Nancy Pelosi In A Hijab? Someone Notify The Culture Police!

Our little Republican friends were running out of ammunition to use against Nancy Pelosi's for her trip to Syria, being it that it may that a Republican delegation recently visited Syria and a Republican is traveling with Pelosi.

But now, after much effort the right wing presents...

Nancy Pelosi in a hijab!

This is the ultimate proof that the secular Democrats are colluding with Islamic extremist in an effort to rule the United States by Sharia law and hang the crescent and the star over the capital! OH, THE HUMANITY!!

Seriously though, Nancy Pelosi looks more like an poor old farmer woman from Romania than a terrorist in a hijab. I am sorry to be the one to inform the Reich Wing of that, but it's true.

But that hasn't stopped comments like the following:

"Pelosi in a Hijab. The modern Democratic leadership."

"This picture disgusts me. What message is Nancy Pelosi trying to send? Are women equal to men, or not? Why is modesty foisted only upon women? "

"FEMINIST IN AMERICA, subservient in Syria. "

"A woman must know her place when entering a mosque. … It pains the left too, I’m sure, to see the most powerful woman in America having to yield, however slightly, to a misogynistic culture’s expectations, "

Indeed, what kind message is Pelosi trying to send?

Hmm, just off the top of my head I bet the message she is trying to send is that she has respect and tolerance for the culture of the people she is visiting. Which is always a good idea when on a diplomatic mission.

A western woman wearing a hijab to a mosque is not a sign of subservience, it is a sign of respect. If a male was to enter a Synagogue it would only be appropriate and respectful for him to wear a Yarmulke. The same rules can be applied to a woman and a hijab when entering a mosque. World Bank President Neocon Paul Wolfowitz even had the "subservience" to remove his shoes when entering a mosque in Turkey.

Laura Bush wore a hijab when visiting the al-Aqsa mosque... Where were the accusations that Laura Bush was being subservient? Where was the disgust and distrust? Laura looks more authentic in a hijab than Nancy, that I can say for sure.

Look at Laura over there, dark blood red lipstick, black glasses and black hijab, she actually looks severe. She looks just like the kind of Muslim matriarch that the whole Drudge-Coulter-Malikin-Limbaugh-Hannity crowd despises. Nancy Pelosi in a hijab? She looks more like a potato farmer from Europe.

But Laura, like Nancy was only showing respect towards the people she was visiting. There is an old saying "While in Rome do what the Romans do." I suspect Nancy and Laura were doing as the Romans do, which isn't such a big crime when you think about it.

Pelosi was visiting an Omayyad mosque in Damascus in which the tomb of John the Baptist is believed to be in.

Pelosi crossed herself before the tomb, an action which should prove her Christianity to the logical. But the illogical ignore Pelosi while she makes the sign of the cross and focus in on her hijab, that despicably evil piece of cloth.

(Funny thought, in the USA it is OK to show lots of skin, the more skin you show, the better. But it is not OK to cover your skin and be modest. Interesting. What does that mean, and what does that say about American culture and sex?)

However, I do regret to inform the airbags at Hot Wind, I mean the windbags at Hot Air -- that the image of Pelosi in a hijab does not pain the left, that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

I am sure some of the far left, those who are offended by ALL religion (including Christianity) are offended by this move.

But the base prides itself on tolerance and Pelosi wearing a hijab in a mosque is an ultimate sign of tolerance, so I am proud of Pelosi wearing the hijab in the mosque, but wearing a skirt and free hair when meeting with Syrian officials.

So, na-nana-na-bobo...

McCain's April Fools Day Joke

Related : McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed

Once upon a time I believed that Arizona Senator John McCain was one of the few decent Republicans in this country. But once upon a time I also used to believe in Unicorns and Care Bears and the power of a good decoder ring.

You know John McCain. He's Mr. Strait Shooter, Mr. Strait Talk Express...

But lately, McCain's shooting and talking is no longer strait, but a little crooked.

When asked what "Plan B" was regarding the troop surge Condoleeza Rice replied "Plan B" was to make "Plan A" work. It seems now that Republicans and war supporters have resorted to "Plan C", lie your freaking ass off.

Last week McCain was ridiculed for saying “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,” and "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."

McCain's ridiculous assertions were obviously false and were quickly and hotly rebutted by CNN's Michael Ware.

“To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.”

That's right, because there are not even any streets in Baghdad where an Iraqi can walk freely, so you might as well forget about an American doing it.

Ware also stated that “In the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a Humvee. There’s multiple Humvee around it, heavily armed.”

McCain looked like an ass, everyone was laughing at him. He sounded like a senile old fool trying to sell us snake-oil with the promise of eternal youth.

So now, to prove just how safe Baghdad really is on April Fools Day (of all days!) McCain went to a Baghdad market accompanied by 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships.

See how safe Baghdad is? You only need some odd 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships to be safe on the streets of Baghdad! Now, if only we had 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships for every Iraqi, imagine how safe Baghdad would be then!!

So, I think it's obvious. Senator McCain went into that Baghdad market with the intention of trying to prove that he had been correct in his assertion that it was safe to walk the streets in Baghdad.

What McCain really proved by his heavily armed visit was how just how unsafe it is in a Baghdad marketplace.

McCain illustrated perfectly just how dangerous the streets of Baghdad are when his intentions were to illustrate the exact opposite.

UPDATE : Think Progress reports that NBC Iraq correspondent Tom Aspell said this of McCain's marketplace visit :

“It looked as though the whole trip had been arranged by someone to get rid of the negative publicity about [McCain’s] remarks in the States earlier in the week.

"It seemed as though he’d come to Baghdad, made a point of going to a market, staging this kind of visit to the market, and it just seemed to backfire.” He remarked that this weekend’s deadly violence in Iraq “made the trip look rather foolish.”

Technical Problems

Ugh. I have received emails informing me that several of my posts are no longer available.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is and I am looking into it.

Peace.

WH Condemns Pelosi Plan To Visit Syria, Doesn't Condemn Republicans Doing The Same Thing

Welcome to the age of hypocrisy. In case you haven't noticed we have been living in it for about six years now.

Bloomberg reports that White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's planned trip to Syria was "really bad idea,'' and "Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies.''

What Perino did not mention is that as she spoke those very words a Republican delegation, including Rep. Robert Aderholt’s (R-AL) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) were in Syria.

What else didn't perky Perino mention? She also failed to mention that Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson will also be accompanying Pelosi on her trip to Syria.

So what's up with that? It's OK for Republicans to go to Syria but it's not OK for Democrats to go to Syria?

What kind of double standard is that?

The Iraq Study group recommended that the Bush Administration have direct talks with Iran and Syria, something the Bush Administration has so far failed to do.

So let's can the hogwash and the hypocrisy.

Spring Break Showers ...

I'm not supposed to be blogging... I am supposed to be on Spring Break... But it's raining... AND I am bored... And our country is still going fucking Nero...

General Warned Bush Not To Publicize Tillman Death

Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth _ that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.

The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.

Read The Full Story

Chasing The Ghost Writes:

To me, Pat Tillman always seemed like G.I. Joe, but only real. The real American hero.

What they used Tillman for was terrible. Just terrible. Look what they did to our true American hero. A man who gave up his NFL career to serve in the military was killed by friendly fire, only to have his President use him as a martyr to bolster support for the war cause.

They used his death as a political platform.

While Bush showcased the bravery and integrity of Pat Tillman, he did it knowing that Pat was not killed by the enemy, but by friendly fire.

How could Bush lie to Pat's family like that, to the Nation like that? The same way he lied to us about everything else I suppose.

They disgraced Pat, and what they did was was inexcusably cruel and maniacal. They lied to his family about how he really died to score political points. That's so dishonorable, only a scoundrel would consider it.

They said, "Look at Pat, what a hero - he died for this country - he was killed by the enemy." It made the heart swell pride and patriotism at the same time, but half of it was a lie.

Pat Tillman is a hero, he did die for his country. But the enemy didn't kill him, his own country did.

His own President disrespected his memory by making false statements and convincing people of war stories that were not true. All in the name of politics, and support for the war.

If I didn't think Bush could get any lower, I've just been proven wrong.

Rest in peace, Pat Tillman. Thank God the truth was told about your death.

Dear Jihadist, I Will Not Wet My Bed When I Think About You At Night

Michelle Maglalang Malkin, as usual, is full of "Hot Air", or maybe she's just full of it.

"The John Doe Manifesto" is a creepy proclamation of civil vigilantism. It reads like the author was checking her "Cliffs Notes" on Stalin's Guide To Disseminating Propaganda as she was writing her "Manifesto" to make sure she got the mantra just right .

On the surface "The John Doe Manifesto" appears to be nothing more than the work of fearful and impotent people, trying to make a verbal stand against terrorist.

Closer inspection of the individual orders reveals that the "Manifesto" is asking you to do nothing short of becoming a junior spy to help to create a paranoid and "big brother" like environment in the United States of America.

The use of the term "John Doe" disturbs me in this case because it seems to strip strip the person of it's individuality and insert a rigid and paranoid doctrine of "I Will's" and "I Am's" in it's place.

Just note the frame of the "Manifesto" ;

I am
I am
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am

Now note individual phrases, the following lines smack of Soviet like propaganda.

"I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”

I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy" ...

She forgot to write "And I will write with the intent of pleasing the 'propaganda ministry' because that is what a good and fearful American does."

Who need liberty when you have security? That's what Malkin is asking.

Of course, citizens need to be alert for their own security to a logical extent -- but this sickeningly pathetic "Manifesto" reads like it was coauthored by Kim Jong Ill's propaganda team to use on the North Koreans.

Furthermore, I am suspicious of anything with the word "Manifesto" stamped on it. I am sure there are many people on the Grassy Knoll handing out "Manifesto's". Ted Kaczynski had a "Manifesto".

In a sense Malkin's "Manifesto", like most her work, has played right into the terrorist agenda, to cause terror. One look at the "Manifesto" reveals truly how fearful some people in this country are.

The terrorist want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors, it feeds their frenzy, hence the word terror.

People like Michelle Malkin also want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors.

While their agenda's may be different I have to be wary of anyone who wants me to be afraid, paranoid and spying on my neighbors.

Before I scoot off to my Spring Break, I want to break down some of the weaker lines in the "Manifesto"...

"I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities."

While I subject Muslim woman in America to discrimination and show intolerance to religious minorities...

"I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools."

What a flake! Talk about your conspiracy theories! Last time I checked the Muslims were not trying to indoctrinate our children in our schools. Now she's just making sh*t up to justify her call for a spying jihad against all brown skinned people and their acquaintances.

"I will not be censored in the name of tolerance."

Oh, jeez, she should give it a rest already! It sounds like she's fighting for the right to use the word "sand n*gger" when speaking of Arabs or something.

"I will put my country above multiculturalism."

Uhh, hello! Malkin lady, newsflash!

Multiculturalism is what allowed your Filipino immigrant parents to come to America on a work visa and have an "anchor" baby like you.

Multiculturalism is America, I know it's a concept the Reich Wing fails to grasp, but it's true.

If it were not for multiculturalism Malkin wouldn't even be in America, spewing her "Hot Air".

Malkin should get real, she's a minority in more than one way and should exercise some of the tolerance people gave to her and her foreign family to others. But she doesn't, leading me to believe she is a self hating b*tch and channels that self hatred on other minorities and immigrants.

"I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated."

You hear that, you stupid-wupid terrorist? She's not intimidated! Small woman, big stand, she hates terrorist, long time ...

You know what? Malkin's "Manifesto" sounds more like a self help book the more I read it. "I will not eat to much dessert, I will not be afraid of the dark."... Or like something written for victims of domestic abuse "I will not let a man undermine my worth, I will not let people tell me what to do." Blah, Blah, by f*cking BLAH!

Not only is the "Manifesto" creepy it is also pathetic, as the title of this post indicates.

The "Manifesto" really shows the terrorist how fearful they have made some Americans when they are willing to sign on to propaganda that was disseminated by fear-bot Michelle Malkin.

But do these silly little Stalinist spies really think their cute "Manifesto" is going to intimidate the terrorist, if they even see it? I don't think so.



Special thanks to Chris Kelly at Huffington Post for raising the issue to my attention in a blog.

McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed

The picture "strait talk" John McCain has been painting of Iraq is one of success and harmony.

A place where westerners can walk the streets safely and the commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq can travel around in an unarmed Humvee.

Sounds like "Mission Accomplished", right? The only problem with that scenario is that John McCain's claims about Iraq are completely false.

The Republican Senator from Arizona who wants to be President in 2008 is carrying such a large load of lies that one has to be surprised that the wheels on the "Strait Talk Express" have not blown out as a consequence.

It started on Monday when McCain claimed to radio host Bill Bennett “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,”

The lie continued on Tuesday when McCain spewed out on CNN that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee." McCain then claimed that those who said it was unsafe for Americans to leave the heavily fortified "Green Zone" were "giving the old line of three months ago."

Journalist Michael Ware, who has worked for both TIME and CNN and has been in Iraq for several years strongly disagrees.

Ware stated in response to McCain's claim that “To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.”

Ware also stated that “In the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a Humvee. There’s multiple Humvee around it, heavily armed.”

Ware makes it quite clear that "Senator McCain is way off base on this one."

Watch the video below :



How dare McCain be so openly misleading about the conditions in Iraq? Is McCain that stupid, or does he think that the American people are that stupid?

This morning McCain was confronted by John Roberts of CNN with his fudging of the facts when Roberts stated “I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored Humvee.”

Roberts also noted that a recent report by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey stated "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection.”

So not only has McCain's statements about Iraq been proven to be false by journalist Michael Ware, but also by former and current military officials.

But you know ole' strait talkin' McCain, he blundered “Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”

But McCain did say General Petraeus went out without protection, he said he went out in an "unarmed Humvee".

To top of his own audacity McCain also appeared on GOP friendly FOX News and stated that he sometimes lets “jerks from the media” on board his "Strait Talk Express" bus.

Nice talk from a guy who wants to be President of this country, who knowingly misleads those "jerks from the media" about the conditions in Iraq in order to try to gain temporary political points at home.

The Surge Is Working, The Surge Is Not

Some chicken-hawks are already claiming that the "surge" is working.

Chicken-hawks proclaim that even though United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon was nearly killed alongside the Iraqi Prime Minister the other day, and even though the deputy Prime Minister was nearly assassinated the following day that the surge is indeed working. Okaaay...

So violence in Baghdad is slightly down. Violence outside of Baghdad is reportedly up. So why is violence in Baghdad slightly down?

Well, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has a somewhat shady alliance with Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr who has a lot of control over the Mahdi Army who slipped into hiding when they were tipped off that a security crackdown was about to begin.

How is that any kind of victory? They'll be back. They are just laying low, making it more difficult to track them down. It certainly doesn't indicate the "surge" is working, it indicates that the Shia militants are being more clever than their Sunni enemies. In other words, they lay low, let the US kill the Sunni insurgents, and it saves Mahdi Army a lot of trouble.

But what happens the minute the "surge" ends? Mahdi Army is on the streets again, only this time without the pestilence of many of the Sunni insurgents who by that time may be partially deposed, paving the way to a Shia dominated insurgency to go right along with the Shia dominated government. Which will only add to Sunni animosity and fears of ethnic cleansing.

So I don't really see how the "surge" is working yet, especially when all I am hearing about it the capturing and killing of Sunni insurgents but nill on the capturing and killing of Shia insurgents, when, isn't is supposed to be the Shia who are being funded by Iran ... But oh well, who cares, it's not like were trying to win this war or anything.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Religion In Schools In England

You can be Muslim, you just can't look Muslim, or so seems with new government guidelines that were published on Tuesday that would leave it up "to individual head teachers to decide what pupils should and should not be allowed to wear in class, a DFES spokesman said." the AP reports.

Critics of the niqab claim that the scarf interferes with learning and causes security threats. Critics site the unique examples of Turkey and Tunisia in the Muslim world as having outlawed the niqab, although Turkey only loosely enforces the ban.

So does the niqab interfere with learning and does the niqab in itself cause security threats?

Before I answer that I was to elaborate that I view preventing Muslim woman from wearing religious clothing is a blatant violation of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

I am not from England. My country rebelled from Britain, so I know little of the intricacies of British law.

What I do know is this : in America we have freedom of religion and freedom of expression and that is part of what makes it great.

I am obviously not a Muslim woman, I am a secular woman, but I will stand up for Muslims woman's right to wear a veil.

Why? Because, I believe to ask a Muslim woman to remove her veil is the same as asking a Christian to remove their cross or to ask a Jew to remove his locks or his Star of David, and I would stand up for their rights as well.

It is hypocritical to try to spread "tolerance" in the Muslim world but exhibit so little of it in the West. How can the West ask Muslim countries to treat it's Christian minorities with kindness and respect it the West cannot treat it's Muslim minorities with kindness and respect?

Do I think the niqab interferes with learning? No. But I believe asking a pious young woman to remove the veil because it is "bothering you" would interfere with her learning and her ability to be at comfort with her surroundings and her religion.

For a conservative Muslim woman wearing the niqab is the moral thing to do, thus asking her to remove it is asking her to be immoral in her own eyes and what she views as the eyes of God.

Why the controversy over being modest? Why does it offend a Western person more to see a modest woman in a veil than it does to see a 15 year old wearing cleavage and thigh baring clothing?

That is part of what is so absurd about this whole situation. In the West your free to show your skin, but apparently your not free to cover your skin. Who would've thought "daisy dukes" are more acceptable than veils??

Currently, Muslims are in the spotlight. Because of 9/11, because of the mess in Iraq and our relationship with the government of Iran, many in the West have allowed themselves to become discriminatory towards all Muslims people, and feel completely justified in doing so.

But I ask, is this really the kind of reality and history we want to make?

Do you want our ancestors to look back and call us discriminatory and see us as overreacting and contributing to these problem rather than solving them? Or see us as bunch of hypocrites who try to instill tolerance on other nations while failing to exercise it at home?

Or do we want our ancestors to be able to look back and see that we exercised tolerance, restraint, and above all logic in a time of hardships and clashes between our worlds?

Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials

The Bush Administration recently purged eight U.S. attorneys, a move that has caught the attention of the mainstream media and Democrats, many of which feel the firing of several attorneys who had preformed well on the job, was at the very least, suspicious.

The American public is starting to catch on, especially when the Los Angeles Times and others are reporting that

"Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired in a direct attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California."

A DoJ official commented that "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." when it was learned that "Lam notified Washington of search warrants in a Republican corruption case"

It doesn't help either when The Washington Post is reporting that David C. Iglesias, who was one of the other attorneys was fired after he had been "heralded for his expertise" by the Justice Department "which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes."

Which blows to pieces the Bush Administrations original claim that the attorneys were purged because of poor performance.

Iglesias alleged crime? Apparently Republicans were not happy with Iglesias because he failed to prosecute Democrats for voter fraud because “we didn’t have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Iglesias stated on FOX.

“Prosecutors can’t just prosecute on rumor and innuendo. I set up only one of two election fraud task forces in the country. In fact, the Justice Department asked me to speak at an election fraud seminar as a result of those task forces.” Iglesias also says that his firing was a "political hit" and wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times "Why I Was Fired"

The Bush Administration and it's apologist have supplied a steady stream of various excuses regarding the ouster of the attorneys.

First the Administration claimed the attorneys preformed poorly. Then it was within it's right to purge the attorneys, however suspicious and politically motivated the circumstances appeared. Then they pointed fingers at each other "Harriet did it" or "Rove did it" and "Gonzales did it". Finally they pledged accountability, right before they said they had nothing to be accountable for.

So, one would reasonably assume that if the Bush Administration was not participating in lecherous partisanship and trying to steer investigations when it purged the attorneys then it should not have any objections to going under oath and explaining themselves, should they? If the Bush Administration did nothing wrong then they should have nothing to hide and going under oath should not be a problem, right?

Wrong. Someone is hiding something.

The Politico is reporting that “In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.”

That's pretty damning, it reminds me of the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Nixon audio tapes about the Watergate break-in.

Not only that, now the President is refusing to allow implicated members of his Administration to go under oath.

The audacity of this President never ceases to amaze me, he could have cookie crumbs on his lips and he would still try to make a convincing case that he really wasn't eating cookies from the cookie jar.

The President now claims that the Democrats are just being "partisan" because they want answers regarding the attorney purge. Does he really think we are all that ignorant than we buy that nonsense? If he does, then I guess we can see who the ignorant one is.

It was the Bush administration that chose to purge attorneys for what clearly appears to be political reasons, and this is what the President seems to be choosing to ignore when he claims the Democrats want partisanship and impasse rather than truth and justice.

President Bush has a warning for those nefarious Democrats...

“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. The initial response by Democrats unfortunately shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials. And I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse, and I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.”

"A partisan fishing expedition"?!? Ooh, I get it, like the "partisan fishing expedition" the Bush Administration went on when it purged the eight attorneys?

"Honorable public servants"?!? The President is talking about the same Alberto Gonzales that said the US constitution prohibited taking away habeas corpus but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to habeas corpus? I'm sure Gonzales is an honorable servant, but he is not a servant to the public, obviously.

Democrats "scoring political points"? That may be so, but that is only because they are doing the right thing, what the public would want them to do, which is investigate. I am referring to the same public that Gonzales is an alleged "honorable servant" of, lest there be any confusion.

It will be "regrettable if they [Democrats] choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas"?!? Someone needs to tell Bush that it is normal procedure, if one refuses to cooperate and refuses to talk that the next step is a subpoena.

"I hope they [Democrats] don't choose confrontation." But essentially it is Bush who chose confrontation when he decided to refuse to allow members of his Administration go under oath and on record to explain the events surrounding the attorney purge.

"Let Them Wait"

Over three million Palestinians live in the occupied territories.

Palestinians have lived under Israeli military occupation for forty years.

Twenty years after the occupation began the intifada began. The uprising brought more excessive force from Israel, leading to a second Palestinian uprising in 2000 following the collapse of the Oslo Accords.

Checkpoints are a part of daily life for many Palestinians. Gaza Strip and the West Bank are separated by miles.

In Palestine people often have to travel to work, many times walking long distances to visit family, go to school or visit hospitals.

Palestinians are routinely harassed at such checkpoints for hours before they are many times denied permission to pass.

Herded like cattle and treated no different, the conditions Israeli's impose on Palestinians only fuel greater hostility and animosity among the Palestinian people.

Many of the Palestinian people are not just angered with their treatment, they are hurt, and their pain is etched into many of their faces, young and old.

Another obvious symptom of oppression is the fear many Palestinians feel towards Israeli soldiers because of their routine and systematic harassment, and being constantly treated like a criminal.

Few people really know what it is like for the Palestinians, why they are frustrated while they world ignores them, and in many cases demonizes them.

Israeli Filmmaker Yoav Shamir takes a deeper look into the lives of Palestinians, and how their lives are dictated by various checkpoints where harassment is routine.

At the checkpoints, all Palestinians are treated equally, equally as criminals.

The film is an Israeli film, made with Israeli money, shot by an Israeli. What's more interesting is that the Israeli forces are now using the documentary as training material for their guards.

This film provides an eye witnesses perspective to a situation many Americans do not even realize exists. The film is at the end of this post, but I want to highlight what I view as some of the most important scenes from the documentary.

Tensions can run high when human beings are corralled like animals and treated without the slightest amount of dignity or respect. Frustration is common, but only because of the systematic abuses of power Israeli soldiers display.

In a crowded checkpoint Israeli soldiers command the Palestinians to get on the pavilion - no one gets threw the checkpoint until everyone is on the pavilion. The problem, there is not enough room on the pavilion for all waiting Palestinians to gather on.

One man frustrated, carrying his young child complains that "We have been here since 6 AM."

A sick family is prevented from crossing a checkpoint to see a doctor. An Israeli guard harasses the family with taunts and repeatedly tries to get a four year old boy to answer his questions, when the child is clearly frightened by the guard and does not understand Hebrew.

Dissatisfied with the child's lack of response the guard turns the family away from the checkpoint, saying "maybe" they could come back tomorrow. There appears to be no legitimate reason for turning the family away.

A school bus full of elementary age children rumbles on the scene of a checkpoint and is stopped by the Israeli's. The children are pulled out of the bus, but it is not the Palestinian children the Israeli guards are interested in, it is the Israeli man traveling with them, who is a pastor and has a large cross on the back of his vest.

The pastor was prevented from crossing the checkpoint without just reason after the Pastor told the guards he was crossing with the children to see how they were being treated at the checkpoints, the pastor was obviously concerned about the well being of the children.

Inexplicably, after the children have left one of the Israeli guard insists that the pastor get his picture taken with him. The pastor agrees, only if the guard removes his gun and helmet. The guard complies, perhaps conveying the importance he is placing on the photo of the man. But why is it so important to have a picture of this peaceful Israeli pastor? Perhaps to identify him later, or make him identifiable to other Israeli guards as a "trouble maker".

At another checkpoint an Israeli guard says "Jews are the best." At the same checkpoint male soldiers can be found sexually harassing young Palestinian girls, one even after she has informed the guard she is a minor.

Another checkpoint finds Palestinians who are made to wait in the freezing rain for an extended period of time. Not because Israeli guards are busy, but because Israeli guards are trying to prove some kind of point to them.

A guard checks a mans ID by phone. After he has verified the man is who he indeed says he is, the soldier decides to "make him wait" in the freezing rain for no other apparent reason to other than to prove a point to a nonviolent and productive Palestinian man.

At a Ramallah checkpoint it is snowing and again the Palestinians are forced to stand out in the elements for an unreasonably long amount of time.

A young guard notices the camera and places himself in front of it. "What do you want to film here? Animals, Animals. Like the Discovery Channel" the guard laughs, clearly implying his belief that the Palestinians are animals.

"All of Ramallah is a jungle, there are monkeys, dogs, gorillas (laughing) The problem is that the animals are locked, they can't come out. We're humans. They're animals. They aren't human, we are." He continues, "that's the difference between..." (one can assume "us and them" were the words poised to follow) but the guard is interrupted by another, perhaps sensing the peril of his comrades words.

"What?" The young guard asks his comrade who has interrupted him "Let him film, what do I care? I don't care what people think." Exactly.

Palestinians are routinely turned back from checkpoints not allowed to return home without any justified reason other than the fact they are Palestinian.

At one such checkpoint an old man hobbles with a cane, sits on a gathering of rocks, and almost whispers "Film this. See what they do to us." to the cameraman.

"I'll break her bones." One guard menacingly threatens an older man and his wife as they try to cross the checkpoint. "We are going home" The man replies defiantly.

"Why are you doing this to us?" Rings out an anguished voice. "Shoot me, I don't care." Indeed, in a life like this death may seem a release. "Why are you doing this to us?" and "Why do you treat us this way?" are questions often raised by the Palestinians.

"Is this freedom? Is this the peace they've promised us?"

The closing scenes of the documentary brings us to a scene of darkness, Palestinians lined up against a concrete barrier. A cell phone rings, "We have been waiting for more than five hours." the man tells the person on the other end.

"We're tired of waiting in the cold." Another says.

Another voice in the darkness pleads "I've been here for ten hours."

An Israeli soldier "Let them wait. Let them wait."

The excerpts above were taken from the documentary below.





Update : The embeded video does not seem to be working correctly, the video can be found at Google Video.

Welcome To America - We Are Junior Stalinist!

FOX is having a hard time being the odd man out. It's anchors are angry that Democrats did not want to participate in a one sided debate that would have been artfully spun to make Democrats look similar to demons.

As FOX licks it's wounds of rejection they are also lashing out at those who helped kill the debate : the Progressive Left.

MoveOn.Org and Daily Kos were singled out by FOX's Beltway Boys co-host Mort Kondracke.

“This tells you a lot about what Moveon.org, Daily Kos kind of left-wing liberals are all about. I mean they are not about free speech and free debate.” He added, “This is junior grade Stalinism on their part.”

"Junior grade Stalinism?" I bet old Morty got up awfully early in the morning to come up with that one. You want to know how I know that? Because you'd have to be pretty groggy, and pretty out if it - to believe some kind of propaganda like that.

Liberals (even us "Junior Stalinist) believe in the power of free speech and free debate. We also believe in the power of hate speech and spun debate, so please forgive us if we sit this one out.

As written in my last post, if FOX had wanted a fair and honest debate they should not have spent the weeks leading up to the debate filling their air time with baseless smears on Democrats, everyone in America is not as ignorant as FOX News would like them to be.

Hilariously Morty claims that “If Fox was embarrassingly right wing or something like that, it would be plain for all to see.”

When are they going to make a keyboard key that conveys hysterical laughter? I need it right now, because LOL or HAHA, just doesn't cut it this time.

IT IS PLAIN FOR EVERYONE (well, everyone with the Beta brain wave) TO SEE! How about FOX's fudged Bush polls? How about FOX's blatant right wing bias? That does not constitute as "embarrassingly right wing"? Hmm, never would have guessed...

If FOX were not "embarrassingly right wing" why would it constantly lash out at Liberals and Democrats and praise Republicans, even Republican criminals like Tom DeLay?

If FOX were not "embarrassingly right wing" then why would they constantly attack and refer to the allegedly Liberal media?

It is because FOX is "embarrassingly right wing". No one else can watch it without becoming sick to their stomach.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Conservative news sources, but FOX isn't even a Conservative new source, it is a right wing propaganda machine, and there is quite a difference.

The Beginning Of Another Military Cover-Up?

The AP Reports :

"The U.S. military asserted that an American soldier was justified in erasing journalists' footage of the aftermath of a suicide bombing and shooting in Afghanistan last week, saying publication could have compromised a military investigation and led to false public conclusions.

"That is not a reasonable justification for erasing images from our cameras," said AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll in New York. "AP's journalists in Afghanistan are trained, accredited professionals working at an appropriate distance from the bombing scene. In democratic societies, legitimate journalists are allowed to work without having their equipment seized and their images deleted."

Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road from Barikaw following the suicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said insurgents also fired on American forces during the attack. One Marine was wounded.

A U.S. soldier deleted the AP journalists' footage that showed a civilian four-wheel drive vehicle in which three Afghans were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing. The journalists had met requests from the military to not move any closer to the bomb site."

READ FULL STORY

Why Was The Fox News Debate Killed?

Democrats reacted with disbelief when the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to let FOX News host a Presidential debate, with no other co-sponsors.

This should come as no surprise. FOX News, after all has been the champion of running Conservative talking points and baseless smearing of Democrats for years now.

The blogosphere (this blog not included) erupted into protest, how could the Nevada Democrats be so blind? Were they that eager to be accepted by Conservatives who will loathe them no matter what, that they were willing to sacrifice their integrity by recognizing FOX News as a legitimate news source?

There may have been a time when FOX News was a legitimate news source, but for all of my adult life, it has not been, and only carries the type of parasites that are capable of offending Independents, Moderates and Democrats in this country.

FOX has been host to countless "Obama-Osama" smears, run dozens of false and misleading banners on it's programs and has allowed and encouraged extremist to appear on their programming, and despite their claim -- is about as far from fair and balanced as Al-Manar TV is.

Democrats should have never agreed to do let FOX host a debate in the first place. FOX is not news for Moderates, Independents and Democrats, it is entertainment aimed at Conservatives.

FOX had no intentions of hosting a fair and balanced debate, it was their intention to try to spin the debate in favor of Conservatives, and you could have expected banners like "Why does Hillary Hate America?" or "Can America Accept Osama's Muslim Past?"

Anyone with even the slightest amount of observation skills knows that the FOX debate was a setup and a sham from the beginning. Nothing more than an opportunity for ultra unreasonable hate junkies like Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity to attack Democrats in a completely controlled environment. (FOX refused to let anyone else co-sponsor the event.)

Predictably, Conservative mouthpieces refuse to see the truth - that Democrats pulled out of the debate because FOX has repeatedly broadcast false or misleading information, not only regarding Democrats, but the War On Terror, the War in Iraq and the Bush Administration.

Conservative mouthpieces instead choose self denial, claiming that Democrats are afraid of the one sided spun debate.

But what really did FOX in was some of it's most recent comments, an alleged joke aimed at Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who FOX anchors have repeatedly tried to smear as having some kind of association with terrorism.

"And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?" Roger Ailes, Fox President.

Like with most low blows Conservatives like to throw, they also like to claim whatever offensive remark they made was only a "joke".

Steve Young, blogging for Huffington Post is claiming that the joke that was made at Barack Obama's expense that insinuated Obama was a terrorist was actually a joke made at the expense of President Bush that had insinuated the President couldn't find terrorist.

WHAT?? Wait a minute... WHAT??

We are talking about the same FOX News right? The same FOX News that makes a living broadcasting servile flattery towards President Bush, is now insulting President Bush? Calling him dumb? I don't think so, give me a break.

Anyone who believes that must be ... some kind of Conservative living in denial or completely blind, and deaf.

THANKS TO STEVE YOUNG AND HIS VERY INFORMATIVE BLOG we now know for certain what sort of tactic and spin the Radical Red's are going to try to put on this one - from the mouth of the horse, or at least one of them. "Well, I wasn't calling Obama a terrorist, I was calling Bush an idiot. Jeez, I guess you can't please the Liberals either way, boo-hoo." and they will believe in that hogwash.

The fact of the matter is FOX News has a very well known tendency to demean anything that is Democratic, smear anyone who is Liberal or Independent from them and present a very slanted view of most news that could even be considered disinformation at times.

Democrats, in their eagerness to reach out to Conservatives tried to give FOX the benefit of the doubt and allow them to host a Presidential Debate, practicably FOX screwed that up.

It is no one's fault but FOX that FOX choose to continue to smear Barack Obama and the Democratic Party without basis, therefore it is no one's fault but FOX that the Democrats cancelled the debate.

It has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with integrity.

FBI MISUSED PATRIOT ACT POWERS

The FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the United States, a Justice Department audit concluded Friday.

FULL STORY

Irony, Hypocrisy And Rod Majors At CPAC

This year at CPAC the headline was all about Ann Coulter and her "faggot" slur. In fact, everyone was so preoccupied with Coulters slur, that no one noticed who the recipient of the Jeanne Kirpatrick Academic Freedom Award was.

The next day a large number of gay bloggers recognized the recipient of the award as one "Rod Majors" a well endowed gay porn star.

His real name is Matt Sanchez and he is a Marine, and there is no word yet on why he had not chosen the screen name "Corporal C*ck or Private Parts... Anyhow...

Liberals have jumped all over the opportunity to point out not only how ironic it is that Matt Sanchez is the gay porn star known as "Rod Majors", but how hypocritical it was of Conservatives who are typically and notoriously anti-gay to be awarding a man who once starred in gay porno. It becomes a case of awarding the very same people who you have made a living out of demonizing.

I guess Mr. Sanchez is not homosexual, he just liked to play one in the movies, and that is fine. I am a Liberal so I do not deem it in my power or interest to dictate and condemn the lifestyle choice of homosexuals, or those who like to play them in the movies.

Sanchez has been heralded by Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as a hero by being called a "baby killer" (something investigated and never proven to be true), he has also gotten cheeky with Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, all very well known Conservatives, all very well known for being anti-gay.

No matter how hard one can try to ignore it, there is something most unusual and noteworthy about Ann Coulter making a "faggot" slur and "Rod Majors" the gay porn star receiving an award all at the same Conservative studded event.

Sanchez tries to defend himself in his blog, claims he is being attacked by the Left, then lashes out by saying if he was Liberal that being on a gay porn set would have been "heaven".

In his blog, Sanchez gives the impression that he is blaming everyone but himself for his fling with the gay porn industry, but pictures can say 1,000 words, and Sanchez looked like he was enjoying himself.

Think Progress is reporting that Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin is already downplaying Coulters remarks and claiming that the Sanchez incident will prove "who the real bigots" are.

"I have a feeling Ann Coulter isn’t the only one who’ll be tossing around the f-word as the story develops." Malkin commented.

Malkin illustrates her ineptitude quite plainly, she is implying that Liberals will now start tagging the "f-word" to Matt Sanchez, because he is a "Conservative" gay porn star, rather than a Liberal one.

One thing Malkin is failing to understand is that Liberals don't call people the "f-word", because of our annoying Political Correctness that Conservatives like Malkin complain about so incessantly.

Malkin, is funny, though unfortunately it is not in the way she tries to be.

Today Malkin comments that she thought the "CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors about Sanchez’s porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumors are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarrassed."

I agree that Sanchez should not be embarrassed that he had sexual contact with other males. Sexuality is inherent, it is built in, you are either strait or you are not, and I have no problem with homosexuals, I really don't care.

But I do believe the porn industry to be dirty and demeaning, and Sanchez should be have some shame that he was in any pornography. Whether it was porno for homosexuals or heterosexuals is irrelevant, it was porno nonetheless, gutter trash. Even as Liberal as I am, I do not believe people should be proud of their work in such a perverted field, it is not "art" and people should be embarrassed to be in pornography, the same way people should be embarrassed to be prostitutes.

CPAC should be embarrassed as well, it should be embarrassed for putting on such a spectacle in the first place. They should be embarrassed that Ann Coulter makes Conservatives look like intolerant bigots by using a homosexual slur, and they should be embarrassed that they look so hypocritical by claiming to be "the moral party", then inviting a gay porn star to receive it's highest award.

Again, I believe there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but I do believe being in pornography is a less than admirable career choice at any age and I am a fierce opponent of hypocrisy, and this years CPAC was neck deep in it.

But, according to Malkin (you have to give the girl some credit for trying so hard to spin this) it's the Liberals who should be embarrassed! Read,

"It’s the nasty, gloating liberals who claim to stand for tolerance, privacy, human rights, and compassion." [who should be embarassed]

Yeah, that's right, it was the Liberals who held bigot fest 2007, where gay slurs and porno stars were aplenty!

Malkin continues,

"I predicted the other day that left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head. I was right. The e-mail I’ve received is more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter stupidly said at CPAC."

Oh, did little Michelle Malkin get some hateful-wateful emails from anonymous strangers-wangers? Welcome to the club! Yes, Malkin, and I too get nasty emails from Conservatives who say things that are far more disgusting than any anecdote Micheal Moore, or even Che Guevara ever told - so stuff a sock in it.

As Think Progress pointed out "What’s notable is that Malkin compares Coulter to these alleged “liberal” emailers. Malkin doesn’t get it: the random people allegedly writing her don’t have regular appearances on NBC News or receive warm praise from leading presidential candidates." But Ann Coulter does.

So there is quite a huge difference between some hateful emails that anonymous and fringe elements of Liberalism send to a columnist and a different famous columnist who preaches hate to the millions and is lauded by Conservatives for doing so.

In conclusion, this year at CPAC was more interesting than most. I wish "Rod Majors" luck in that whole "red blooded Reagan Republican" B.S. , it looks like they may let Sanchez continue to play in their reindeer games, but only because they can use him as a tool (or use his tool-haha) to attack the nefarious Left with.

Clinton Calls for GI 'Bill of Rights'

The AP reports that :

"Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a new GI Bill of Rights for men and women in uniform, arguing that Democrats can do a better job of protecting and providing for U.S. troops than the Republican administration."

FULL STORY

Conservatives Pick The Worst Role Models

While it was widely rumored that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had several extramarital affairs which led to not only one but two messy divorces he always refused to talk about it.

Gingrich admitted to Focus on the Family founder James Dobson in an interview to be aired on Friday that "the answer is yes" he had committed infidelity, while pursuing charges against former President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Gingrich claimed that he was not a hypocrite to lead a crusade against Bill Clinton, even though he too was committing adultery.

"There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards." Gingrich stated.

Newt Gingrich is very popular among the Conservative base even though he fails to uphold even his own image of a "good Conservative".

Gingrich is considering an '08 White House run. Wish him luck, he'll need it, lots of it.

Top Republicans Knew Of Walter Reed Neglect - Did Not Want To "Embarrass The Military"

Related : Who Supports The Troops?

The Mainstream Media continues fail to live up to even the most menial expectations while failing to report that Republican Congressional leaders knew of Walter Reed neglect for years and failed to act.

Congressional Quarterly reports that senior Republicans knew of the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed years before the recent Washington Post Op-Ed exposed them to the public.

Even in 2004 red flags should have been raised when the non profit group Disabled American Veterans was blocked from meeting with patients at Walter Reed.

Yesterday CQ reported that :

"C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., former chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he stopped short of going public with the hospital’s problems to avoid embarrassing the Army while it was fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

It appears as if Young knew of conditions at Walter Reed as early as 2003 and claims he repeatedly approached the hospitals former commander, Gen. Kevin C. Kiley about the poor care soldiers were receiving.

During Congressional hearings Young claimed that “We got in Gen. Kiley’s face on a regular basis,” Though apparently the alleged pressure on Kiley did little to nothing to improve the conditions of the outpatient care or Kiley's on the job performance nor does it appear that genuine "follow ups" were made.

After the Congressional hearing Young retorted “What else do you want me to do? I am not going to go into a hospital and push my way into a medical situation,”

Those sound like excuses, feeble excuses for not calling attention to a dire problem within our own system, the system which was partially under his control.

“We did not go public with these concerns, because we did not want to undermine the confidence of the patients and their families and give the Army a black eye while fighting a war,” Young said.

WHAT?!? You know what I bet would "undermine the confidence of the patients and their families" even more?

Receiving poor care would most definitely undermine their confidence.

Having Congressmen and even the President come to pay visit but fail to blow the appropriate whistles because of political reasons would most definitely undermine their confidence.

That's what I bet would undermine the patients and their families confidence.

So what becomes of Kiley, the man who failed to provide our troops with a clean and respectable place to recover?

Did he get punished? NO! Kiley is now the Army's top ranking doctor, the Army Surgeon General! UP is DOWN people!

Thomas M. Davis, another Republican from Virgina also acknowledged he knew about problems at Walter Reed as earlier as 2004.

Davis also admited that he failed to appraoch other Republicans for more money or legislation to address the problems encountered at Walter Reed.

Davis's excuse? “We are not appropriators. . . . I don’t know what else we could have done,” and “If generals don’t go around and look at the barracks, how do you legislate that?”

What else could have they done?

Well, applying pressure to Kiley and other responsible individuals would have been appropriate. If improvements were not made then obviously going to the media would have been a feasible option.

These men knew about these conditions for years and failed to even let anyone know.

Washington Post reports on it on Saturday and by Monday repairs are being made.

It was that easy to help these young men and woman who served their country, while the people who asked them to do so hide behind a wall of excuses.