Friday, April 28, 2006

May 1st: A Day Without a Criminal

I saw this post by one of our Latino friends on one of the idiot class blogs and just had to share it. It's precious.

I do agree with you people. I live in oregon, and been started handing out papers for this in my high school. I am 16 years old and would like to help. These are my parents were talking about. My Family!
I went table to table during lunch. Talking to latins, african americans, handed a paper to them with this. They all have heard about it before, and said they were going to stay home, not drive, not go to work, and not purchase anything. My parents aren’t going to work that day. Lets see what happens then. U.S needs these people, even if they don’t admit it. Why do you think president bush, wanted a temporary work program because that dude needs these people. But he would be using them if he had temporary work visas. That’s why we ask for a fair plan for these people. Even thought they are undocumented, some of these people have been here for more than 15 years!

A Day Without Latinos Will Be A Great Day. My cousin also handed papers out in her middle school.

A lot of students are doing the same in there schools, getting together and making these papers. They communicate by email,text, phone, IM’s so many ways. That this is sure to have schools loose money.
And for big stores like walk-mart, they surely will get involved after they see no one is shopping at their store and there loosing money. Same with all other companies.

I’d like to get involved in this although I’m only 16. I’m a smart guy, I’ve been staying close to the news, also have been reading some articles on the web.



If anyone need to go to school on Monday - it's this moron.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Little Man Chavez: Bring it on Commie!

Chavez: Venezuela Ready to Defend Cuba

.Venezuelans will spill blood to defend Cuba against a possible U.S. invasion, President Hugo Chavez said.


"If the U.S. empire were to invade Cuba, Venezuelan blood would run in the defense of Cuba and its people," Chavez said Friday during a speech to government supporters in Venezuela's capital.


The Venezuelan leader has long claimed that Washington is plotting to overthrow his leftist government - accusations denied by US officials.


He repeated Friday that the U.S. "is preparing an aggression," though it was not clear which country he believed was the target.

Friday, April 14, 2006

Dems Correct: There is a Culture of Corruption

Rep. John Conyers Used Staff to Babysit


Michigan Democrat John Conyers - the congressman who would be chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee should Democrats gain control of the House - has been accused of misusing his office - and taxpayer dollars - for personal advantage.

According to two of his former staff members, Conyers required them to babysit his children, run errands and work on his political campaigns while on his congressional payroll.

According to CNN, former Conyers legal adviser Sydney Rooks charged that the congressman brought his two young sons into her office several times, saying, "Rooks, they're your responsibility for right now. I'll be back later." The definition of "later," she told network, could be anywhere from a few minutes to an hour.

"[I] could be frantically calling around trying to find him because it was now 8 or 9 p.m. or later in the evening and not knowing what to do with the children," she added.


For Deanna Maher, former deputy chief of staff in Conyers' Detroit office, baby-sitting meant a job as a full-time nanny.

"He handed me the keys to his car and his house, [said] take care of my child Carl and everything," Maher said, explaining that she moved into Conyers' Detroit home and took care of his elder son for several weeks while the congressman was in Washington and his wife attended law classes in Oklahoma.

In addition to the baby sitting chores, the ex-employees say while working on congressional staff time they were required to work on local elections in Michigan, including a campaign for Conyers' wife, Monica, who is the Detroit City Council's president pro tem. Sam Riddle, a spokesman for Monica Conyers, said the councilwoman "denies that any of the congressman's staff helped with her campaign."

Maher, Rooks and two other staffers have filed complaints against their former boss with the U.S. House of Representatives' ethics committee.


CNN says it made several attempts recently to reach the congressman to answer these former staffers' allegations. Last week, Conyers declined to answer questions about duties assigned to his staff.

"I've been told not to discuss them because we haven't examined them," Conyers said of allegations in a hallway outside a congressional hearing room. "And I have an attorney."

Monday, April 10, 2006

Global Warming Stopped in 1998

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).


Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

Hothouse Hanson - a Democrat Party Contributor

Scientist Alleging Bush Censorship Helped Gore, Kerry
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 23, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The scientist touted by CBS News' "60 Minutes" as arguably the "world's leading researcher on global warming" and spotlighted as a victim of the Bush administration's censorship on the issue, publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president and received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by Kerry's wife.

Scientist James Hansen has also admitted that he contributed to two recent Democratic presidential campaigns. Furthermore, he acted as a consultant in February to former Vice President Al Gore's slide show presentations on "global warming," which Gore presented around the country.

But Scott Pelley, the "60 Minutes" reporter who profiled Hansen and detailed his accusations of censorship on the March 19, edition of the newsmagazine, made no mention of Hansen's links to Kerry and Gore and none to the fact that Kerry's wife -- Teresa Heinz Kerry -- had been one of Hansen's benefactors.

Pelley's "Rewriting the Science" segment focused on Hansen's allegations that the Bush administration was preventing his views from becoming publicized because it did not like his conclusions. Hansen's complaints were first publicized in January.

"In my more than three decades in the government, I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," Hansen told Pelley.

But Hansen had made similar claims of another Republican White House allegedly censoring his views. In 1989, Hansen claimed that President Bush's father - then-President George H. W. Bush - was censoring his climate research. Kerry and about a dozen other senators eventually co-signed a letter written by Gore, who was also a senator at the time, demanding an explanation for the alleged censorship.

'Apocalyptic predictions' and political alliances

Hansen has previously acknowledged that he supported the "emphasis on extreme scenarios" regarding climate change models in order to drive the public's attention to the issue, but Pelley's "60 Minutes" report made no mention of that admission.

"Not only are [Hansen's] apocalyptic predictions not coming true, but more and more countries are beginning to realize that they will destroy their economies just under Kyoto 1, to prevent about 0.1 degrees of warming," Paul Driessen, the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death, told Cybercast News Service.

"Hansen's rants might still garner headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times, and raves from CBS - especially if you believe every beetle infestation, forest fire, cold snap, hot flash, dry spell, flood, frog death and malaria outbreak is due to global warming - but they're complete hogwash," Driessen said.

In endorsing Kerry's presidential bid late in the 2004 campaign, Hansen conceded that it could harm his reputation. "Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush's policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign." according to the Oct. 26, 2004, edition of the New York Times.

In a speech delivered on that same day, Hansen praised the Massachusetts senator, declaring that "John Kerry has a far better grasp than President Bush on the important issues that we face."

Three years earlier, Hansen had accepted the $250,000 Heinz Award granted by the foundation run by Kerry's wife Teresa. But the same day Hansen publicly endorsed Sen. John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004, the New York Times quoted Hansen as saying that the grant from the Heinz Foundation had had "no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."

But George C. Deutsch, who served as a spokesman for NASA until resigning in February, said he quickly learned that "Dr. Hansen and his supporters have a very partisan agenda and ties reaching to the top of the Democratic Party." Deutsch resigned his post earlier this year following a controversy surrounding a false resume claim that he graduated from Texas A&M University.

Deutsch also denied that the Bush administration was clamping down on scientific views that did not support its preferred conclusions.

"There is no pressure or mandate from the Bush administration or elsewhere, to alter or water down scientific data at NASA, period," Deutsch said, according to a Feb. 11, article in the Washington Post. Instead, he said, there existed a "culture war" at the federal agency.

"Anyone perceived to be a Republican, a Bush supporter or a Christian is singled out and labeled a threat to their views. I encourage anyone interested in this story to consider the other side, to consider Dr. Hansen' s true motivations and to consider the dangerous implications of only hearing out one side of the global warming debate," Deutsch added.

Hansen fired back at Deutsch's assertions in an online statement published in February, calling Deutsch's claims "nonsense."

"I can be accurately described as moderately conservative," Hansen wrote, while acknowledging that he had endorsed Kerry for president in 2004 "because he recognized global warming problem."

Hansen stated that he had great respect for former Vice President Al Gore, noting that he met with Gore in January 2006 and ended up consulting Gore on his climate change slide show presentations.

"I have great respect for Vice President Gore and his dedication to communicating the importance of global warming. He has a better understanding of the science of global warming than any politician I have met, and I urge citizens to pay attention to his presentation, which I understand will come out in the form of a movie," Hansen wrote.

Hansen wrote that his only two political contributions were to Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and to either the 2000 Al Gore presidential run or the Kerry 2004 campaign. "I don't remember which," Hansen stated.

Hansen, described by Pelley in the "60 Minutes" report as an "independent," also reportedly refused to go along the Clinton administration on the issue of "global warming." The Clinton administration "wanted to hear that warming was worse than it was," Pelley reported.

Justifying climate alarmism

In the March 2004 issue of Scientific American, Hansen appeared to be justifying the past use of climate models to scare the public into believing the "global warming" problem was urgent.

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue," Hansen wrote in 2004. "Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate-forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."

Patrick J. Michaels, the author of several books on climate change, including the recently published "Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming," declared that Hansen has "advocated the use of exaggeration and propaganda as political tools in the debate over global warming."

Michaels, who leveled his charges in a Feb. 21 commentary entitled "Hansen's Hot Hype," wrote that "Hansen thought the public should be subjected to nightmare scenarios regardless of the scientific likelihood of catastrophe, simply in order to gain people's attention."

Michaels, who believes claims of catastrophic, human-caused "global warming" are scientifically unfounded, is a climatologist at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Michaels has previously credited Hansen with taking a more moderate stance toward climate change. "The irony is that, in recent years, Hansen's positions on global warming have come increasingly in line with those of the administration he claims is censoring him," Michaels said.

Several attempts to contact Hansen for comment were not returned. Telephone calls to Bill Owens and Catherine Herrick, the two CBS News employees who produced Pelley's "60 Minutes" segment, were referred to the network media affairs office.

"60 Minutes" spokesman Kevin Tedesco defended the segment, telling Cybercast News Service that "it was a fair and accurate report."

A call to reporter Scott Pelley was not returned by press time.

Joe Wilson's Lies

Are We Investigating the Wrong Crime?
By Barbara J. Stock

Democrats are despondent. Outwardly they are parading before the cameras saying how sad it is that Mr. Libby has been indicted. It is a sad time for the leftists. They were hunting for much bigger game.

In truth, no one really cares if Valerie Plame was “outed.” The liberals manufactured this non-crime so that they could claim that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Stretching the envelope of reality to the breaking point, the leftists have made this claim: Bush sought revenge against Joe Wilson because his non-report didn’t support the president’s claim that Saddam was attempting to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger. With nothing better to do, the president and his staff decided to expose Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent, thus putting her life in danger and ruining her career. In a nutshell, that is what the liberals want Americans to believe.

What really happened? First, people must step back and take a close look at ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV. People have seen pictures of the flashy, sports-car-driving Wilson with his “outed” wife in Vanity Fair, but are most people aware that Wilson was a member of John Kerry’s election team? Wilson had every reason to sabotage the Bush administration. A job in the Kerry administration was one reason.

Wilson did have some time in Iraq and apparently put his life at risk by freeing 150 American hostages seized by Saddam just before the Gulf War. That seems to be his only claim to fame—until he saw the opportunity to return to the spotlight he loves at the expense of his wife, Valerie Plame.

Wilson has been caught in several lies by the media and in a Senate hearing. Wilson implied that the vice-president’s office sent him to Niger. That has been denied by the vice-president. Sensible people would realize that Cheney would not send a known Democrat operative on such a mission. Apparently someone within the CIA began looking around for someone to send to Niger. Suddenly, up pops a memo from Valerie Plame suggesting that her husband, the diplomat, be sent to Niger. How did Plame know about this job? Did she hear about it at the water cooler? Did someone go from cubicle to cubicle asking for takers? If Plame was a covert agent, why wasn’t she out doing something covert? George Tenet, who was the director of the CIA at the time, said he knew nothing about this assignment.

This was not the first assignment that Plame had secured with the CIA for her unemployed husband. Wilson made a trip to Niger in 1999, also at the suggestion of Ms. Plame.

Joe Wilson does not work for the CIA. He is not a CIA agent. He knows nothing about gathering intelligence. Yet, Wilson was sent to Niger on a rather important mission concerning national security. Wilson admits that he did nothing more than sit in a café sipping tea chatting with old friends. He came home and did not write up a formal report but gave an oral one in which he stated Iraq did not buy yellow cake from Niger.

It’s puzzling that Wilson would find ridiculous the mere possibility of Saddam trying to make such deal with Niger. According to a Nigerian mining minister, Wilson had reported to the CIA that Saddam had indeed tried to purchase 400 tons of yellow cake uranium in 1998. Why would the idea be scoffed at by Wilson that Saddam would continue to try buy the illegal item just a few years later?

One question that needs to be answered is: Did Wilson have any meetings or contact with French Ambassador DeVillipan prior to being sent to Niger? DeVillipan was the man who brought a promise from his boss, Jacques Chirac, that France would stand by America if Bush would bring the Iraq situation before the United Nations for a vote. Colin Powell, secretary of state at that time, urged the president to take his case before the United Nations partly because of that promise of support. Once France had succeeded in fooling the gullible Colin Powell, the rest was easy. France quickly put a knife between America’s shoulder blades and reversed its vote in favor of Saddam.

Chirac had all but promised his good friend, Saddam, that he could use France’s vote on the Security Council to prevent the United States from invading Iraq. Chirac was wrong. But France apparently had a back-up plan to discredit both Bush and Blair. That plan included a forged document from Niger indicating that Saddam had tried to purchase yellow cake uranium. If Bush and Blair could be fooled into believing the document was genuine, it could be used against them later.

It was that forged document that Joe Wilson referred to when he spoke to a Washington Post reporter and told him that he came to his conclusions about the Niger intelligence because it was based on a forged document. Wilson stated specifically that he knew the document was forged because “the dates and names were wrong.”




The problem was that Wilson could not possibly have seen this document because even the CIA didn’t see that document until eight months later. Yet, somehow, Wilson knew it was forged. How could he have known then the reason it would be discarded as a forgery nearly a year later?

We now know that the document was indeed forged. An Italian agent named Rocco Martino—intelligence codename "Giacomo"—has shed some light on the origins of the bogus document. Mr. Martino has confessed to Italian authorities that he was commissioned by French intelligence to pick up the document from an agent at the Nigerian embassy. Martino claims that he didn’t know the document was a forgery. It was France’s ultimate goal to use the document to discredit both Bush and Blair in their claims that Saddam was acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Chirac’s plan seems to have worked beyond his wildest dreams.

So, Wilson, a loyal Democrat operative, is chosen to go to Niger on a quest to find out if Saddam was actually trying to purchase yellow cake on the suggestion of his CIA wife, Plame, also a loyal Democrat. There seems to be a great deal of confusion about exactly who requested an agent be sent to Niger and who within the CIA actually chose Wilson to go. Neither has been identified. Oddly, no one within the CIA seems to remember.

Did Wilson go, perhaps comforted by the fact that he already knew the document in question was forged? Was he taken into someone’s confidence not to worry about actually seeking the truth because the groundwork had already been laid to make Bush and Blair appear to be liars? Did Wilson have such a relaxed and pleasant time in Niger with his old friends because he knew before he went what his report was going to be? Did Wilson give an oral report instead of a written one so that if anything went awry, he could say he had been misquoted?

Were there two forces at work here? One force was France with its open hostility to the United States and support of Saddam and the other may have been the leftist forces in America who didn’t really care about Saddam one way or the other. George W. Bush was considered the enemy by the leftists and they would use any means necessary, even if it meant undermining the war effort, to discredit the president. Is it possible these two forces decided to work together? Was Joe Wilson the go-between?

The bombastic Wilson probably would not have been the first choice of either force because of his desire to be in the limelight. Such people tend to talk too much as Wilson did when he told the Post reporter that he knew the document he could not have seen was forged. That reporter, after realizing that Wilson could not have seen the document before making that claim, put Wilson on the spot when he later asked Wilson to explain himself. The best Wilson could come up with was, “He was mistaken.”

Interestingly, Wilson’s series of lies and “mistakes” were quickly overshadowed by the sound and fury of his wife being “outed” by the evil Bush White House. There was no reason to attempt to discredit Wilson. Wilson had already discredited himself. Even the Senate committee ruled that Wilson had lied or “misled” on several occasions, yet all of that was lost in the din of howling Democrats braying that “Bush lied.” Why has there been no indictment against Wilson for lying to a Senate committee?

Plame was no longer a covert agent. The law had not been broken by revealing that she worked for the CIA. Yet, demands were made by the leftists to appoint an independent counsel to investigate this non-crime. Democrats succeeded in taking the heat off Wilson and putting it on Bush.

Democrat talking points have gone from the “outing” of a CIA agent to “Bush lied to take America into an illegal war.” How did this happen? Wilson is right back in front of the cameras repeating his same lies and no one questions him. Liberal talking heads on television repeat Wilson’s lies as if they were fact.

The two-year investigation of a non-crime did not give the leftists the results they wanted. They wanted Rove and an implication that Bush was involved so that they could find a way to try and impeach this man they hate so much.

The leftist enemies of Bush care little about the war on terror or the threat of Islam that is facing America. They want one thing: Bush’s head. If they have to climb into bed with America’s enemies, so be it.

With so many important unanswered questions facing America, whether Valerie Plame was “outed” is the least important of them. Yet, it is the one getting all the attention. Why is no one investigating the real crime of possible treason against America and the treachery of a so-called ally?

Sunday, April 09, 2006

10th Anniversary of Ron Brown's Murder

10 years after Ron Brown
Sunday, April 9, 2006
WASHINGTON

On April 3, 1996, 35 people died in the crash of a U.S. Air Force plane in Croatia. Among them was Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, whom then-President Bill Clinton claimed as a close and dear friend.

There are many indications that could suggest Ron Brown was killed before or during the crash to protect not only the Clinton presidency but also Hillary Clinton's future.

In the same week 10 years later, Bill Clinton was betraying another old friend -- Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair -- with another man called Brown. Bill was assuring an elite audience of Socialists at London's Guildhall that Gordon Brown could provide "wondrous vision, leadership and dynamism" when he ceased being Chancellor of the Exchequer to take Blair's job. The audience was in raptures.

This time there was no blood or gore. While Brown the Second boomed on about "globalization being a force for justice," Bill spoke softly, told stories and played his favorite role -- the preacher turned salesman selling himself. Blair was not mentioned.

Let's start at the beginning, a decade ago.

After the crash in Croatia, the bodies were brought to America and examined by a team from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. There was no autopsy performed on Ron Brown, the first black to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee, as permission was not granted. The chief of the photographic unit, Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, saw there were no lethal injuries to Brown's body -- other than what appeared to be a bullet hole in his head.

She showed the wound to two colleagues, both colonels, who agreed with her. A search was made of the crash site and nothing was found that could have caused such a wound. She took photographs and also took photographs of the military X-rays, which showed what appeared to be bullet particles.

Almost immediately there was a military-ordered blackout; later there was an inquiry. But the X-rays had been lost; only Janoski's photographs remained. Her career and that of her colleagues was said to have ended. Today, Chief Janoski is a member of the Pentagon's Committee on Women Veterans.

What had Ron Brown done?

In 1994, Gen. Shen Roujun of China's People's Liberation Army led a successful penetration-and-collection operation directed against the U.S. space programs. Deals that Shen was alleged to have cut with Loral, Hughes Aircraft and Motorola saved the Chinese billions of dollars in research and development and turned their army into a deadly force equipped to wage thermonuclear war.

President Clinton -- against the advice of the Pentagon but with the full support of newly appointed National Security Adviser Sandy Berger -- plotted against the Pentagon naysayers and signed waivers for all three companies.

In the weeks before his death, Ron Brown is said to have, after years of indifference to the Almighty, commenced going to church. However, temporal power intervened and he became the subject of an investigation. Ron Brown hoped that Clinton would shut down the questioning.

The meeting between two rogues took place in the White House family quarters and Ron Brown failed in his mission. Bill Clinton claimed that he no longer was in a position to halt the investigation and would do nothing to help. Brown, in his imagination, heard the cell door slamming.

Yet, only weeks earlier, Brown had been Clinton's bag man in a trip to New York where he collected about $1.2 million from Loral for the Democratic Party to use as "soft money." Nothing was put in writing but the payment of so much money -- the largest sum ever from one donor -- was related to a waiver that Clinton would sign to allow Loral's trade with China to continue to prosper and our national security to face failure.

America's security was traded for Clinton's re-election campaign.

Following the Clinton meeting and the money delivery, a close friend of Ron Brown told a Justice Department presentencing conference that he only had one option -- to report the president's possible treasonous dealings with China.

Soon thereafter Ron Brown died in an air crash. He was given a hero's burial in Arlington National Cemetery and is, today, largely forgotten.

Bill Clinton ceased to be president and his wife, who ignored being cheated on for several decades, became a U.S. senator for New York. There are many signs that she is seeking the presidency. But Bill is still job hunting even as he shares fundraising activities with George Herbert Walker Bush.

The world's political, religious and academic leaders flock to Bill. There are no queries about his pardons-for-profit or the deal that allowed him to avoid being prosecuted for them; his serial philandering is no longer mentioned; neither is his abandonment of our national security; nor his moral character.

Slick Willie is on a mission. He has to spread world peace, make the world a safer place for immigrants and criminals and push his very own campaign -- most appropriate for a globally acknowledged sexpert -- to eradicate AIDS.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

April Check of the Show

Holy cow, this idiot is still talking about the Downing Street Memo. This piece of fiction was debunked almost a year ago.

And after 100s of stories have been written about the WMDs being moved from Iraq; this joke is still claiming that there were no WMDs in Iraq. This know nothing actually has the nerve to quote Putin saying there were no WMDs, when it was Putin who was supplying Iraq with US intelligence in order for Iraq to move the WMDs.

It's funny how stupid the left really is.

April 6:

I haven't listened yet; but let me guess; the big story will be how scooter libby fingered the president and how they outed a non-secret, secret agent.

Oh wait, no; its more Halliburton no bid contracts. LOL. I didnt realize this idiot was against Clintons no-bid contracts to them.