Ever notice how the oh-so-tolerant left are just as homophobic as Anita Bryant when it comes time to imagery? Check out this example from Bob Geiger:
Nausea alert: Do not read this on a full stomach if you're a Progressive, who has had it up to your eyeballs with some elected Democrats regularly accepting prison shower-room, Ned-Beatty-in-'Deliverance' treatment from Republicans and then meekly saying "Thank you, sir, may I have some more?"
Somewhat reminiscent of Paul Begala's comment about butt-boys as well. What's got Geiger huffing is the notion that some Democrats actually want to work with the Republicans to forge a consensus. Of course, "progressives" don't want to see this; they want the Republicans to be punished:
Republicans made this bile-filled, partisan stew long ago -- now they can damn well eat it.
On November 29th, we posted on The Radio Patriots about Morrill Worcester, owner of the WORCESTER WREATH COMPANY of Harrington, Maine, who since 1992 has donated over 60,000 wreaths to adorn the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery. Morrill Worcester's motto is: "Our Mission: Remember - Honor - and Teach. To Remember the fallen; Honor those who serve; and Teach our children the value of freedom."
The folks at Worcester Wreath Company make and decorate the beautiful Christmas wreaths that adorn over 5000 headstones of our Nation’s fallen heroes - in coordination with the Cemetery Administration and the Maine State Society.
This year Worcester also included every national cemetery in the United States. With the help of the Patriot Guard Riders and other support groups, simultaneous ceremonies were held in all 50 states.
The Patriot Guard Riders are asking for our help in nominating Morrill Worcester for the Presidential Citizen Medal.
"He deserves to know that we are a grateful nation... after all, we all probably have a relative that has served this country sometime. Isn't it nice to know this guy gives them a Christmas wreath every year."
I linked to this article yesterday because at first glance it made some very telling points against the Iraq Study Group. But as I looked into it a little deeper, I discovered that the article is not as compelling as it might seem. For example, consider this segment:
While the Group was charged with analyzing the situation in Iraq, some were surprised and disturbed that the focus shifted to Israel and did so in hostile way. For example, the superb Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens took note of the fact that while most of the policies towards the "players" involved in the Middle East were couched in the language of suggestions ("should") those directed at Israel were seemingly mandatory and were characterized as orders (as in "Israel must").
Three demands were particularly disconcerting:
* that Israel must negotiate with the Palestinians, with no mention that the Palestinians are ruled by a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel;
* that Israel must relinquish the strategically vital Golan Heights to Syria;
* that Israel must accept that the Palestinian refugees from the war-torn area have a "right of return" to Israel (this contravenes US policy and would lead to the demographic destruction of Israel).
Okay, those are three pretty imperious commands that if true would go a long way towards proving an anti-Israel, pro-Saudi bias. Are they true?
As Wayne Gretzky once said, "No". Certainly the report does suggest negotiating with the Palestinians; that's fairly non-controversial. But the other two items are just plain wrong. The Golan Heights is indeed mentioned in the report:
Hmmm, "should" is in there, and "must" is not.
The Right of Return?
Once again, we see the word "should" and not the word "must", and in this case it's even softened further by the idea that the Right of Return is to be negotiated.
There is a subtle innuendo to the article that is disturbing. For example, consider this:
He established the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. No information is listed on the Institute's website about major donors, but the Institute's impressive building bespeaks lavish funding. The Saudis are known to favor think tanks established by former government officials with generous support, possibly because they may prove useful to them in the future, or to reward them for past service to the Kingdom, and offer an example to others still charged with serving American national interets.
Translation: I don't have any actual evidence that the Saudis funded it, but they may have.
Baker's Houston-based law firm, Baker and Botts, has offices in the Saudi capital of Riyadh and in the Persian Gulf nation of Dubai. Baker and Botts defended, among others, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Defense Minister of Saudi Arabia who was sued by the families of the World Trade Center victims for alleged complicity in the attacks. Baker has had quite a lucrative career after his government career.
That Baker and Botts has offices in Riyadh and Dubai is interesting, but hardly dispositive. Being a Houston-based law firm, Baker and Botts specializes in legal matters related to oil companies; surely some of those legal matters are common to other oil-producing areas. Baker and Botts may have defended Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, but the evidence that he helped finance the 9-11 attacks is pretty slim (mostly pushed by Michael Moore), and the lawsuit was thrown out.
Much of the other evidence compiled by Lasky falls into the same category. Two Citibank employees are tarred by association with the largest Citibank shareholder, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia. We then get a recitation of Prince Alaweed's bad acts, including funding Harvard and Georgetown Universities and investing in Ruppert Murdoch's News Corp. Yes, he was the Saudi whose check Rudy Giuliani refused when he tried to tie the 9-11 attacks to America's support of Israel.
Don't get me wrong; I am sure that a lot of the people involved with this commission have anti-Israel views. And it is legitimate to point this out, for example in the instance I cited yesterday:
Raad Alkadari, Director Country Strategies Group, PFC Energy. His firm is a consulting group dependent on oil company and oil country clients. In an ABC News interview, he agreed with the view that the Bush Administration was too influenced by pro-Israel voices.
He is of a conspiratorial mind-set: also claiming that the U.S. motivation for Iraq's liberation was a grab for oil.
Something of a kook, in other words. I do think that Lasky should have noted that it was an ABC News Australia interview, but that's a quibble. But how about these examples:
Amy Myers Jaffe: Listed employer: The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. True employer? Maybe the Saudi benefactors of this Institute? In any case, her views would be redundant with those of James Baker, no? Again, the illusion of neutral and diverse views.
But as he admits, Lasky has no evidence for the Saudi benefactors, so it's all supposition.
Although I don't support the Iraq Study Group or their recommendations, I cannot support this article either.
An aside: While researching this matter last night I was checking on the James A. Baker Institute, and its connection with Rice University, and came across this fascinating little story about the Bakers and Rice:
On May 13,1891, Massachusetts-born businessman William Marsh Rice chartered the William Marsh Rice Institute for the Advancement of Letters, Science, and Art as a gesture to the city of Houston, where he had made his fortune. The terms of the charter required that work on the new institute would begin only after Rice's death. However, unforeseen circumstances almost prevented its very founding.
In 1896, William Marsh Rice's wife died, leaving a will which claimed half of Rice's 5.6 million dollar estate. The claim was challenged; but while this process was moving through the court system, William Marsh Rice was murdered on September 23, 1900, by his valet, Charlie Jones. Jones had conspired with an unscrupulous lawyer, Albert Patrick, to kill Rice and claim his estate by using a forged will.
When an autopsy ordered by Rice's attorney, Captain James A. Baker, revealed evidence of poisoning, Jones agreed to provide state's evidence against Patrick in return for immunity from prosecution. Patrick was convicted of murder and sent to Sing Sing in 1901 (although pardoned in 1912). Captain Baker's quick action and the favorable legal resolution in 1904 of the claim against Rice's estate cleared the way for the Institute to fulfill its charter's mandate.
Of course, Captain Baker is James Baker III's grandfather.
What did the groups really do wrong? Did they bribe or corrupt politicians? Well, no. You won't find "Duke" Cunningham, William Jefferson or Bob Ney connected to MoveOn or the Swift Boat Veterans. Did they make illegal contributions to campaigns? Well, no again. Did they seek out special favors or illegally coordinate their efforts with candidates? No. The FEC admitted that, after a "thorough" investigation, it found no evidence that any of the groups operated in concert with candidates or sought legislative favors.
But these groups aren't being punished for making errors in their filing papers. They're being punished for criticizing politicians. Now, it's natural that politicians don't like that and might pressure the FEC to shut their critics up — the FEC reportedly acted in part because of pressure from Congress and a lawsuit brought by Reps. Christopher Shays and Martin T. Meehan — but why should ordinary citizens feel offended by criticism of public officials? Shouldn't we be more upset by efforts to silence criticism of public officials?
Here's a revealing article on the people who did the actual work of the ISG, not the famous names who signed it.
Raad Alkadari, Director Country Strategies Group, PFC Energy. His firm is a consulting group dependent on oil company and oil country clients. In an ABC News interview, he agreed with the view that the Bush Administration was too influenced by pro-Israel voices. He went on to state,
"the people who have been the most hawkish, the people who have demonstrated this vision of the Middle East (reordering it) have also been the most ardent supporters of Israel. That is what it is all about. The idea of re-ordering the Middle East is not just about diminishing threats to the United States. Ultimately it's also about ensuring that you have a Middle East that's far more amenable to an Israeli vision of a solution to the Palestinian problem". .
He is of a conspiratorial mind-set: also claiming that the U.S. motivation for Iraq's liberation was a grab for oil.
Many more examples are given of people with strong anti-Israel, pro-Saudi bias.
Let me ask you this: When you hear that somebody isn't your typical peace activist, do you automatically assume that in fact, they are the typical peace activist? Me too.
Vt. Woman Is an Unlikely Peace Activist
"She's not a loony toon by any means," said Andrew Schoerke, 73, a retired U.S. Navy captain who was arrested with her. "She's a very down to earth, sensible, caring person with some very strong convictions."
Jackowski was one of a dozen protesters arrested at a March 20, 2003 protest, staged within hours of the start of the United States' "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq. Carrying a sign that read "Impeach Bush" on one side and listed U.S. "war crimes" on the other, Jackowski refused police orders to get out of the street and was arrested for blocking traffic.
Yeah, typical antiwar kook. But Newsbusters did a little deeper digging on the story. Turns out she's a big fan of Ward Churchill and writes about secret military installations.
35) "In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian-Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." -- Joe Biden
31) "...I would further strongly urge Democrats who don't believe marriage is between a man and a woman but who feel they ought to pretend to believe this in order to win elections (a plausible position) need to do a better job of pretending. I've heard a shockingly large number of politicians say things, in rooms where journalists are present, that make it perfectly clear that they think gay marriage is just fine but that the voters aren't ready for it. That's a sensible thing to believe, but you can't go around saying it if you're trying to win votes. If you're going to lie, then lie -- and lie convincingly!" -- Prominent liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias
28) "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions." -- Charlie Sheen
That appears to be the story behind the fall and fall of Air America.
Some people at Air America assert that, under Mr. Glaser and the team he put in place, the network was top-heavy with management, inept at selling ads, unwilling to make program compromises that veered from the liberal message and overstaffed with more than 100 employees when two dozen would have sufficed.
“What they did for $45 million they could have done for $10 million,” said Sheldon Drobny, an investor with a contentious relationship with the network. Mr. Drobny and his wife, Anita, longtime Democratic activists, are credited with the idea for Air America.
Unfortunately no discussion of where the money went, like the ridiculous contracts given to Al Franken and his producer.