.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Undercover Hippie

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

McDermott's hypocrisy

Rep. Jim McDermott has lost an appeal in a lawsuit filed against him by Rep. John Boehner. You may remember back during the '96 campaign cycle that an old couple "just happened" to overhear a cell phone conversation between then-Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and Boehner. McDermott got hold of the tape and released it to the press.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that illegally tapping the phone conversations of U.S. Citizens without a warrant?

Which is why I was interested to find that McDermott is on the record as against that sort of thing.

And, he's spoken publicly about them too:
McDermott feels that Bush is exercising his power in a way that is lessening the questioning of his power by the people, which can be seen in his recent exercise of bypassing the judiciary step of acquiring access for the NSA to tap phones in order to spy on terrorists.

“Bush is saying ‘I don’t have to obey the law,’” said McDermott. “Excuse me? That’s why we jumped all over Clinton for lying about Monica Lewinsky. We are moving back to a government who says we can do whatever we want.”

To be fair, he has offered up an explanation as to why he should be allowed to listen in on the private conversations of two U.S. Citizens:
"The American people have a right to know when their government's leaders are plotting to deceive them, and that is exactly what was happening during a telephone call in 1996 involving Republican House leaders."

So, just so we're understanding this correctly, if you want to listen in on our own citizen's because you don't like what they're saying, that would be a GOOD thing. But if you want to listen in on terrorists who are calling people in this country, that would be a BAD thing.

I can understand people who disagree with the NSA program. I think they're wrong, but I understand where they're coming from. But, to disagree with the NSA program, and then do something like this, AND defend it!?!?! That's just amazing.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Penn's torture doll: Libs are all about love and compassion

Cigarette burns in funny places?

I think he's a sick misogynist.

If I said I had a Hillary doll, and did those kinds of things, can you imagine what they'd say about me? Oh, yeah, well, pretty much what they'd say about me anyway.

Friday, March 24, 2006

This doesn't prove anything! NA-NA-NA! I can't HEAR YOU!

Some tidbits:
Two Iraqi documents from March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

And what about this "Ambassador?"
The Russian ambassador in March 2003 was Vladimir Teterenko. Teterenko appears in documents released by the Volker Commission, which investigated the Oil for Food scandal, as receiving allocations of 3 million barrels of oil — worth roughly $1.5 million.

And the opponents of the war say, "Iraq didn't have any ties to al Qeada!"
A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein.

Please pay particular attention to that last phrase "after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein."

To which some may say, (breathlessly) "But that doesn't prove they were working together!"
Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.

Also, the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani allegedly claimed:
- That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq
- That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
- That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
- That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

Proof? The opposition to the war wouldn't accept it anyway, because THEY HATE BUSH!

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Sometimes they make this just too easy

So this wacky hippie peace group has people in Iraq protesting the "occupiers." These smelly hippies get kidnapped by a bunch of terrorists. Then, these smelly hippies get rescued by the "occupiers" they are there to protest against.

Are you following all of this?

Then they say:

"We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end."

If these nut-jobs owned a pit bull, and he chewed off one of their arms, what would they say? Its the fault of our patriarchal society? George Bush did it? Dick Cheney did it? Halliburton?

Sometimes, you just have to sit back and soak in the stupidity for a while to just truly appreciate it.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

So, do you, or don't you like it?

Here's a confused woman. She cites a book about the Bush administration's "manliness" and concludes that while the administration certainly exudes it, that it's not a good thing.

Except, she states:
There are, no doubt, comforting aspects to the manly presidency; think Bush with a bullhorn on top of the smoldering ruins of the twin towers. After a terrorist attack, no one's looking for a sensitive New Age president.

Now, which is it: sensitive New Ager, or cowboy?

When we're NOT being attacked by ruthless killers, talk to me about how he's bad for our country. They pretend not to get it, but then they (as Rush would say) swerve into the truth. Then they spend the rest of their energy on denying that it is the truth.

The fact of the matter is, we WERE attacked. And we HAVE BEEN defended by a cowboy.

Now maybe you don't understand the aggressive use of force in the face of an attacker, but I'm glad the American people generally do. They may quibble about the tactics and methods, but not the strategy. When someone is bent on destruction, you either neuter them, or kill them. That's the cowboy way. And God Bless our Cowboy in Chief!

The more things change...

These are the same people who are descended from the people described here:

1 Kings 18:27-29

27 It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened."

28 So they cried with a loud voice and (A)cut themselves according to their custom with swords and lances until the blood gushed out on them.

29 When midday was past, they raved (B)until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice; but there was no voice, no one answered, and no one paid attention.

(NASB - Copyright Lockman Foundation)

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Evolutionists are in trouble here

It seems plate tectonics happen a lot faster than they imagined. They NEED it to be slow for the earth to be as old as they want.

So, they will characterize this as exceptional and not normal. I'm guessing they're wrong. Time will tell.