Wanted by the FBI

Adnan G. El Shukrijumah
Adnan G. El Shukri Jumah, Abu Arif, Ja'far Al-Tayar, Jaffar Al-Tayyar, Jafar Tayar, Jaafar Al-Tayyar

Terrorist Threats against U.S.
If you have any information,

Worthy Causes!

100% owned by Hugo Chavez

UN or US

Write your reps!

Fed up with Congress, or politicians in general? Write your Representative and - or Senator and tell them so They serve us, folks!

Click the links below to write yours. 

  • Recommended Blogs

  • Recommended Reading

Intelligence out of Hollywood?

Posted on November 28, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

I’ll just post the thing and be done with it. There’s not much I can add here, except to say that Pat Sajac is a hard working, intelligent guy who made his bones without much help from the usual Hollywood “Rabbi” method. He is also a Vietnam veteran - well known for coining the phrase “Good Morning, Vietnam!” used by Robin Williams in his portrayal of Pat in the movie of the same name. This is via Human Events (linked)

Celebrity Endorsements: Does Anyone Really Care?

by Pat Sajak

There have been so many debates and interviews and columns and profiles and polls, it’s hard to believe the election for president is still about 11 months away. Recently, celebrity endorsements have been making news, with Oprah Winfrey saying she would campaign for Barack Obama and Barbra Streisand making the not-so-stunning announcement that she was supporting Hillary Clinton.

There are reasons, of course, why candidates welcome such help. First, there’s the bonanza of free publicity. With so many names and faces vying for attention, what could be better than the burst of news such endorsements bring? There’s also the burst of money these high-profile celebs can bring in themselves and attract from others. Then there’s the extra attention and excitement these stars engender when they appear at a candidate’s political events. It’s far easier to attract a crowd in Des Moines if a big TV, movie or recording star is standing next to the politician.

Putting those obvious benefits aside, the question remains: do these endorsements really translate into votes? Does anyone decide which candidate to choose based on the recommendation of a TV talk show host or a singer/actress? If any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, it’s those of us who live in the sheltered, privileged arena of “celebrityhood.” It’s one thing to buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it (he’s in good shape, isn’t he?) or a grill because George Foreman’s name is on it (he’s a great guy, so it must be a great grill!), but the idea of choosing the Leader of the Free World based on the advice of someone who lives in the cloistered world of stardom seems a bit loony to me.

This is America, and we celebrities have just as much right as anyone else to speak up about any issue. The problem is that more attention is paid to what we say because we’re well known. But why should that matter? O.J. Simpson is one of the world’s best-known celebrities, but I can’t imagine anyone following his lead in a voting booth.

I suppose anything that gets people engaged in the political process is a good thing, but the idea that a gold record, a top-ten TV show or an Oscar translates into some sort of political wisdom doesn’t make much sense to me. Trust me, one’s view of the world isn’t any clearer from the back seat of a limo.

Note: Mr. Sajak is the host of “Wheel of Fortune” and .

Bravo, Pat … BRAVO.

I’m back. Sort of. Okay - a little.

Posted on November 27, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Dealing with a few personal issues of health lately that have kept me pretty busy, but I’m jumping in here with a few stories of note. The is reporting the following…

Kennedy agrees to pen memoirs in lucrative deal

Senator’s family life and political career to be focus of book
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff, November 27, 2007
Senator Edward M. Kennedy chats with his wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, during a recent event at Northeastern University.

WASHINGTON - Senator Edward M. Kennedy has agreed to a multi-million dollar deal with Hachette Book Group USA to pen his memoirs, giving the veteran Massachusetts lawmaker a forum for his own perspective on a life and career that has been examined by others in countless books and articles, negotiators of the deal confirmed yesterday.

Neither Kennedy’s office nor the publishing house would reveal the size of the package, but a publishing figure familiar with the deal said Kennedy’s payment was one of the largest in history, eclipsing the $8 million given to New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Former President Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair each got a reported $10 million for their memoirs.

“I’ve been fortunate in my life to grow up in an extraordinary family and to have a front row seat at many key events in our nation’s history,” the 75-year-old Kennedy said in a statement. “I hope my reflections can contribute to a deeper understanding of many events in the history of this great country and to a more in-depth picture of an American family.”

I think it’s safe to surmise that Mary Jo Kopechkne will not be a topic covered, eh Ted? Oh well….

ITEM: via (linked)

Crybaby Kerry

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 11/21/2007 12:09:08 AM

WASHINGTON — Most informed Americans have heard about “anger management counseling.” It is a widely prescribed therapy for those who ose their temper uncontrollably in public or in private or while watching the Hon. Henry Waxman pretend to be the late Andrei Vyshinsky, prosecutor at the Moscow Show Trials.

Well, during the past few days I have been following the Hon. Jean-Francois Kerry’s (D-Mass.) controversy with Boone Pickens, and I believe am in need of “laughter management counseling.” Every time I think of this ponderous stone-headed senator bellowing phony pieties, I suffer a dreadful agitation in the funny bone. I only hope that my health insurance is applicable.

As reported late last week, billionaire investor and environmentalist Boone Pickens, during an address at The American Spectator’s 40th anniversary Gala, promised to pay $1 million to anyone who could find error in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, which he helped bankroll in 2004. The ads were produced to expose the braggart Kerry’s incautious claims about his service during the Vietnam War — that could be the war Kerry participated in briefly before coming home and traducing his fellow comrades in arms with vicious lies and distortions before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Remember his more recent claim that he supported our war in Iraq before he opposed it? Inconstancy is in his DNA.

ITEM: via the

The French “youths” (did you say “yoots”?) are at it again this year, with newly elected president Sarkozy as the “target du jour”. What - you’re surprised? A few of my comments follow the story line …

“From what our colleagues on the scene tell us, this is a situation that is a lot worse than what we saw in 2005,” Patrice Ribeiro, a police officer and senior union official, told RTL radio Tuesday. He added, “A line was crossed last night, that is to say, they used weapons, they used weapons and fired on the police. This is a real guerrilla war.”

Ribeiro warned that the police, who have struggled to avoid excessive force, would not be fired upon indefinitely without responding.

More than 80 police officers already have been wounded the clashes, several of them seriously, Ribeiro said later by telephone. Thirty of them were hit with pellets from shotguns, and one of the wounded was hit with a type of bullet used to kill large game, he added. It is legal to own a shotgun in France - as long as the owner has a license - and police circles were swirling with rumors that the bands of youths were procuring more shotguns.

An interesting - and unsettling - sentence caught my attention:

“But the events of the past three days make clear that the underlying causes of frustration and anger - particularly among unemployed, undereducated youth, mostly the offspring of Arab and African immigrants - remain the same.”

France has been coddling these leeches on society for a long time and apparently have not (yet) learned a lesson. Fail to restrict immigration, coddle the unworking and the union masses with 9 weeks of paid vacation, 2 hour lunches, and 35 hour work weeks, and this is what you get for your trouble.

Come to think of it - this is a lesson the US would do well to study - at least the “nanny state” socialists of the Democrat persuasion. Keep coddling those unions - largely responsible for the failure of US industry to compete internationally, keep rewarding do-nothings who have spent generations feeding at the public trough, and the example set by the French will find it’s way across the Atlantic.

But will the US pay attention? We have gone through 3 attempts by the Democrat Party to open our borders to all sorts of “undocumented” aliens. “Criminals” is a better adjective, in my opinion. Not content with that - the Democrat Party is planning on pushing through yet another “revised Immigration Reform Bill” when they return from their holiday break. The President will certainly sign the bill if it passes. The entire platform of the Democrat Party is one of coddling criminals (all sorts), unions (especially the Teachers Unions), and those feeding at the trough for generations.

A better question might be “does anyone in US politics even care?”

Are these Democrats crazy? (Rhetorical question)

Posted on November 19, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

From (linked) comes this latest attack on personal freedom by the Democrat (Socialist) Party led by Nancy Pelosi. Constant nannyism and interference in the personal lives of Americans and American businesses is what is in store for this nation if the imbeciles elect a Democrat President. Political Correctness over common sense and individual rights - something that makes Democrats crazy with anger. Want more of this shit, folks? Just go and elect these cretins to the majority in Congress and the White House. As usual, the link to the full story is in the headline.

Mi Casa, Sue Casa

Nancy Pelosi tries to force the Salvation Army to hire people who can’t speak English.

Monday, November 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

It’s been less than a week since New York’s Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Eliot Spitzer had to climb down from their support of driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a moderate Republican from Tennessee, is dumbstruck that legislation he views as simple common sense would be blocked. He noted that the full Senate passed his amendment to shield the Salvation Army by 75-19 last month, and the House followed suit with a 218-186 vote just this month. “I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it’s discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee, ‘I want you to be able to speak America’s common language on the job,’ ” he told the Senate last Thursday.

But that’s exactly what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is trying to do. In March the EEOC sued the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required its employees to speak English on the job. The requirement was clearly posted and employees were given a year to learn the language. The EEOC claimed the store had fired two Hispanic employees for continuing to speak Spanish on the job. It said that the firings violated the law because the English-only policy was not “relevant” to job performance or safety.

“If it is not relevant, it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin,” says Rep. Charles Gonzalez of Texas, one of several Hispanic Democrats in the House who threatened to block Ms. Pelosi’s attempts to curtail the Alternative Minimum Tax unless she killed the Alexander amendment.

The confrontation on the night of Nov. 8 was ugly. Members of the Hispanic Caucus initially voted against the rule allowing debate on a tax bill that included the AMT “patch,” which for a year would protect some 23 million Americans from being kicked into a higher income tax bracket.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a moderate from Maryland, was beside himself. Congressional Quarterly reports that he jabbed his finger on the House floor at Joe Baca, the California Democrat who chairs the Hispanic Caucus, and yelled, “How dare you destroy this party? This will be the worst loss in 10 years.”

Thanks, Mr. Hope

Posted on November 18, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Unfortunately, his line isn’t such a joke, and is just as germane today as it was in the 40’s during the heat of WWII.

The NY Times does it … AGAIN

Posted on November 17, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Yup - as unbelievable as it sounds, this is nothing new for the paper that brought you the Pentagon Papers and assorted other classified documents and programs. National Security? You’re kidding, right? All the NY Times cares about is trying to resurrect it’s dying circulation - national security is not even in their vocabulary.

So what’s the latest classified information to be divulged by these treasonous bastards?

November 18, 2007 (to be released in Sunday edition)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — Over the past six years, the Bush administration has spent almost $100 million so far on a highly classified program to help Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, secure his country’s nuclear weapons, according to current and former senior administration officials.

But with the future of that country’s leadership in doubt, debate is intensifying about whether Washington has done enough to help protect the warheads and laboratories, and whether Pakistan’s reluctance to reveal critical details about its arsenal has undercut the effectiveness of the continuing security effort.

The aid, buried in secret portions of the federal budget (not so much anymore, you traitors!), paid for the training of Pakistani personnel in the United States and the construction of a nuclear security training center in Pakistan, a facility that American officials say is nowhere near completion, even though it was supposed to be in operation this year.

A raft of equipment — from helicopters to night-vision goggles to nuclear detection equipment — was given to Pakistan to help secure its nuclear material, its warheads, and the laboratories that were the site of the worst known case of nuclear proliferation in the atomic age.

While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used.

That is because the Pakistanis do not want to reveal the locations of their weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel the country is now producing.

The American program was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration debated whether to share with Pakistan one of the crown jewels of American nuclear protection technology, known as “permissive action links,” or PALS, a system used to keep a weapon from detonating without proper codes and authorizations.

In the end, despite past federal aid to France and Russia on delicate points of nuclear security, the administration decided that it could not share the system with the Pakistanis because of legal restrictions.

In addition, the Pakistanis were suspicious that any American-made technology in their warheads could include a secret “kill switch,” enabling the Americans to turn off their weapons.

In brief

Posted on November 17, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Via Patriot Post (linked) …

Warfront with Democratistan

The Democrat-controlled Congress, which swept into power a year ago with dreams of losing the Iraq war, has now seen 40—that’s right, forty—bills aimed at limiting the President’s ability to direct the war go down in flames. Only one of the 40 made it out of Congress to the President’s desk, where it died a quick death by veto. You might think that even liberals could learn eventually, but on Thursday Nancy Pelosi (D-Code Pink) and friends passed yet another bill linking war funding to a December 2008 “end of combat operations” —or in plain language, surrender. Democrats in the Senate plan to force an actual filibuster if Republicans don’t cooperate.

The Democrats can thank their “leadership” that tied them to the most vocal, irrational and over-estimated force in modern American politics—the Net Nuts of MoveOn.org, DailyKos, et al. —for their current unhappy situation. Faced on one side with a howling mob that will settle for nothing less than the President’s head on a spear, and on the other by an American population that will not countenance abject surrender, the Demos are left to continue making impotent gestures that will appease the Angry Left while achieving nothing. Apparently, Pelosi and crew haven’t noticed that we are winning.

To throw another monkey wrench in the war effort, Democrats put out a report this week with the ridiculous claim that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would cost $3.5 trillion. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. H. James Saxton (R-NJ) both attacked the report for its methodology and factual errors. To date, $804 billion has been appropriated.

Support our Troops!

Posted on November 16, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

This is a very simple project you can help with, at no cost to you! Just click the graphic to go to the site for more information.

Shithead Spitzer tosses in the towel

Posted on November 14, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

A man of true principals, this putz. bad enough the morons of my state elected Clinton, but this asshole? WTF were they thinking?

NY governor said to abandons drivers license plan.

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 13, 9:18 PM ET

WASHINGTON - New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has decided to abandon a plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, officials familiar with the decision told The Associated Press Tuesday night.

The governor is due to meet Wednesday morning with New York’s congressional delegation, many of whom openly oppose the program. Debate over the issue also has spilled into New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The governor’s office signaled to New York lawmakers Tuesday that Spitzer will say at the meeting that he is shelving the plan and that immigration is a federal issue to be handled by Washington, according to congressional aides who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Last month, Spitzer sought to salvage the license effort by striking a deal with the Department of Homeland Security to create three distinct types of state driver’s licenses: one “enhanced” that will be as secure as a passport; a second-tier license good for boarding airplanes; and a third marked not valid for federal purposes that would be available to illegal immigrants and others.

Clinton has been criticized by her Democratic and Republican rivals for her noncommittal answers on the subject. She has said she sympathizes with governors like Spitzer who are forced to confront the issue of immigration because the federal government has not enacted immigration reform. She has not taken a position on the actual plan offered by Spitzer.

But … the Dems SUPPORT the troops, don’t they?

Posted on November 13, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

At least they SAY they do. uhhh … maybe not so much?

Nov 13 02:04 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press

Reid Warns Bush: Prepare For War Spending Fight

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won’t approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.

By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.

If Bush vetoes the bill, “then the president won’t get his $50 billion,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.

Their remarks reflect a new Democratic strategy on the war: Force Bush to accept a timetable for troop withdrawals, or turn Pentagon accounting processes into a bureaucratic nightmare.

If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.

The tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war.

“We will and we must pay for whatever cost to protect the American people,” said House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. “But tragically, unfortunately, incredibly, the war is not making us safer.”

And yet again …

Posted on November 13, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

It just never ends with these despicable  cretins (Clinton’s). And people seriously intend to vote for this bunch?

GRINNELL, Iowa (CNN) — The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign events says “voters have the right to know what happened” and she wasn’t the only one who was planted.


Student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff said a staffer told her what to ask at a campaign event for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said that giving anyone specific questions to ask is “dishonest,” and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was really pretty simple: She says a senior Clinton staffer asked if she’d like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

“I sort of thought about it, and I said ‘Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates’ energy plans?’” Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.

“‘I don’t think that’s a good idea,” the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, “because I don’t know how familiar she is with their plans.” Video

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

“The top one was planned specifically for a college student,” she added. ” It said ‘college student’ in brackets and then the question.”

The rest of the article is

And further…

It’s being reported that CNN Talking Head Wolf Blitzer - designated moderator of the next Democrat “debate” in Vegas - has been “warned” by a Clinton staffer not to “gang up on Hillary the way Tim Russert did” at the last. “It’s about ISSUES”, he said - “not about who we can bring down.”

Interesting outlook from the party of dirty tricks!  So now Clinton wants to run the “debates” to make herself look good. Got more plants in the audience this time, Hillary?

God bless them all

Posted on November 13, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

There is not much you can add to this picture…

You guessed it - more Hillary

Posted on November 9, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Via Opinion Journal (linked) comes Peggy Noonan - who I have quoted before - with a palpable hit on Ms. Rodham-Clinton.

But Mrs. Clinton is no Iron Lady.

Friday, November 9, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The story as I was told it is that in the early years of her prime ministership, Margaret Thatcher held a meeting with her aides and staff, all of whom were dominated by her, even awed. When it was over she invited her cabinet chiefs to join her at dinner in a nearby restaurant. They went, arrayed themselves around the table, jockeyed for her attention. A young waiter came and asked if they’d like to hear the specials. Mrs. Thatcher said, “I will have beef.”

Yes, said the waiter. “And the vegetables?”

“They will have beef too.”

Too good to check, as they say. It is certainly apocryphal, but I don’t want it to be. It captured her singular leadership style, which might be characterized as “unafraid.”

She was a leader.

Margaret Thatcher would no more have identified herself as a woman, or claimed special pleading that she was a mere frail girl, or asked you to sympathize with her because of her sex, than she would have called up the Kremlin and asked how quickly she could surrender.

She represented a movement. She was its head. She was great figure, a person in history, and she was a woman. She was in it for serious reasons, not to advance the claims of a gender but to reclaim for England its economic freedom, and return its political culture to common sense. Her rise wasn’t symbolic but actual.

In fact, she wasn’t so much a woman as a lady. I remember a gentleman who worked with her speaking of her allure, how she’d relax after a late-night meeting and you’d walk by and catch just the faintest whiff of perfume, smoke and scotch. She worked hard and was tough. One always imagined her lightly smacking some incompetent on the head with her purse, for she carried a purse, as a lady would. She is still tough. A Reagan aide told me that after she was incapacitated by a stroke she flew to Reagan’s funeral in Washington, went through the ceremony, flew with Mrs. Reagan to California for the burial, and never once on the plane removed her heels. That is tough.

The point is the big ones, the real ones, the Thatchers and Indira Gandhis and Golda Meirs and Angela Merkels, never play the boo-hoo game. They are what they are, but they don’t use what they are. They don’t hold up their sex as a feint: Why, he’s not criticizing me, he’s criticizing all women! Let us rise and fight the sexist cur.

When Hillary Clinton suggested that debate criticism of her came under the heading of men bullying a defenseless lass, an interesting thing happened. First Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL and an Edwards supporter, hit her hard. “When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her elevation into the ‘boys club.’ ” But when “legitimate questions” are asked, “she is quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules.”

..and just for fun, another video!

November events

Posted on November 9, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Two events of note this month of some great significance …

Tomorrow, November 10 , marks the 232nd birthday of the United States Marine Corps. To all my Marine friends and any others who happen to drop by - “Happy Birthday”, “Semper Fi”, and thank you for your service! May God bless the United States Marine Corps and all who serve or served in it.

Sunday, November 11, marks Veterans Day - the day on which we honor and thank all who have served our nation in any branch of service. It is not a day to shop for sales or bargains - it is a day to reflect on what our country would look like had it not been for those who served when called upon. Think about the freedoms you take for granted, and thank any veteran you know or see for being able to exercise those freedoms.

The “Loathsome One” again.

Posted on November 7, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

They accuse Republicans of being corrupt?

Posted on November 4, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Excuse me? Isn’t that what Pelosi et all ave been saying since before the last election - Republicans are corrupt? I guess we can overlook the “un-indicted co-conspirator” of ABSCAM fame, and your good buddy, John Murtha, madame Speaker? Or William “Refrigerator” Jefferson? And others too lengthy to bother mentioning. But of course THEY are Democrats, and we’re only talking Republicans here, aren’t we? Rhetorical question - no answer required. That is before we even get to probably the most corrupt politician in the country (morally and otherwise), that being Hillary Rodham Clinton - who placed Sandy Berger - convicted felon - as a campaign “advisor” only months after his conviction of stealing classified documents relating to the Clintons part in the War on Terror.

Yeah - those Republicans sure are corrupt, aren’t they? So explain this, if you please - courtesy of Patriot Post (linked)…

Campaign watch: Campaign cash for earmarks

Speaking of Hillary, she and fellow New York Senator Chuck Schumer received thousands of dollars in campaign cash from Nobel prize-winning scientist James Watson, while requesting a $900,000 earmark for his Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. According to federal filing reports, earlier this year Watson donated $70,000 to Demo candidates, Schumer and Clinton among them, just days before the earmark was submitted. Watson, who co-discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, recently retired after drawing public ire for telling the London Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” Amid the all-too-predictable firestorm that followed, the 79-year-old Watson was cowed into apologizing for his remarks. Still, those remarks are likely to kill the earmark.

And from NEWSWEEK…

Where are your papers!

During last week’s , faced tough questions about why so many of her papers at her husband’s presidential library in , Ark., are still secret—and her answers have only invited more questions. Clinton said during the debate that one chunk of records, from her days heading up her husband’s health-care task force, had been released. “Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available,” she said. But National Archives documents obtained by NEWSWEEK and interviews with Archives officials indicate that the vast majority of the Clintons’ health-care task-force records are still under lock and key in Little Rock—and might stay that way for some time.

In a letter last year responding to a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Judicial Watch, Melissa Walker, supervisory archivist of the Clinton Presidential Library, wrote that archivists had identified 3,022,030 still-unreleased health-care documents, along with 2,884 e-mails and 1,021 photos covered by the group’s request. Archives officials at the Clinton library have yet to process the Judicial Watch request or release the several million pages of task-force documents, including many key internal memos written by Mrs. Clinton and her advisers about how to restructure the health-care industry. This prompted the group to file a new lawsuit last week demanding their immediate disclosure. “This doesn’t pass the giggle test,” said Christopher Farrell, the group’s research director, about ’s statement that “all” of her health-care records had been released.

The Clinton White House publicly released 13,400 pages of documents regarding Hillary’s related health-care “working group” to resolve a 1994 lawsuit. And Clinton campaign spokes-man says that as many as half a million health-care papers have now been disclosed, but he acknowledges that many others have yet to be cleared. “There are undoubtedly other documents related to health care in the hundred million pages” of unreleased records at the library, Carson said, but he added that Clinton’s hands were tied because understaffed Archives officials had to review each and every FOIA request—and handle all of them in order. “We don’t control their process,” he said. “We’re not holding anything up.”

Soldiers Angels - Valour-IT Project

Posted on November 3, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Okay - enough screwing around, this is important. VERY important.

The Soldiers Angels group is running a Valour-IT Project fundraiser for the next 2 weeks. I’m sorry to be getting in on this late, but I’m pushing it now. Here is some background from their site.

Project Valour-IT

(Voice-Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops)

It was the first time I felt whole since I’d woken up wounded in Landstuhl.
–Chuck Ziegenfuss, on using a voice-controlled laptop

The annual will be begin on Monday, October 29 and run through Sunday, November 11. Watch this page for more info, beginning Sunday, October 28!

Project Valour-IT, in memory of , helps provide voice-controlled and adaptive laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries at major military . Operating laptops by into a microphone or using other adaptive technologies, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the ‘Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field. The experience of MAJ Charles “Chuck” Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who suffered serious hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how these laptops can be to a wounded service member’s recovery.

As you can see, this is a VERY worthy group to get involved with. These young men and women who come home from Iraq and/or Afghanistan with serious injuries need our support. They earned it and they deserve it and as much as we can give them. The VA doesn’t have the budget or means to do all that needs to be done so it’s up to us - the American people - to show our gratitude.

Here are some links:

You can arrange to have a “Care package” sent to a particular Soldier, or to “any Soldier”, as you wish. There are pre-made packages available for very reasonable sums - or you can choose to make one up on your own. You can adopt a Soldier/Marine/Coast Guardsman/Sailor/Airman as well, and commit to sending at least one letter and week and one care package a month very reasonably. Just go and make a selection.

The website for Soldiers Angels to make donations is . There are many options you can take advantage of.

Please … if you can … do something to help these young people who heeded the call and sacrificed their bodies for our country.

In a similar vein …

Here’s something you can do to brighten up the day of a recovering Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman/Coast Guardsman that won’t cost you a buck and a half - send a Christmas card! Address it (or a bunch) to:

A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical  Center
6900 Georgia Avenue,NW
Washington,D.C. 20307-5001

RFID chips. Security or security nightmare?

Posted on November 3, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Okay … let’s talk about RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips. Never heard of them, you say? Sure you have, except maybe you didn’t know what the technology was.

Do you use EasyPass so you don’t have to stop at toll booths? How about that nifty little “Pass ‘n Go” thing some gas stations use? Did you pay to have your prized puppy “chipped” at the Vets? All RFID, folks.

The latest wrinkle in this thing is the proposed E-Passport, which is supposed to be initiated in January of 2008. President Bush - with the support of the Homeland Security Administration - began touting the E-Passport last year, with the aim of making United States passports more secure and less able to be forged by terrorists. The only problem is/was - they don’t do that at all well.

The technology is relatively simple. A small Radio Frequency Ident chip can be implanted in just about anything - from the covering of a passport to the human body itself. And has. They are but 1/100ths of a millimeter in size, require no power source, and are practically indestructible. Among possible uses for the chips - other than your doggie’s info - are medical records of individuals, banking/financial info, assorted personal info. And THAT is where the danger lies. Other than a terrorist - do you want your personal info, medical records, and banking records available to anyone with a reader? I didn’t think so.

By themselves they are totally inert - but add an RFID Reader device and things change rapidly. Depending on the quality and power of the reader and the designed “reading distance” of the chip (from contact, to inches, to 20 feet or more), ANY person or entity with a reader can view in complete anonymity the information contained on a chip - not just the target reader. Thus … if say a terrorist organization was to purchase a reader (available for a few thousand dollars), they could scan every person in the vicinity and target Americans for kidnap or worse. And you would never have a clue it was happening. In addition, nothing is to stop some government or organization from putting a high powered reader in a satellite with which to gather private information. Granted that is a worst case scenario - but that doesn’t remove it from the realm of possibility - hence the “moonbat” hysteria over these chips you might see on the web or elsewhere.

The simple fact is these E-Passports subject Americans to all sorts of nefarious conduct by foreign nationals or even American organizations that are already trying to gather as much information on citizens as they legally - and in some cases, ILLEGALLY - can. Think Google. Think I’m kidding? Do you have Google Earth on your computer? Just about everyone does these days. It’s free, and kind of scary what you can do with this piece of software. Type in an address and bingo - you get a satellite image of that address and the surrounding area, as well as driving instructions right to your door. Just think what you could do with that info if you had something in mind that is not entirely legal. Now multiply that info by a magnitude of 100 times. Getting the picture?

Is it foolproof? No technology is. Keeping in mind that tampering with a Passport is a Felony, it would not be wise to try some of the recommended methods of deactivating an E-Passport. You know - like putting it in a microwave for a few seconds. Sure - that will work, but try to explain the scorch marks on your passport! Sure - a few taps with a hammer will render the chip kaput, with little chance of being discovered as doing it intentionally. The best way? A simple Faraday shield. Easy to make, cheap (pennies), and totally reliable as well as non-destructive to the chip. Companies are already selling special Passport Wallets, which are nothing more than overpriced Faraday shields.

There have been so many complaints from privacy advocates as well as average citizens with some technical knowledge about the inherent danger to American citizens carrying these passports that the plan to begin issuing them in January has been pushed back at least until security concerns can be further addressed. A built-in shielding device so they cannot be read by devices more than a few inches away is one of the proposed fixes. However - that will not work if the passport is open only slightly. Even a slightly opened passport - shielded or not - can be read by a reader equipped person.

They are just a bad idea, and one that is not needed to prevent forgery.

The following video shows a few of the problems with these passports…

Soldiers of God

Posted on November 3, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

There - I said it - and I’m glad. Screw these morons, anti-Christians, atheists, whatever who are trying to take God out of our culture. The latest was some bitch crying about a group of soldiers taking a knee to pray over the death in action of one of their comrades. Bullshit. Well, some of our soldiers are fighting back, finally. The old saying “there are no atheists in a foxhole” is as valid in this war as it was in ours or our fathers. This is from Patriot Post (linked).

Onward Christian Soldiers…

By Mark Alexander

Last year, I was invited to fly with a Carrier Air Group fighter squadron. I had met the commander some years earlier at an Air War College seminar. He is a devout Christian, which cemented our brotherhood for life, and it was an honor to visit his Wing.

Navy and Marine aviators (OK, and you Air Force and Army pilots) are an impressive lot, but what impressed me most about this commander’s squadron was how unabashed his F/A-18 drivers were about their faith.

The image most folks have of fighter pilots is one of arrogant brawn, and that image is often affirmed when aviators start talking about their skill set, and who is the best among them. Such bravado seems discordant with the humility advocated in the Gospels, but most of these guys leave that boastful icon on station.

What was entirely concordant with the Gospel message is the underlying service ethic displayed by all of this wing’s personnel, from green E-1s to career O-6s. I inquired of my friend whether there were aviators matriculating through his squadron who did not have reverence for their Creator. He replied with a smile, “Yes, but they don’t last long.”

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to train with a lot of military officers and senior enlisted personnel, many of whom were of strong faith. Yes, most were also type-A’s—some to a fault—but unlike too many of their countrymen, most military personnel understand the order of command, their place in the ranks, and that their ultimate Commander in Chief is the sovereign God of their oaths.

Ah, yes, their oath— Another general, George Washington, once queried, “[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths…?”

These would be the same oaths repeated by politicos who are elected or appointed to national office, although the very same words have a to the men and women serving our nation in uniform.

Most politicos on the Left, and a few to the right of center, think of themselves as lords over those they are elected, ostensibly, to serve. Conversely, military personnel are prepared to lay down their lives in service to others. As Jesus said in John 15:13, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”

Over the years, I have asked military leaders from each service branch about the disparity between the prevalence of faith within the ranks and within American culture at large. Some respond that because the majority of those serving in uniform are conservative, there is a higher instance of reverence for God. Others suggest that the real potential of coming face-to-face with one’s own destiny tends to bring one closer to God. Still others say that those who are self-centered, those who believe that they are “little gods,” rarely make it beyond the first weeks of basic.

As a former commandant of the Marine Recruiting Station in San Diego put it, “Most young people either enter the service with the right frame of reference for who is in charge, or they best learn that order quickly.”

Unfortunately, at the prompting of congressional Leftists, military leaders are under increasing pressure to ensure they maintain an “inclusive environment” for personnel under their command. That is code for a “don’t ask—don’t tell” constraint on the expression of faith.

Typical of that mandate is the 2005 case against Brig. Gen. John Weida, who, when serving as commandant of cadets at the Air Force Academy, was accused of commingling character development with Judeo-Christian principles—as if the two are mutually exclusive.

General Weida sent an email to cadets promoting “national prayer week,” and encouraging cadets to “ask the Lord to give us wisdom.” He even had the audacity to suggest, “Remember, you are accountable first to your God, this great nation, our great Air Force.”

Worse yet, the USAFA’s football coach hung a banner in the locker room proclaiming, “I am a member of Team Jesus Christ.”

When Americans United for the Separation of Church and State got wind of these acts of intolerance, they accused Weida of violating the establishment clause and protested, “There is a general climate of religious coercion and official hostility toward those who do not practice evangelical Christianity.” They whipped up a congressional storm of protest on the Left.

Apparently, AUSCS, congressional Demo-gogues and half of the are unable to comprehend the plain language our Founders used in that clause, stipulating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but offering no restriction on anyone else.

Gen. Weida was rebuked. His cadets and instructors were ordered to attend a 50-minute sensitivity training class entitled “Respecting the Spiritual Values of All People,” still in use at the USAFA.

Currently, military leaders, including chaplains, have a cloud of congressional Leftists hanging over their head, just waiting to pour down judgment should they be accused of advocating Christian principles.

Nonetheless, a few military officers have figured out a work-around.

Major General Mastin Robeson, Commanding General, 3rd Marine Division, has this notice tacked up around his base:

“My Personal Priorities. There are three priorities in my life. You need to know them in order to understand some of the decisions I will make. First—God. Second—Family. Third—Service to Country. All of us (and our families) make sacrifices in order to wear this uniform, but I expect each of you to have priorities that are more important than your profession. My rationale is simple. God is an eternal commitment; my family is a lifetime commitment; and my service to country (though very dear to me) is limited in the number of years I can serve. I will never make a decision that jeopardizes my faith or my family in order to further my military career, nor should you.”

The notice concludes,

“When bullets start flying, the spiritual welfare of your warriors will be as important as any. I ask that every member of this command be offered a worship opportunity weekly, and be encouraged to attend. As such, I ask that training not be scheduled on Sunday mornings.”

Of course, he is not proselytizing, just letting his command have an insight into his motivational criteria.

Army Major General Clay Buckingham, now retired, says of Christians in uniform:

“The highest Christian value is that human life is infinitely precious in the sight of God, and therefore whatever protects and enhances life is good, and that whatever destroys or degrades human life is evil… In its purest and most fundamental essence, the purpose of military force is not to destroy life but to protect life—to protect the lives of the citizens of the nation so that they may live in peace and security… This purpose is entirely consistent with, and actually flows from, the highest Christian ethic—that which protects and enhances life is good.”

Of course, the atheist Left is always looking for new ways to abolish the vestigial remains of faith from our military.

Democrats in Congress have now instructed the Department of Veterans Affairs to scrutinize the ceremonial folding of flags after being removed from the caskets of fallen warriors.

An appropriately proportioned flag folds 13 times on triangles, representing the original 13 colonies. But at many interments, there is a secondary recitation with each fold pertaining to faith. The National Cemetery Administration now prohibits that recitation, it claims, “to create uniform services throughout the military graveyard system.”

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) is demanding the VA reverse its decision.

“If a family member would like the 13-flag fold recitation at the funeral of their loved one, they should not be prevented by Washington bureaucrats. The VA is being manipulated by out-of-control secularists who wish to banish the word ‘God’ from American history and culture. What’s next? Disallowing the playing of Amazing Grace at military funerals?”

Don’t give ‘em any ideas, Ken.

Thomas Jefferson once proclaimed,
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure [without] a conviction… that these liberties are a gift from God?”

Some seem to think so. According to most Democrats, God is an impediment to liberty.

While I am on the subject of Patriot Post, they are running an operation that you should support, as I have. It is called Operation Shield of Strength, and the idea is for every Soldier, Airman, Coast Guardsman, Sailor, and Marine in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the mid-East Theater of Operations to receive a set of the special dogtags shown to the left. Over 100,000 of these tags are already being worn by our troops. ALL who want them should have them.Please … if you are financially able to send a bulk order of these tags to those fihgting for us - do so. If you can’t handle a “bulk” order - which I grant you is expensive ($600) - any number you can afford at $5.00 each will help. The tags come complete with chains and silencers.

Take link to place a BULK order … or link to order from 1 set of tags to as many tags as you can afford, and buy a set for yourself as well.

I might add that if there is a Police Officer in your family - a set of these would make a great gift for Christmas!

The Liberals brainwashing continues…

Posted on November 2, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...


Do you need anymore proof that the Liberals have taken over the “educational” system in the US? You do? Well how about a further advancement of the Liberal doctrine YOUR CHILDREN are being subjected to? Still don’t get it?

Tell you what, people … if you think for one second that the schools in this country aren’t being run by a pack of Liberal misfits bound and determined to indoctrinate your kids into thinking any form of deviant behavior is just fine and further protected as “Free Speech” you are sadly mistaken. Read this little piece and see if you still have doubts…

Pass the towels! Plans for coed locker rooms

‘I cannot put to rest concerns girls might share facilities with ‘woman’ who is physically male’

Posted: November 2, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The Montgomery county council, left to right, bottom row: George L. Leventhal, Marilyn J. Praisner (President), Phil Andrews. Top row: Marc Elrich, Valerie Ervin, Roger Berliner, Duchy Trachtenberg, Nancy Floreen, and Mike Knapp (Vice-President)

The is considering adopting an “open doors” policy to its public restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities to meet the demands of a transgender “non-discrimination” plan, which would allow men into women’s lockers and vice versa, a support group reports.

A similar federal non-discrimination plan proposed by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., includes a provision that would prevent “transgenders” from using opposite-sex public facilities in which being seen “fully unclothed” was unavoidable, according to Peter Sprigg, a spokesman for

But he said correspondence with the county staff shows that such a provision was considered, and deliberately rejected, in the county plan, which is scheduled for a vote Nov. 13.

“Montgomery County is unwilling to make any such exception,” he told WND. “It’s very extreme.”

According to notes from city council meetings, Sprigg said, the only requirement will be that the person using the public facilities, including showers and locker rooms, be of the gender they present in public.

Code Pink(O) - cretins in our midst.

Posted on November 2, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

What can you say about a bunch of 60’s hippie types who still refuse to believe the United States is the best place on Earth to call home? They didn’t get it then - they still don’t. Obviously me and my fellow officers didn’t fuck these morons up quite enough when we had the chance. Our bad. Now they have gotten really out of line and need to be taken down HARD like they deserve.

Amanda Carpenter, writing for TownHall Blog does a worthy of a looksee…

keep looking »