "you might as well have written about the Easter Bunny." Nice to see the rabid hate-filled Commies are getting jobs. Shame they are ruining the teaching profession.


Of course, the University sticks to their teacher and said the student is to blame. BS. They've let rich kids cheat and get through. Honest kid goes out on a limb and talks about God, gets an F.

I bet saying Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour would get her expelled from that college and blacklisted by the wonderful state college system in Californication..... or Mexifornia or Marxistfornia or whatever that cesspool is now.

Here's a sample of the prof and his wiggling:

"We are very serious about this situation," VVC spokesman Bill Greulich told WorldNetDaily. "You have two rights in conflict – the right to believe in what you believe in, and academic freedom. We're going to take steps that are appropriate. We don't have all the facts yet."
Greulich says Hauf began the process to challenge her grade by meeting with the department chair, but did not continue up the chain of command in her recourse. He says she could still do that, appealing to the vice president, superintendent and president of the school.
Meanwhile, Hauf has contacted the American Center for Law & Justice, which sent a letter to Patricia Spencer, president of VVC.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the ACLJ recounted in the letter what Shefchik wrote to Bethany when she was getting approval for her subject matter:
"I have one limiting factor – no mention of big 'G' gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation," Shefchik stated.
"He told me you might as well write about the Easter Bunny," Hauf told the Daily Press. "He wanted to censor the word God."

Shefchik has not been reached for comment, but Judy Solis, chair of the English department, says Hauf was given three options: submit the report with God included, make revisions and edit out the G-word, or rewrite the entire report.
"She continued to write her paper," Solis told the Press. "She knew what the consequences were."
Sekulow says Hauf should have had no ban on her freedom of speech or religious views in the assignment.
"Bethany's paper discusses some of the evidences supporting a hypothesis that, while the Constitution prohibits an established church, religion was essential to the founding of the Nation and to its governance thereafter," he writes.
"Her paper was not one written 'about God' per se. Nor was her paper inherently and necessarily religious. And, in keeping with the requirements of the assignment, it was assiduously supported with citations to authority and written objectively. Consequently, even if, in a country in which academic and constitutional freedoms are so highly prized, it could be constitutional to impose a topical ban on papers about big 'G' gods, it was sophomoric error to read Mrs. Hauf's research paper as falling within the prohibited zone."

Long talk for they tried to screw the kid. But.....

Despite the failing mark on the paper, Hauf passed the spring-semester course with a final grade of C.

they failed, she still passed. Whether she'll continue with the college Nazis is another matter......

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion? Only if your speech agrees with the drugged out hippie prof, and your religion is NONE.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

New World Trade Center Tower to be Reinforced, Safter

Interesting article link from:,2933,160986,00.html

Now reinforced if terrorists try to topple THIS TOWER also. To withstand car and truck bombs and a direct hit from an Airbus or Boeing 747. I hope this theory never has to be tested like last time......

Pics of the new Tower and WTC:

Democrats go on Negatives As Usual

FDR and Harry Truman would be rolling in their graves at this bantering BS.

Bush Criticized for Linking 9/11 and Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional critics of President Bush's stay-the-course commitment to the war in Iraq argued Wednesday that the administration lacks sufficient troops on the ground to mount a successful counterinsurgency.
Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.
Urging patience on an American public showing doubts about his Iraq policy, Bush mentioned the deadly 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington five times during a 28-minute address Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq - a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.

Oh Jesus, here they go again. Blah blah, it's not related, it's a lie, this did no good...... Would they prefer we had waited and the terrorists came here and killed Americans on our own soil? Only if it made Bush look bad.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

Predictable little poisoned dwarfette strikes again. Pelosi is a leader, how? What's her solution? None of course.....

Bush first mentioned the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center at the beginning of his speech, delivered at an Army base that has 9,300 troops in Iraq. He acknowledged that Americans are disturbed by frequent deaths of U.S. troops, but tried to persuade an increasingly skeptical public to stick with the mission.
"The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001," Bush told a national television audience and 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform who mostly listened quietly as they had been asked to do.
"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he continued.
Bush said he understands the public concerns about a 27-month-old war that has killed more than 1,700 Americans and 12,000 Iraqi civilians and cost $200 billion. But he argued that the sacrifice "is worth it."

Yeah, since Libya and Syria are now being more reasonable and letting go of their weapons programs and territories they occupied illegally. Also, Saddam did kill over 1 M of his own citizens. 1,700 US lost in 2 years? We lost over 2,700 at Pearl Harbor, in ONE DAY.

Battlefield, absolutely. Again, Democrats, would you have preferred the terrorists come HERE and kill us HERE? Or would you prefer we bottle up the enemy and kill them off, away from our civilians? Also, if this is such a popular Iraqi rebellion, against us, why are the majority of the terrorists foreign nationals? Why are mercenaries fighting for the Iraqis? They are not fighting for Iraq, rather to help some mullah or terrorist maintain control in the region.

"We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
He offered no shift in course in Iraq and said he did not believe it necessary to send more troops. U.S. forces in Iraq total just under about 140,000 and they constitute the bulk of the coalition fighting force.

If we sent more troops, what good does that do in getting the Iraqis to do this themselves and us leave as soon as business is done?

Appearing on television news shows Wednesday, some key lawmakers took issue with that position.

Of course, cameras, lights, TV, bunch of shills....

Sen. John McCain, interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," maintained that "one of the very big mistakes early on was that he didn't have enough troops on the ground, particularly after the initial victory, and that's still the case."

the RINO turned to the right for once, bravo John McCain.....

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there."

Yeah and you lost the election, shut up Scarecrow. Oh wait, getting Tennis Elbow in Vietnam must make him a military expert huh? So how many spitwads would you have authorized us to use, Mr. President? Oh wait, YOU'RE NOT THE PRESIDENT!

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.
"I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
Biden argued, "The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly."

Rush job? Like we did in Vietnam, huh? Thank God Biden isn't a cabinet official. We'd be screwed. Again, more troops gets ours out quicker, how?

McCain, R-Ariz., defended Bush's call to stop terrorism abroad before it reaches the U.S. shore. Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" program, McCain said that those spreading violence in Iraq "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win in Iraq."
Bush's speech marked the first anniversary of the transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraq's interim government. The president cited advances in the past year, including the January elections, infrastructure improvements and training of Iraqi security forces.

Damn right, good work again Senator McCain!

Democrats also criticized Bush for not offering more specifics about how to achieve success in Iraq along with his frequent mention of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Yeah, since it reminds them THEIR PRESIDENT had 8 years to prevent it and did nothing, DID NOTHING EXCEPT MONICA.

"The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."

Looooooser! That's you Reid, you asswipe!

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said some of the president's critics are mischaracterizing his remarks. Bush has said there were no ties between al-Qaida and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but McClellan said Wednesday that "September 11th changed the equation in terms of how we confront the threats that we face in the 21st century."
Bush urged Americans to remember the lessons of Sept. 11 and protect "the future of the Middle East" from men like bin Laden. He repeatedly referred to the insurgents in Iraq as terrorists and said they were killing innocent people to try to "shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001."

Nice work Scotty!

Beyond their criticism, Some Democrats said they thought Bush strengthened his credibility. "I think he told the American people why it's important," said Biden.
Said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.: "The president needs to do more of what he did last evening. This is a beginning."

Mixed feelings? Bet Dodd is considering running on the DNC ticket in 2008. Thus his middle of road quotes.

Well, out of all of this bantering and harping, at least some good came out. We clarified Iraq cannot be scheduled by the OLD RULES of war. We stated our solutions to training the new Iraqi military. And of course, stated progress in Iraq, that is ignored by the liberal press, aka propaganda ministry. And, finally, John McCain came off like a conservative. He's probably posturing for the 2008 run, but at least he came on the right side. See, some Vietnam vets were REAL AMERICANS, like the majority, and the Swifties. Real ones, unlike Scarecrow.


Nods of Agreement From Enlisted for Bush

For those Americans with the greatest stake in the outcome of the war in Iraq - the people fighting it - President Bush's call Tuesday to stay the course brought mostly sober nods of agreement.
On the first anniversary of the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis, Bush spoke to an audience of 700 soldiers at a gymnasium at Fort Bragg, N.C., and a national television audience.
Recent polls have shown Americans increasingly dubious about the direction and human cost of the more than two-year-old war. Some politicians - even some in Bush's own Republican party - have called for a timetable for U.S. troops to return home.
Associated Press reporters in some of the states that have seen the highest number of deaths in Iraq in the year since sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people spoke to soldiers, Marines and others about the president's message.
In Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood, Sgt. Chuck Crawley watched the speech at Boston's Gourmet Pizza.
Crawley, 25 and a member of the 1st Cavalry Division, said America's job in Iraq is unfinished.
"They ain't liberated. If they were liberated we wouldn't still be there," said Crawley, of Charlotte, N.C. "They're not free."
Crawley has already spent a year in Iraq, returning to the U.S. in March. He re-enlisted and has been told he'll be returning there later this summer.
Only when Iraq has a stable police force, Army and government will American troops be able to come home, he said.
"If we leave there will be a civil war within the country and more people will die that way," he said. "At least when we are there, we have control over it."
Some 2,500 miles from where Bush spoke to the troops, the president's photograph hung on a wall at Beachcomber Barbershop in Oceanside, Calif., while Marines from Camp Pendleton got their hair cut and listened to the speech.
Cpl. James Anderson, 22, applauded Bush's refusal to set a timetable.
"Like any Marine, you do the job until it's done. You don't just do it halfway and leave," said Anderson, a Houston native who said he is scheduled to leave for Iraq soon.
Fellow Houston native Cpl. Chase Krebbs, 22, agreed.
"I'm a Marine. That's why I joined, to do this stuff, to serve and protect," Krebbs said.
California-based troops have suffered more deaths than any other state over the last year, and the state also leads in deaths among troops who list their hometowns in California.
Even farther west, in Hawaii, the president's speech came at 2 p.m. on a sunny afternoon.
Lt. j.g. Ben Beebe of Alexandria, La., a Navy pilot and third generation serviceman, stopped by a Taco Bell in the seaside military town of Kailua with another sailor to grab some snacks.
The town is next to the Marine Corps Base Hawaii at Kaneohe Bay, which lost 26 Marines in a helicopter crash in Iraq in January and seven last October when a car bomb exploded outside Fallujah. Hawaii-based units have been among the hardest-hit over the last year.
Beebe said he and other soldiers are simply doing a job.
"You do the mission that we're trained to do," said Beebe who just returned from a six-month deployment in the Middle East and Afghanistan. "We never sit back and second guess what's going on."
Dissenting was Candice Wells of Asheville, N.C., visiting her brother, Justin, a sergeant stationed at the Marine base.
"I think we have too many problems in America before we go messing in other people's business," she said.
In Centreville, Ohio - a state among the top five in hometown casualties over the last year - the wife of Air Force Maj. Rick Webster said she hopes the president's appeal will shore up eroding support for the Iraq mission.
"To have my children have to hear, 'Oh well, we shouldn't be over there,' I think that's very degrading" to members of the military, Jennifer Webster said as she played with the couple's 5-month-old son and 2-year-old daughter.
Her husband was optimistic that troops will be coming home eventually - even as he wondered about the president's stated aim of eradicating global terrorism.
"To go through and say, 'Are we going to eradicate terrorism off the face of the earth?' is the same as saying, 'Are the good lord and the devil ever going to eliminate each other?'" Webster said.
In the gymnasium at Fort Bragg, Staff Sgt. Daniel Metzdorf - who lost his right leg to an improvised explosive device while serving in Iraq in 2004 - was inspired by Bush's words. He was among the 700 soldiers who stood silently at attention when their comamnder-in-chief took the stage.
Metzdorf, 28, of Altamonte Springs, Fla., has rejoined the 82nd Airborne since losing his leg and said Bush delivered the right message: "We're doing a great job over there, but the job is not over with."

Bush Talks Business on Iraq

Text of President Bush's speech Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, N.C., as delivered:

Thank you. Please be seated. Good evening. I am pleased to visit Fort Bragg, home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces. It is an honor to speak before you tonight.
My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people, and that is your calling as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful and so is your commander in chief.
The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and by exporting terror.
To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.
Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."
Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.
The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, in prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.
We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.
These are savage acts of violence but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists, both foreign and Iraqi, failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.
The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch.
A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goals in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend, a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government; we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005; we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy; we would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition; and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.
In the past year, we have made significant progress: One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people.
In January 2005, more than 8 million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair and took place on time.
We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while a country is at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. Together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.
In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing nonmilitary assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction.
Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe."
Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi security forces. We have made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen, and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties.
The progress in the past year has been significant and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban - a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.
So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track.
The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
We have made progress but we have a lot more work to do. Today Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A larger number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We are building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.
Our coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task. Thousands of coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders, and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission. Iraqi army and police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia and the United Kingdom. Today dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies and secure its freedom.
To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps:
First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.
Second, we are embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and noncommissioned officers who live, work and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills such as urban combat and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.
Third, we are working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We are helping them develop command and control structures. We are also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can more effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.
The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward and are now training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened and their officers grow more experienced. We have learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. That is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting and our troops can come home.
I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.
Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.
The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights, while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power. The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all of its people.
They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a transitional national assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process, and that is essential to Iraq's future.
After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.
As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process. And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.
As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq's borders. Before our coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder and make our nation safer.
We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.
America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women, it demands the steadfastness of our allies and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens because we know what is at stake. We fight today because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom entrusted to us in a special way and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.
In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you. Next week, our nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending letters to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a Web site, You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.
To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our nation. I thank our military families; the burden of war falls especially hard on you. In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom and did not live to make the journey home. I have met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I have been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.
I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.
After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.
May God bless you all.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005



ARTICLE: Press Release
For Release
Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# #

#Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC
Phone 310-593-4843

Souter got nailed by his own ruling. HAHAHAAHHAHA! Take that Souter, you liberal slapwad!

Club Gitmo Merchandise

Well, since Guantanamo Bay Military Prison must now be a country club, we offer the following. So not to hear that fat bastard Ted Kennedy, or Commie Crybaby Dick Durbin bitch weep, here's links to Club Gitmo gears!

First, Rush Limbaugh:
Second, Authentic GOP for Hotel Gitmo:

Add others, and buy this crap! Piss off your liberal or so-called middle of the road closet commies and enjoy it!

Club Gitmo! The place you cannot escape from!


Yep, Hollywood still sucks and less people care to save it. Minus Batman Begins and a few flicks, most of the movie box office is drying up.....

Could it be due to CRAPPY FILMS? Yeah, but not according to our press.

Hollywood Box Office Still Slumping
Batman Begins" took in $26.8 million to remain the top movie for the second straight weekend, but it could not keep Hollywood from sinking to its longest modern box-office slump. Overall business tumbled despite a rush of familiar new titles _ "Bewitched," a "Love Bug" update and the latest zombie tale from director George Romero. Revenues for the top 12 movies came in at $116.5 million, down 16 percent from the same weekend last year, when "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened as the top movie with $23.9 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.
It was the 18th weekend in a row the box office declined, passing a 1985 slump of 17 weekends that had been the longest since analysts began keeping detailed figures on movie grosses.
"Batman" lifted its 12-day total to $121.7 million.
Nicole Kidman and Will Ferrell's sit-com update "Bewitched" debuted in second place with $20.2 million.
Audiences were lukewarm toward the weekend's other major premieres. "Herbie: Fully Loaded," with Lindsay Lohan behind the wheel of the speedy VW "Love Bug," was No. 4 with $12.75 million, raising its total since debuting Wednesday to $17.8 million.
"George Romero's Land of the Dead," the fourth installment of the flesh-munching zombie saga from the director of "Night of the Living Dead," debuted at No. 5 with $10.2 million.
In narrower release, the documentary "Rize," about the south-central Los Angeles dance form known as krumping, opened at No. 12 with $1.6 million.
In limited release, the nature documentary "March of the Penguins" had a strong debut of $121,788 in four theaters. "Yes," starring Joan Allen, Simon Abkarian and Sam Neill in a drama about an affair between an Irish-American married woman and a Lebanese man, opened with $29,437 in seven cinemas.
Theater revenues have skidded about 7 percent compared to last year. Factoring in higher ticket prices, movie admissions are off 10 percent for the year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.
If the slump continues, Hollywood is on course for a third straight year of declining admissions and its lowest ticket sales since the mid-1990s.
"We're working with a pretty huge deficit that would take a lot of business to overcome," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "Just breaking the slump is not enough. We would have to reverse the trend and see attendance on a big uptick."
Even with a big Fourth of July weekend expected from Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise's "War of the Worlds," which opens Wednesday, Hollywood still may not snap its losing streak. Over the same weekend last year, "Spider-Man 2" pulled in $180 million in its first six days, leading the industry to a record Fourth of July.
Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at North American theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures will be released Monday.
1. "Batman Begins," $26.8 million.
2. "Bewitched," $20.2 million.
3. "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," $16.75 million.
4. "Herbie: Fully Loaded," $12.75 million.
5. "George Romero's Land of the Dead," $10.2 million.
6. "Madagascar," $7.3 million.
7. "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," $6.25 million.
8. "The Longest Yard," $5.5 million.
9. "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D," $3.4 million.
10. "Cinderella Man," $3.3 million.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press

How Screwed Up are British Kids

Well, from the land, where WWII was won by Denzel Washington, per their test results and essays, should we be suprised that the British are now raising some kids DUMB ENOUGH to believe Jesus is a superhero, ie fictional character beyond any belief?

Leave to the atheists to trash England and poison the minds of the youth. Where's the hemlock when you need it?


Jesus a Superhero to British Youth

Jesus Christ rates as a superhero to British youth ... but he barely edges out soccer star David Beckham and nursing legend Florence Nightingale.That's according to a poll conducted by 4Children, a charity group that sought the opinions of 2,000 eight- to 14-year-olds, just over half of whom were fenale, Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported. Asked what makes a superhero, 92 per cent say he or she would "stop bad things happening", 91 per cent say a superhero "is generally a good guy", and 90 per cent say they would "tell the truth". Among the other results
British youngsters are more interested in easing poverty and helping the environment than in making money, living without rules or having their soccer team win.
More than 60 percent said being rich was a good thing, but 80 percent chose "being me" and 74 per cent said "the Internet."
Villains were described as those who "tell lies" (88 percent), "only look after themselves" (87 percent), "let you down" (85 percent), are "generally bad guys" (85 percent), "kill people" (85 percent) and "cannot be trusted" (82 percent).
Only 42 percent said that villains took drugs. 90 percent wanted an end to hunger as their "change for an ideal world", while only 25 per cent saw having no restrictions or rules as the path to a better life.
Fully 86 per cent want to get rid of litter, 83 percent want to stop people from smoking, 72 percent want graffiti cleared up and 69 percent want a ban on alcohol and drugs.
Story Continues Below
According to Anne Longfield, the chief executive of 4Children, "With the mass popularity of cause-related wristbands, and campaigns against war and poverty, children and young people are leading the way in social conscience."

Yeah Gods, Winston Churchill would be rolling over in his grave at the sad state of British Education.

Woody Allen is Too Important to Make 9/11 Film

Read this off Drudge Report:


9/11Tue Jun 28 2005 09:40:21 ET

Woody Allen says he, as a filmmaker, is not interested in 9/11.'It's too small, history overwhelms it," Allen reportedly tells DER SPIEGEL.

Wow, ballsy for a Jewish guy in glasses to go back to Germany. 9/11 was too small? 3,000 Americans died you pedophile! Burn in hell. Too small, yeah, I guess Pearl Harbor and The Civil War were too small. Oh wait, that's just American history. Frickin Eurotrash.

"The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him, only with different cosmetics and different castings. So in 2001, some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis."

Woody is a moron. Thank God he's not teaching history. We're supposed to take the advice of a film-maker who hasn't made a good film since Annie Hall? Screw him. Woody Allen, you're a New Yorker, what's your malfunction? We're killing the bad guys, just like WWII. And like WWII, we have seditious voices and weaklings like this guy nipping at our troops' heals. Lord Haw Haw and Quisling would be proud of this Europhile Shill.

Tuesday's NY POST quotes the master director: "And in my childhood, some Nazis killed Jews. And now, some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again."

Some Jews, some Nazis? Where's Spielberg to punch this moron? Oh wait, Spielberg is a liberal moron also. Hitler killed over 6 MILLION JEWS, you idiot! Over 60 Million died in World War II!
Palestinians killed by Jews I guess the convenant with Abraham means nil to him, or the fact that the Arab extremists have killed mainly civilians in Israel. Holocaust Survivors were brutally executed by terrorists in bus and hotel bombings. Woody Allen has no perspective or brains left. I guess shtuping Soon Yi took out all the blood from his brains.

Further proof that Hollyweird is a bunch of brain dead ass clowns! I never liked Woody Allen. So no shock that he deserves the boycott.

Here's why:

1. He's a moron, slamming our history.
2. He diddled his stepdaughter, adopted stepdaughter when she was barely 18 and then married her.
3. He was Jewish and has since betrayed his heritage taking sides with the PLO and Terrorists.
Not that the Soon Yi crap was any less offensive to anyone of faith.
4. Liberal snot rag, whiny, and irritating neurotic freakshow.

JOHN KERRY: Armchair President Advice On Iraq Speech

Hey John, you know if you had made these points during your campaign, you may have...... LOST BY MORE! Sit down and shut up Mr. Sensitive!

Read this, this is worth a chuckle courtesy of the New World Order, oops New York Times.

June 28, 2005
The Speech the President Should Give

TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.
The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists.

And what's your solution Mr. President? Oh wait you lost. So shut it.

Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing.

They aren't here inside the US now are they? Be happy we have them boxed in, John.

The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.

Yeah, as long as we don't pussy out, like you insisted we should have in Vietnam. Wanna take another crack at backstabbing our troops Mr. Senator OR did Dick Durbin beat you to the punch?

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

Translated: You should have kissed enough French, German, Chinese, and Russian ass and let them take over Iraq. No liberation counts when they aren't involved. Virtually Alone? Try dozens of countries I bet the Polish, Italians, British, Australians, Ukrainians, Georgians, and others would beg to differ. John is insulting our allies yet again. Training would have been easier had certain countries not screwed us.

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home.

Let's get all morose like you and Jane Fonda did after Tet and we kicked the VC 's ass. That killed our war effort, you morons! WWII took 4 years, be patient you chimp!

It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

Your talk is no more encouraging. Shut up!

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

We should let China and France do it, you mean...... Shut up!

He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders.

Well since you're such an expert, why don't you ask George if you can do it? Oh wait, you can't you're a LOSER, sorry.

The Iraqis must now do theirs.

The Iraqis are doing their jobs. They're dying by the dozens daily.

He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

They screwed us. You want us to include the backstabbers? What a fine President you are Mr. Kerry. Oh wait, you're not, so shut your stinkhole!

The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

Shut up John.

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

Shut up!

The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.
The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.
Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.


The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

Your crap talk is helping contribute to the casualties so shut the freak up! You only hope this crap goes on so your party can get into power, using the dead bodies as stepping stones. You sicken me Kerry. Can't wait to see your party get bitch slapped in 2006 and especially in 2008.

John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

That says little for the state of Massachusetts, since they elected Cheetah the Bourbon Gorilla to go with Tarzan The Lanky here. Good work Massachusetts, John Adams and Jack Kennedy are rolling in their graves over this crap.

Message to Arm Chair President Kerry: Either help in the war effort, or sit down, stand back, and shut the crap up!

Monday, June 27, 2005

Gerhard Schroeder: From Bush Bash to Bush Suck Up

OK, this is interesting. Deutsche Kanzellor Gerhard Schroeder, is running for re-election, BUT this time he is trying to KISS UP to Bush. How the hell did this happen?

Read and see from a Yahoo News Article:

The last time he faced the prospect of electoral defeat, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder turned President Bush's foreign policy into a campaign rally cry, plunging German and American relations to their lowest point since the end of World War II.

hmmm, Der Fuhrer may not have anything to grease his wheels with. Lowest relations? Naw, lowest relations were DURING World War II. What happened to his battle cry?

As Mr. Schroder visits Washington Monday, he is once again politically embattled, with his weakened Social Democrats (SPD) facing an emboldened Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in early elections this September. And he will no doubt use Mr. Bush to improve his voter support. But this time, analysts say, Schroder won't be driving the anti-Bush bandwagon he rode to victory in 2002.
Instead, the two-term leader is hoping his appearance with Bush will remind German voters of the greater international profile he has given his country. And he's expected to press Germany's case for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council - a bid the US has opposed.
In short, Schroder is doing everything he can to turn attention away from Germany's troubled economy.

TRANSLATED: Schroeder pissed us off, his land is hurting, and they want American help and recognition. Wow, this sounds familiar. Look who's crawling back.

"He will be able to go back to Germany and say, 'I stood up to Bush on the Iraq war, but nonetheless I can still go to the White House and have serious discussions with the President,' " says Karen Donfried, director of policy programs for the German Marshall Fund in Washington.
The image fits into the grander foreign policy vision Schroder has fashioned. Since he became chancellor in 1998, Germany has sent its soldiers into conflict regions, cast itself as a European Union (EU) power player and, in general, led the sort of foreign policy unthinkable even a decade ago.

The last major foreign policy vision that was so grand was The Munich Pact and Peace in Our Time. Sorry, Mein Herr, we're not buying it. Also, the EU is being voided out like the League of Nations, and soon enough, the United Nations. German troops outside of their borders? Last time they did that was in World War II. I am leary of the double-talking German politicians.

Germany's louder voice has brought with it more responsibility. The next chancellor will have a major say on everything from Iran's nuclear ambitions to EU enlargement.

Ring up the register. Germany wants in on Iran's nuclear weapons. They wanna get some money for their services.....

Efforts to expand the EU to include Turkey and other nations have been greeted with some resistance in Germany, which fears competition from cheaper labor markets to the east. But the destiny of the EU itself has come into question here in recent weeks, following rejection of the proposed constitution by French and Dutch voters, and failure to agree to an EU budget. Debate about Turkey's membership bid could dominate the campaign.

Haha, the EU went more limp than John Wayne Bobbit's..... whatever.

The CDU's candidate, Angela Merkel, is a protegee of reunification Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who took a pro-European, pro-American line during his 16 years in power. Ms. Merkel's party opposes full membership for Turkey and, given the dissonance pervading Europe at the moment, will make halting further EU enlargement a campaign issue, say analysts.
At the same time, Merkel won't abandon the pro-European stance of her mentor Kohl, says Ingo Peters, a foreign policy professor at Berlin's Free University.

A conservative German with values, imagine that. Hmmmm. Anyone else see a turnaround in Germany looming?

"She will try to tread this line promoting a pro-European attitude while at the same time guarding against a larger, expanding Union," says Mr. Peters.

Two-faced yet again.

European leaders have already begun seeking out Merkel, who has had little opportunity to make a name for herself on the international stage. The CDU leader reportedly had a long conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair when he made a visit to Berlin in early June.

Ah, the rats are jumping ship or looking for a way out. They also know Schroeder has been disastrous backing Iraq and stimying other important policies.

Observers say the CDU's traditional solidarity with the US and Merkel's vague promises to "work more closely" with Washington, indicate more change in style than in substance. A Merkel government would, for example, still not send German soldiers to Iraq, says Maurer.
But she would probably pursue cooler ties with Russia, and soft-pedal Germany's Security Council bid, analysts predict.


Germany's economic malaise, meanwhile, could limit Germany's international ambitions, regardless of who wins. Germany spent more than Euro 9 billion on international aid last year, and plans to increase that figure. But a 12 percent unemployment rate and an overextended defense budget are pushing domestic priorities to the forefront.

The last time the German economy was this bad was in 1933, and we know whom was elected then. Yes, the Germans chose Hitler. He did not take over in a coup, he got the voters.

"The possibility of leading a more active foreign policy is somewhat limited ... because of finances," says Peters.

They want money and know we're the source. Typical backtracking.


Welcome to the New America the Leftists Want......

Read more....

Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

In a narrowly drawn ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, holding that two exhibits in Kentucky crossed the line between separation of church and state because they promoted a religious message.
The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.
In a stinging dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia worried publicly about "the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority."
The justices voting on the prevailing side Monday left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.
But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.
"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.
Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.
In his dissent, Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation's religious and legal history.
Government officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.
In his dissent, Scalia blasted the majority for ignoring the rule of law to push their own personal policy preferences.
"What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle," Scalia wrote.
He was joined in his opinion by Chief William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
"In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable," he wrote. "Surely that cannot be."
"The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history," Scalia wrote.
The case was one of two heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. That case asks whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on the grounds outside the state capitol.
The cases marked the first time since 1980 the high court tackled the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.
A broader ruling than the one rendered Monday could have determined the allowable role of religion in a wide range of public contexts, from the use of religious music in a school concert to students' recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is a question that has sharply divided the lower courts in recent years.
But in their ruling Monday, justices chose to stick with a cautious case-by-case approach.
Two Kentucky counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays to add other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage," including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version of the Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible."
When a federal court ruled those displays had the effect of endorsing religion, the counties erected a third Ten Commandments display with surrounding documents such as the Bill of Rights and Star-Spangled Banner to highlight their role in "our system of law and government."
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently struck down the third display as a "sham" for the religious intent behind it.
Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The poll taken in late February found that 76 percent support it and 23 percent oppose it.
The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue was 1980, when it struck down a Kentucky law requiring Ten Commandments displays in public classrooms.
The case is McCreary County v. ACLU, 03-1693.

On the Net:
Supreme Court:

Friday, June 24, 2005

R.I.P. President Reagan

OK, it's been over a year since Ronald W Reagan departed this world on June 5, 2004 to be with His Lord and Savior. Ronald Reagan passed away at 93 years of age, BUT he lived a full life.

This President did much:

-He helped precipitate the end of The Cold War, but stressing Russian aid and aggression in Central America, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, and their aid to the Middle East. Reagan upped our budget as Russia tried to top us. Eventually Russia went broke.

-He helped restore the economy with tax cuts and business incentives. Inflation when from 13% to 4%.

-Unemployment decreased as need for industrial workers and defense workers increased during the Cold War and economic war.

-He provided a nuclear shield that protected Western Europe.

-He helped encourage and later finance Solidarity in Poland and other democratic minded dissidents behind the Iron Curtain.

Ronald W Reagan also gave us back pride. Something tarnished by the left during Vietnam. Something that Nixon did not exactly help with in Watergate. And something Carter had NONE of when handing over the Panama Canal for 1999, and of course the Iran Hostage Crisis.

The first President to strike back in the War on Terror.

Reagan passed away, but the great works he did live on.

RIP Mr. President.

God's Coming Back and He's Not Happy

Click on this site, and see what I mean.... It's a Christian and God-bashing site. It's not satire, but rather, filth.....

Here's how God may respond when the time comes:

Although, God's not coming back HAPPY, as liberals and some lukewarm "Christians" say he will. Here's what it is:

He came on a donkey on Palm Sunday
He was crucified on Good Friday.
He was scourged for our sins.
He was buried, was that the end?

On Easter he did rise.
Much to everyone's suprise.
He talked to his disciples, and they did gawk.
At the man resurrected who led their flock.

He talked to Thomas, John, James and Peter.
And later enough folks to fill a theater.
Some of you think this is a bedtime story.
Interesting how the Romans documented this glory.

Christ entered Jerusalem rather meek.
And suffered but gained from that tumultuous week.
He will come back, on an unknown day.
However, he may not have much nice to say.

Instead of a colt, he'll be riding a steed.
With a sword in hand, and enemies will bleed.
He won't come back quiet or gracious.
Rather ticked off like Braveheart or Maximus.

Many will wonder why he's so mad.
Gee, let's look at all of the bad.
We've taken his name in vain, spit at his Word.
A guy made a picture of him, covered in turds.

There was the cross in a jar of piss.
And the person doing sick things with a crucifix.
And lets not forget the popular cry.
If God will not judge, then neither should thy.

However, God will save those who are His.
He knows each and every name that there is.
For those who did cause God such strife.
They shall not be in the book of Life.

While God is gentle and just to those he loves.
To his enemies, there are no kidd glove.
Many think God is just words.
Tell that to his angels with their swords.

All I know is that much gnashing will abound.
It will be a witch WHEN THE MAN COMES AROUND.

God Forgive our sins aplenty.
If you value Him, you shall gain eternity.


Yes, some Commie Judge in Italy, thought they were Allies, has issued warrants for the arrest of 13 CIA Agents. All of whom were working to track down and arrest terrorists in Italy and Europe and I dunno, SAVE ITALY'S ASS!

Screwa you-a!

Karl Rove fires off at Libs, BUT Dems want HIM to resign

I am so f#cking sick of these liberals. They say they want Karl Rove to resign for the following...

Rove, in a speech Wednesday evening to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, said, "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.
During the 2004 campaign, Bush dismissed the notion of negotiating with terrorists and said, "You can't sit back and hope that somehow therapy will work and they will change their ways."

Yeah, it was soooo untrue since Dennis Kucinich and other radical freak jobs said that the terrorists need understanding, and John Kerry said to fight a sensitive war.

Democrats may be up in arms, but where did Rove ever name DEMOCRATS? As if he had to.

There's more.....

New York Sen. Charles Schumer said Rove "took something that is virtually sacred to New Yorkers" _ the tragedy of the Sept. 11 attacks _ "and politicized it for political, opportunistic purposes."

Yeah Chuck, we'll take your divisive ass at your word. Schumer is a fine one to talk. In 2001-2002, he was yammering on how good Bush and Rudy were in helping NYC. Then 2003 through now, Schumer turned into an opportunistic liberal piece of crap. Screw you, Chuckie!

"Karl Rove is not just another political operative," added New York's other Democratic senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. "He sits in the White House, a few doors down from the president."
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, Clinton urged Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to repudiate the "insulting comment."

Hillary, who was part of the "let's play nice" with Osama crowd is scolding Rove. I take no credence from a NY Senator that was booed in NYC, by the Fire Department and Cops. She needed worse to happen. You will never be President Hillary, and we will see to that. Actually, we don't have to do crap with your constant and assinine commentary on crap you and Bubba knew jack about.

Rumsfeld replied that it "is unfortunate when things become so polarized or so politicized."
Schumer and Clinton joined the four Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey in a letter to Rove requesting that he immediately retract his comments. "To try to score partisan, political points at the expense of the 3,000 victims and their families was unacceptable and opportunistic," they wrote.

These Senators did jack to help after 9/11. Screw them! They didn't get this pissed when Howard Dean started exploiting 9/11 and said we deserved it. Where were these pricks when Ward Churchill was calling their dead constituents Little Eichmanns?

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., wrote a similar letter to Rove from House Democrats.
Schumer said Rove's comments might have been made in the heat of the moment and he was willing to accept an apology. But "if they try to stonewall," he said, "then I think resignation would be called for."

Who is he? Does anyone care who he is? Another smart-ass Long Island Liberal....

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also said Rove, the political mastermind behind Bush's election victories, should fully apologize for his remarks or resign. Dean said Bush should "condemn Karl Rove's desperate and divisive attempt to help the Republicans regain their political footing."

Reid, you are the "loser" not the President and government you hold contempt for. And with this crap and your off the wall gaffes, your party will lose in 2006 and for certain in 2008. Reid was a no-body before Daschle got voted out. He's still nothing.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., went to the Senate floor with Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., whose son served in Iraq. Until America becomes safe, Kerry said, "don't dare question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction."

Kerry, you lost, WE DON'T CARE what you have to say! Better direction! Your direction was to drop to your knees and suck and f#ck for Osama, Chirac, and every other enemy. MAN DID WE Dodge a horse-faced bullet this past November.

The Democrats said JACK SH#T about Durbin comparing our troops to Nazis. They said nil about Harry Reid calling The President of the United States a "loser." Or Dean saying the GOP is a White Men's Only Club, and what race are you Dr. Dick?

Tell you what, F#CK these Hypocrites. What did Hillary and Chuckie Schumer do after 9/11? NOTHING. They hampered any and all security legislation, and POLITICIZED 9/11. Jerry Nadler is a nojnentity, and Hillary, sheesh, where does she get off? And yes, let's listen to LOSER BOY, John Frickin Kerry!

However, don't expect a crocodile apology from US! No Durbin cop-out or any of that. Karl, don't you dare apologize.

Republicans, meanwhile, have recently condemned House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for calling the Iraq War a "grotesque mistake," and demanded and finally got an apology from Durbin for his linking detainee abuse and Nazis.
And they were unapologetic about Rove's comments.
Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking in Puerto Rico, said there was no need to apologize because "what Karl Rove said is true." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, asked about the Rove dispute on CNN, noted, "We have seen pretty hot rhetoric from both sides of the aisle lately."
White House communications director Nicolle Devenish said Rove was speaking "very broadly about the liberal movement" and that he never referred to Democrats. "I think the Democrats are misguided in their attacks on Karl Rove," she said.

As you can see, the GOP and Bush Administration are getting the Juevos to step up and defend Mr. Rove. Funny how the DNC did not defend Durbin or Dean, BUT did not oppose them. But, the GOP seems to chastise Trent Lott when he made off the cuff remarks at Strom Thurmond's party, yet will not apologize now. Why? We're right, and you liberals suck.

Pot calling the Kettle Black. Typical two-faced liberals.

Also, The White House and The President are standing by Karl Rove. EAT $H#T, Peckerwoods!

Bite me!