Conservatives : Reinventing History One Site At A Time

Back in May I wrote about the Conservative YouTube called QubeTV, today I bring you Conservapedia.

We all know about Townhall.Com and other "mainstream" Conservative publications and their blatant attempts to insert bigotry into our national dialogue and we know about their shameless and false reconstruction of history and current events.

We already knew that Conservatives couldn't cut it at YouTube, and now we also know they can't hang at Wikipedia either.

Conservapedia, what an interesting concept... Do we need a Leftapedia now so we can keep up with the constant flow of disinformation streaming out of Conservapedia?

Let's look at Conservapedia's entry on George W. Bush.

Economy :

"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." Emphasis is mine.

If you read between the lines you can see the Plutocrat that lies deep within all Conservatives.

These Conservatives are failing to see that to the majority of the country witnessing Exxon Mobile making huge profits while we suffer at the gas pump is not a good thing, it is something we view as very, very bad.

The majority of the American people who are just hard working people with families do not see CEO's getting 300 million dollar bonuses while we pay record high gas prices as something positive!

Furthermore we are even more disgusted that these high oil prices are blamed on a lack of refineries which the oil companies refuse to build, instead giving their executives outrageous bonuses.

Sorry Conservapedia, we do not see getting raped at the pump as a positive improvement and this so called entry about the economy shows how out of touch the Conservatives are with the American public.

So how accurate is Conservapedia?

Let's look at the "Family" section for GW Bush :

"George W. Bush is the son of George H. W. Bush, who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.

George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, and many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list."

So Conservapedia doesn't even bother to mention Bush's daughters or his wife in the "Family" section? Is this supposed to be some sort of ultimate proof that Conservatives view woman as worthless?

If sexism is not the reason the President's daughters and wife are not mentioned in the "Family" section of the George W. Bush entry in Conservapedia then sloppiness and disregard for accuracy must be the answer. Quite a slapdash entry considering that you are writing a small bio for the current President of the United States...

Instead of mentioning the President's daughters and wife in his "Family" section Conservapedia finds it more important to discuss how "profound" Bush's faith is, according to some guy who is trying to sell a book.

Conservapedia also claims that "the anti-War movement was defeated" because Democrats were unable to pass a bill that included a withdrawal date.

What Conservapedia fails to mention is that President Bush vetoed two bills presented by Democrats that included timetables. Conservapedia also fails to observe that the antiwar movement has not been defeated, in reality public disapproval with it is at an all time high.

Comparing Conservapedia to Wikipedia is a joke.

Conservapedia's entry for the President is only 7 paragraphs long and offers zero insight into the life or career of George W. Bush.

Wikipedia's entry for the President on the other hand is at least 65 paragraphs long and offers information from his early life including controversies and it doesn't fail to mention his wife and daughters by name.

The bigger point of my post is that Conservatives are desperately and actively seeking to present an alternative to the truth (right wing domination of the radio, QubeTV, Conservapedia) that they are shameless in disseminating.

This brand of Conservatives disregard the facts that they find inconvenient to their narrative. It started with FOX and the right wing radio shows that dominate the air, now they are developing web platform which we need to be constantly aware of.

Conservatives always claim to set up these enterprises only in order to counter the "Liberal bias" that they see in everything imaginable- but the only thing I can really find "Liberal" about YouTube or Wikipedia is the fact that they are free and everyone is allowed to come in and only a rowdy few get kicked out.

When examining Conservapedia I am astounded at the lack of factual information. Only 7 paragraphs are offered on the current President and torture isn't even mentioned once. Warrantless wiretapping? Nope. Alberto Gonzales? Yeah, right...

But wait - Conservapedia's entry for Bill Clinton is 28 paragraphs long. Conservapedia offers some insight on their enemies, it's just their hero's they don't want you to know anything about.

But compare Conservapedia's 28 papragraphs to Wikipedia's 80 paragraphs for Bill Clinton and we can see that Conservapedia is light on the facts compared to Wikipedia, no matter what the subject is.

For Conservapedia and other Conservative media it is not about preserving the facts and the truth of the subject matter, it is about spinning the truth until it becomes favorable to Conservatives, no matter how many facts it omits and how many pretzel like contortions it has to make in order to do so.

FOX Dissed Again

FOX thinks it is being censored, but in reality it is being dissed.

Actress Angelina Jolie has joined the growing crowd of of free thinking individuals who had decided to ignore or boycott FOX snooze.

According to FOX snooze webslight before the premier of "A Mighty Heart":

"Her [Jolie's] lawyer required all journalists to sign a contract before talking to her, and Jolie instructed publicists at first to ban FOX News from the red carpet of her premiere."

FOX is screaming censorship, but the fact of the matter is access to these affairs is a privilege, not a right, not just anyone calling themselves a news organization can stroll in. Besides that Anjolina Jolie is not the government, so censorship is not quite what happened there.

FOX is being slighted and it doesn't like it.

First the Democrats decided they would not do a debate with FOX, which I believe is an appropriate solution to dealing with a source that absolutely refuses to present both sides of the debate in the first place.

After all, it is better to just ignore the pundits on FOX than to try to engage them. When you go on their shows and argue with their idiotic points of view all you do in essence is make their program ratings go up and help them sell their Culture Kampf recipe books.

Now it appears Hollywood's most pretty humanitarian face tried to reject them as well.

FOX is losing it's legitimacy because of flaming xenophobes like Bill O' Reilly and the obscure and hateful rants coming from Sean Hannity and guests like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, "experts" like Bill Kristol - who were wrong about Iraq and everything from the beginning but are still treated like experts.

As a result of all this oddball programming the image of FOX has been radically tarnished and has made it an entity that more people are simply refusing to engage with, it has nothing to do with censorship, it has everything to do with credibility.

Why don't you get it FOX? No one wants you to come to their parties anymore, your the unpopular guy who everyone is sick of being polite to. You've become the butt of our joke and the source of our scorn.

And before you kid yourself into believing that people don't like you because your honest you should realize that people don't like you because you spread a lot of rumors and innuendo, gossip news.

Perhaps people are refusing to do business with you not because they are trying to censor you, but because of the simple fact that they don't like you. If you keep on the same path it is destined that soon you will be breaking bread with folks from the National Inquirer.

Republicans More Concerned About Partisanship Than Integrity Of The Justice Department

Related :
- GOP Blocks Senate Majority From Voting No Confidence On Gonzales
- Conservatives kill Gonzales no-confidence vote

Are Conservatives still so bitter over Bill Clinton they are still willing to hold the Bush Administrations head above water while the Administration is so clearly trying to drown itself?

The Conservatives are apparently willing to do this at their own expense. Because everyone knows a drowning person is likely to pull their rescuer under if the rescuer is not a strong swimmer, and it looks like the Conservatives can barely manage to doggie paddle for themselves right now. So trying to save the Bush Administration is probably not the wisest idea.

If there is one person in Washington D.C. who deserves a "no confidence" vote it is "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales who participated in what is one of the most damaging things one can do to a democracy - politicize the justice system.

Some fury towards the mainstream media, as per usual members of the MSM were quick to repeat Conservative talking points as to why the Republicans were refusing to hold Gonzales accountable, for at the very least his stupidity and at the very worse his blatant politicization of the justice system.

One's impression from the MSM is that the Democrats are just being a pain in the Presidents behind FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT PARTISANSHIP.

Well, let me tell you - after the Clinton years and Republican impeachment attempts over Clinton lying about getting a BJ, after six years of impotence in Congress when everything that was slightly Liberal was constantly berated and slandered, you know it wouldn't be such a stretch of imagination to believe that Democrats were "just being partisan" and trying to "get back" at Republicans for all of the misery including the Iraq War BUT

The truth should be told, by any intelligent standard Alberto Gonzales is either

A : a meandering fool who's memory has apparently been erased who never fully understood his role at the Justice Department
OR
B : he is a very deceptive and clever man who is wearing sheep's clothing to avoid punishment.

Well, since Gonzales is a lawyer I really have to go with "B".

By this point in time it doesn't matter whether Gonzales is "A" or "B" because being either incompetent or crooked should immediately render any person unfit for the job of the top law enforcement official in this country, dammit.

I don't care if a person is a Democrat or Republican, if they are doing the wrong thing get them out. It's that simple.

Which brings me to this point : What is WRONG with this country? How come politicians are THE WORST EMPLOYEES IN THE WORLD?? If anyone else did as terrible of a job as politicians do at their jobs - they would be fired or seriously demoted. Seriously.

In the real world this "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" excuse doesn't fly very far. Usually if your memory is that sketchy then so were your activities. In the real world people are distrusted for such excuses.

Having a "no confidence" vote was perfectly legitimate and it's unfortunate the Republicans did not use this as an opportunity to try to restore trust with the American people, and frankly I don't understand why they didn't use it.

Conservatives have lost a great deal of credibility in this country and I am starting to believe they are the only ones who do not realize it yet.

Is it because Republicans are in denial? Is it because they do not care if the American people no longer trust them? Do Republicans even care, if that is the case? I don't think so.

Conservatives have yet to realize the tables have turned.

Where in the 1990's the American people felt they were being lied to by Democrats about Bill Clinton and that the Conservatives were telling the truth, today it is the EXACT opposite and the issues are much more serious and complex than sexual liaisons between two consenting adults.

Today we know we are being lied to by the Republicans about George W. Bush, the Iraq War, torture, spying, oh, and politicizing the Justice Department.

The Republicans are threatening their own very existence with shenanigans like this and they should give the American people a little more credit than trying to convince us this guy who can't recall politicizing our justice system should remain in power.

Conservatives are refusing to be objective and refusing to see how seriously they would take the same situation if any political party other than the Republicans were politicizing the justice system.

Both parties need to understand that this is a country that is built on a system of checks and balances and both parties and our nations survival is dependent on this balance. As we hold others accountable and suspect for their actions, so should we ourselves to preserve the heritage of what is right about this country.

What The Cheney Did He Just Say?

ThinkProgress is reporting that during a speech to Wyoming High School Vice President Dick Cheney "Lies To High Schoolers About Debunked Iraq/al Qaeda Connection" and also claimed that the United States was making significant progress in Iraq.

Yup. You guessed it, the VP is coming to a high school near you soon to lie to your children personally...

Never mind that all indicators show that ground is being lost in Iraq and that according to a new military assessment less than one third of Baghdad neighborhoods are under control three months into the so called "surge".

The Vice President also brings up Abu Musab al- Zarqawi and follows with the baseless claim that during fighting in Afganistan Zarqawi was wounded and fled into Baghdad for medical treatment, no one ever bothered to ask why Zarqawi would travel across borders and miles to seek medical treatment when there were cities much closer.

The Bush Administration has used the "Zarqawi was treated by Saddam" card as one of their lies in attempting to connect Iraq to al-Qaeda, claiming that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan and traveled to Baghdad to get medical treatment and a prosthetic leg, possibly a gift from Saddam himself...

But let's examine this debunked claim a moment. Zarqawi would have had to have made it over the Afghanistan border into Iran without being detected, then he would have had to sneak across Iran and make it across the Iraqi border undetected. Seems like quite a feat for a supposedly injured man who should have been bleeding all over the place.

Again, no one asks how a bleeding and injured man, supposedly missing a leg makes it all the way to Baghdad from Afghanistan.

Look at it this way; in miles - (let's not even discuss the difficulties of navigating the harsh mountainous terrain in Afghanistan and Iran and desert conditions in Iran and Iraq)) this would be about the equivalent of going from Kansas to Washington D.C to get medical treatment and going directly over the Appalachians to do it. Do you think you could make it with one missing leg, in which the bleeding must be profuse? Didn't think so.

But what does it matter? We know know Zarqawi never sought medical treatment in Baghdad and it is unlikely he was ever injured in Afghanistan. Why? Because almost a year ago we killed Zarqawi, and the man had both his legs.

Going back even further we see that prior to the Iraq War, Zarqawi and Bin Laden were competitors not allies. This helps prove the United States preemptive war in Iraq has not diminished terrorism, but helped unite some extremist groups who used to be opposed to each other.

But hey, that doesn't stop the Vice President from strolling into a local high school of young, impressionable teens and filling their heads with fairy tales, now does it?

IN FACT

As Think Progress Reports :

"The implication that Zarqawi helped justify the war was thoroughly debunked last year by the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Bush loyalist Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS.)

It found:

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]"

Dick Cheney proves that there are some people who will refuse to deal in the the truth and insist on dolling out lies even when contradictory evidence has been stapled to their foreheads repeatedly.

Sorry Dick, but history will never vindicate your lies, in fact history may be a crueler judge than we.

Gingrich Reaffirms His Radical Reverence For The Right

Gingrich Cites ‘Opportunity’ To ‘Convert All Of America’ To Fundamentalism

Creepy Conservatives

- Audience Applauds As Giuliani, Tancredo Endorse Waterboarding Torture
- Romney: ‘We Ought To Double Guantanamo’

Does anyone need anymore evidence to be convinced these people are facist and dangerous to our Freedom? I don't.

Wash. Post, NY Times, AP reported Boehner's new timeline for Iraq progress without noting his previous one

Coulter Claims Obama Lead In Polls Helps Terrorist

Of course Ann Coulter, the self described polemicist never mentions any facts to support her conspiracy theory.

Because facts are a pesky nuisance, developed by Liberals to make Conservatives look bad. That is, when Conservatives aren't busy making themselves look bad.

Coulter claimed that Newsweek was "doing more push polling for al-Qaida," during an interview with Geraldo Rivera on "At Large" because a recent Newsweek poll showed Democrat Barack Obama leading top Republican presidential hopefuls.

Coulter also indicated that she thought Newsweek would make up the poll with about as much earnest as a four year old insists there is a Santa Clause.

The hidden meaning behind Coulters statement is painfully transparent :

Conservatives fear Barack Obama, perhaps sensing he will be more difficult to defeat than Hillary Clinton. Obama's got the kind of appeal that could bring the young voters out in record masses and he offers the kind of hope many other adults are seeking after several years of Bush disparity.

It's not easy to come up with real dirt on Barack Obama, so smearing him and associating his name with terrorism (Obama-Osama) will have to do if your a Conservative. Playing up the fear of terrorism "the folks at home" feel is now a time honored technique among Conservatives.

For instance, when Keith Ellison - a Democrat who is Muslim - was elected to the House of Representatives a number of Conservatives attacked his nomination calling it a victory for the Jihadist.

Where in reality Ellison's election went unnoticed and uncelebrated by extremist. Islamic extremist are anti-Democracy and attack any other extremist groups who seem even slightly inclined to participate in a Democracy.

The attacks against Ellison that are now being leveled against Obama are just another tactic of the right wing to intimidate and mislead the Americans and make them fear their Democratic choice.

I used to be offended by Ann Coulter and all these other loose cannon Conservatives before I realized how deprived their minds were of any logical thinking and I thought what a sad place that must be. So then I began to feel sorry for them, but then I just realized how dangerous they were and stopped feeling sorry for them.

Ann Coulter in particular has the money to prove she can plagiarize a paragraph and distort the facts to sell a book that will appeal to a very strange demographic that has to be composed of white supremacist and perhaps even a few Uncle Ruckus characters.

By now it's obvious, Ann Coulter will say anything to get on TV and is working extra hard to stretch her fifteen minutes of fame into twenty. So the only real question would be : Is Ann virile enough to pull it off?

Wolf Blitzer Cites Democratic Sex Scandals But Ignores Republican Ones

This just in : the latest example of why the saying "there is no such thing as the Liberal Media" is true...

Media Matters reports that CNN's Wolf Blitzer, while discussing the current "DC Madam" scandal cited several sex scandals of Democrats without mentioning the 2006 scandal of Republican Representative Mark Foley - who was having inappropriate relationships with underage male pages.

Blitzer also failed to mention Newt Gingrich's 1999 extramarital affair with then congressional aide Callista Bisek -- whom he later married.

Republican Rhetoric Center For A Brainwashed America

I made the following picture over a year ago for giggles. It's still true, maybe even more so than it was a year ago.
The "Vote Republican, Your Life May Depend On It" seems especially relevant in light of Rudy Giuliani's recent comments.

Rudy Giuliani - Married Three Times, Pro Abortion, Cross Dresser BUT HE CAN KEEP YOU SAFE.

Ahem ... Like he kept New York City safe on September 11, 2001.

"They [Democrats] do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said. But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."

Giuliani didn't mention that it was a Republican who was mayor of NYC when the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, a Republican who should have anticipated terrorism because of the first WTC attack in 1993, a Republican who was him.

Giuliani also didn't mention that a Republican was in the White House when 9/11 happened, a Republican who had all but had a warning memo pinned to his shirt, that guy happened to be the President.

Giuliani also forgets to mention that Congress was also controlled by Republicans when America was attacked on 9/11.

So what was that again about Republicans anticipating terror and preventing it? I forgot.

If You Judge My Actions, You Let The Terrorist Win

"If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings," President Bush said in an interview on PBS "we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory." and those who "judge the administration’s plan" have "just given Al Qaeda or any other extremist a significant victories."

If the standard of success is not based on the number of bombings carried out then what the hell else can success be based on?!? Should we base success in Iraq on the number of sunny days opposed to the numbers of civilians dieing in bombings?

Was Bush's brain even in the "on" position, or what?

The statement is such a black is white up is down statement that I think I need to read 1984 to better understand it.

Let me be the first to ask : How could success not be based on the number of bombings carried out? Success has to be measured in levels of violence because violence is the problem!

Wasn't the goal of the "surge" to reduce the violence in the first place? So tell me again how it's working and tell me again how more bombings means more success.

The whole "if you judge my plan you let the terrorist win" line is getting a little old, it's yet another attempt to deflect criticism for a plan that still has not proven itself to be viable.

Source of George W. Bush quote : Think Progress

Blaming Victims For Their Victimhood Is Disgraceful And Tasteless

I don't know if a John Derbyshire is the name of tractor equipment or the name of a blogger ... I guess I am not as familiar with the garden variety right wing scumbags that make their natural habitat on the Planet Earth as I should be.

The guy with the tractor name, John Derbyshire wrote the following of the young men and woman who experienced the recent massacre at Virginia Tech :

"As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22."

Is this self admitted chickenhawk actually suggested these students (students, not trained Marines) were supposed to "rush the guy" who was shooting at them?

Is he f#cking kidding me? Human beings instinctively run away from and not strait towards the maniac who's shooting a gun.

Ahh, but tractor boys insane hyperbole is easily dissected with the single statement "Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals"

Oh, I get it. Wet-pants is afraid that gun laws might change in wake of this tragedy and he thinks students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. The man is clearly a genius if your comparing his intelligence to that of an earthworm.

"At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands." Dipshitshire writes.

Oh yeah, because we all know how many bullets are in a clip because were all just rootin' tootin' cowboys.

"I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat." - Derbyshire

That's probably because he's shortsighted.

"I doubt this guy was any better than I am." - Derbyshire

He was "good enough" to kill over 30 people.

"And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad." -Derbyshire

Yeah, because ... you know, bullets don't hurt, that's a Liberal lie!

PS: Dear Derbyshire, before calling yourself a chickenhawk you may want to know there are is more than one definition for the word chickenhawk, neither is good. One definition is one who "advocates military force to carry out a foreign policy but has never served in the military" and the other is "a man who seeks out boys or young men as his sexual partners." Take your pick, Rambo.

The young men and woman who were victims in the Virginia Tech shootings, their friends and their family deserve nothing less than our thoughts and prayers in this time of grief.

UPDATE:

Any number of right wingers are coming out and insulting the young adults who survived this tragedy. I don't care what kind of justification they use, it is tasteless and tactless to attack victims.

Some of the same far right wingers are claiming that if there was not a weapons ban on campus that other students would have had guns and would have been able to "fight back". In other words there could have been a "wild west shootout" instead.

Does anyone seriously think that allowing students to carry weapons on campus is a good idea? That has got to be one of the most insane things I have ever heard in my life.

What was once a fist fight or verbal confrontation would quickly turn deadly if students were allowed to carry guns at school.

Can you imagine the danger and climate of intimidation?

But here the right wing extremist are, advocating that students should be allowed to carry guns in schools, right after a mass school shooting. Crazy.

Defending Imus Is Lame And A Shame
There is a fundamental difference between priviladge and right.

"Economic McCartyism" Ted Rall says of the deposition of the dreadful Don Imus. Well, I never liked Rall's cartoons anyway so it doesn't surprise me he is taking up a losing argument.

Just listen to these crybabies whine about how Don Imus should be allowed to broadcast bigotry that, well, most people just don't want to hear.

So if a rock radio station chooses to quit broadcasting a certain rocker because the listeners find it lame or offensive, is that "economic McCathyism" or is it a rejection of the product?

For one, there is no such thing as "economic McCathyism", it's a made up term for Americans who don't like boycotts on their products. They carry some kind of logic that suggests "Well, I don't care if you don't like my product, I'm going to shove it down your throat anyway."

Imus had the privilege, not the right to be on television and radio.

PRIVILIDGE, NOT RIGHT.

In America, privileges can be taken away, rights cannot be.

Imus may have been exercising his right to free speech by making such inflammatory remarks, but those who condemned his remarks and demanded his ouster were also exercising their right to free speech.

Just because speech is free in this country doesn't mean it is without it's consequences.

Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you have the privilege of being on the television or radio when you say it.

Let's not forget that Proctor & Gamble and Staples pulled advertising from the Imus show before Imus was fired. Once the advertisers start leaving the networks start losing, so let's not beat around the bush here, at the point Imus was more offensive than profitable he was out of a job.

That my friend, is not "economic McCarthyism". Companies have the right to not want their product associated with perceived bigotry and citizens have the right to voice complaints against open bigotry.

Only Don Imus is to blame in the firing of Don Imus. Imus' freedom of speech has not been infringed upon because Congress never made a law against Don Imus or what he said, READ THE CONSTITUTION PEOPLE!!

Imus' privilege of being broadcast by MSNBC and CBS may have been revoked, but his right to freedom of speech has not been revoked.

If Imus can find any advertisers willing to take him on (besides the KKK or Aryan Nation) then I am sure he will again have the privilege of using the airwaves to exercise his right to freedom of speech.

Otherwise Imus needs to get a blog where he can say any old thing he wants or fade into the background for a while and give everyone else some time to cool off.

With that said, people have the right to boycott anything they like, whether it is a product or a person. Products and people can be rejected for any number of reasons, and you can't force people to consume a product or person they don't like.

Don Imus was wrong to say what he said and he paid for his comments with his job. Imus has a long history of making inflammatory remarks about African Americans, Jews, and woman so let's cut it with the rhetoric and freedom of speech conspiracy theories.

Debunking Bush’s Whoppers On Pork

Think Progress reports:

"President Bush has tried to justify his planned veto of Congress’ Iraq withdrawal legislation by complaining about the non-Iraq related funds included in the bill.

American Progress senior fellow Scott Lilly, who served for years as Clerk and Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee, debunks Bush’s rhetoric:"

Read Full Story

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.”

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.

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.