Eason Jordan Update

According to the Associated Press, CNN's Eason Jordan, the military slanderer extraordinaire, has just resigned.

A Radical Lefty Goes DOWN

Civil-rights attorney and long-time leftist activist Lynne Stewart has been convicted of conspiracy, providing support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government. Until her arrest in 2002, Stewart defended Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman who, in 1995, was convicted of plotting to blow up several sites in New York, as well as planning the assassination of Egypt’s president.

Abdel-Rahman received strong support from al-Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden which, according to Stewart, resulted in her conviction. According to prosecutor Christopher Morvillo, Stewart "used her status as a lawyer as a cloak to smuggle messages into and out of prison”, allowing terrorist Abdel-Rahman to "incite terrorism” through violent messages which were passed, through Stewart, onto radical followers in 1999.

Not surprisingly, Stewart placed most of the blame on the Bush administration, accusing them of targeting civil-rights attorneys and calling herself the "poster girl for John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act."

The jury was shown videotapes of visits Stewart made to Abdel-Rahmen in 2000, in which she could be seen and heard speaking gibberish, or making “covering noises”, to drown out the sound of Abdel-Rahman’s translator reading prohibited letters aloud. She later bragged that she could have received an “Academy Award” for her performance.

A striking blow to Stewart’s defense came when she was cross-examined by prosecutor Andrew Dember, who confronted Stewart with her own published statements, in which she promoted the use of violence to overthrow what she deemed “corrupt” governments and institutions.

Stewart now faces up to 30 years in prison.

Lynne Stewart, much like recently-critiqued professor Ward Churchill, represents a disturbing and ever-growing faction of the Left. Their actions are hardly astonishing. What more can one expect from someone who feels such animosity towards America? Their view of history is so distorted and cynical, that collaborating with terrorist masterminds—whether they be the Weatherman Underground, Abdel-Rahmen or Mohamar Kadafi—in order to prevent what they believe are “holocausts” committed by the United States, seems perfectly justified. Unfortunately, the support they’re often given by various organizations and politicians does little to thwart—and, in fact, progresses—their malevolent actions. But, then again, this could all be another conspiracy by the Bush administration, right?

Unveiled!

I'm buying mine in bulk...

Bush Approval Jumps

The latest polls (USA Today/CNN/Gallup) show a whopping 57% approval rating for President Bush— the highest since January of 2004, after Saddam Hussein was captured. USA Today reports that "majorities now say that going to war in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it's likely democracy will be established in Iraq."

In addition, the Republican Party, as a whole, has seen a jump in its approval ratings. USA Today’s poll of 1,010 respondents found Republicans with a 56% approval rating, compared to only 46 % for Democrats. This follows a pattern established during the 2004 presidential election, when the Republican Party saw a spike in new registered Republicans.

Ironically, the soon-to-be Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, received a dismal 31% approval rating.

I expect the polls regarding the war in Iraq to shift with the sands of time. The polls pertaining to the broader picture, however, seem to represent an encouraging and on-going spread of conservatism in America. May it last.

What's the Diff?

Baltimore mayor Martin O’Malley(D) recently compared President Bush’s policies to terrorism. Following a statement he made last summer, in which he said Bush was more of a concern to him than al-Qaeda, Mayor O’Malley is now equating the president’s budget proposals with September 11th.

"Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores, two of America's great cities. They did that because they knew that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the most. Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of the United States. And with a budget axe, he is attacking America's cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core," O’Malley said.

This may come as quite a surprise to the families of September 11th victims who believe the loss of their loved ones to be a larger tragedy than federal spending cuts.

Welcome to the Anti-War Left

In this picture, an American soldier’s uniform, spray painted with the words “your tax dollars at work”, hideously hangs from a noose outside of a Sacramento, California home. Disrespect towards the military is the least that this display conveys. Under the protection of the first amendment, it will now serve as a reminder of just how hateful much of the left has become.

Tisk Tisk

Investor's Business Daily has picked up on a markedly disturbing story involving more treachery and dishonesty in the mainstream media. As usual, it was first spotted by bloggers, among whom the story has been circulating ever since (courtesy of blog master, Hugh Hewitt). It involves CNN’s chief news executive Eason Jordan-- a "journalist" with a history of supressing information-- who, while speaking at the World Economic Forum, “claimed the U.S. military, while pacifying Iraq, had targeted both American and foreign journalists”, according to IBD.

Jordan's statements were apparently heard by Senator Dodd(D) and Barney Frank, both of whom expressed digust and disbelief at Jordan's willingness to slander and endager the U.S. military.

Kick of the Day

San Fran Nan just isn't liberal enough. I have officially heard it all.

Rumsfeld vs. Russert

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld demolished one of cable news’ leading journalists, Tim Russert. Responding to the now infamous clip of an exchange between Rumsfeld and a concerned National Guardsmen, an angry Rumsfeld told Russert, "That is not how I answered that question.”

Though Russert tried to assert that the clips shown clearly represented Rumsfeld’s answer, the Secretary of State shot back with a full transcript, shedding new light on the context of Donald Rumsfeld’s answer, as well as the media’s manipulation of the exchange (the underlined portion is the only portion which was aired by the media, as to portray Rumsfeld as apathetic towards military needs):

"I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to places where they are needed. I'm told they are being – the Army is – I think it's something like 400 a month are being done now.

"And it's essentially a matter of physics. It's not a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army's desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you go to the war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that can be accomplished.”

For the record, Fox News is the only media outlet which aired the exchange in it's full context.

Party of the Past

The Democratic Party vindicated its critics on Thursday when Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Jim Jeffords, Patty Murray-- an advocate of Osama Bin Laden’s “good works”-- and Jon Corzine posed alongside a statue of FDR.

Apparently, the idea was to symbolize the Democratic Party’s allegiance to FDR’s vision of social security, though it has now come to symbolize the Democratic Party’s obsession with the past, or lack of progressiveness. Keep it up, my friends!

On a Personal Note...

I dropped by the assessment office at school this morning. I don’t know why I would be surprised to see leftist slogans, posters and bumper stickers draped wall-to-wall over the teacher’s doors at a college in the heart of Santa Monica, but I was. “Keep abortion legal”, “Pro-Choice”, “War is Not the Answer”, “Stop Corporate Terrorism” and “Work Union—Live Better” were just some of the cheap jingles I saw. I’m used to Liberal teachers but it usually takes a good week or two before we’re engaged in an all-out debate on the classroom floor. For some reason, I don’t think it will take as long.

Kennedy's Newest Freudian Slip

For those who heard Ted Kennedy refer to Senator Barak Obama(D) as “Osama Bin Laden”, it’s no secret that (or why) he often mixes his words *gulp*. His latest gaffe came earlier this week on a New England cable news station.

"I think the principal kind of issue is, ah, torture is an American value.”

Have another one, Ted.

Liberals Ashamed of Their Leaders?

Leading liberal magazine, The New Republic, was less than satisfied with the post-State of the Union blunders, delt by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. In a column entitled, “Disaster Response”, the New Republic wrote:

“That congressional Democrats are still struggling to find their voice, was plainly evident in last night's Democratic response by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The Democratic leaders offered neither a clear vision for their party nor particularly effective counterattacks on the president's agenda. Instead, as is the party's wont, they delivered a bland mishmash of familiar, indistinct ideas. Compared to President Bush's symphonic rhetoric about freedom and democracy and the social compact between generations, the Democrats sounded like a high-school marching band.”

HYPOCRICY

Democrats are now claiming that there is no problem with Social Security. Oh reeeeeeally?

President Clinton: "This Fiscal Crisis In Social Security Affects Every Generation." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

President Clinton: "[F]irst, And Above All, We Must Save Social Security For The 21st Century." (President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99)

President Clinton: "So That All Of These Achievements – The Economic Achievements – Our Increasing Social Coherence And Cohesion, Our Increasing Efforts To Reduce Poverty Among Our Youngest Children – All Of Them Are Threatened By The Looming Fiscal Crisis In Social Security." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

President Clinton: "Now Is The Time To Strengthen Social Security For The Future. … We Can And Must Accomplish This Critical Goal For The American People." (The White House, "Presidential Statement On Social Security," Press Release, 4/23/99)

President Clinton: "But Because A Higher Percentage Of Our People Will Be Both Older And Retired, Perhaps Our Greatest Opportunity And Our Greatest Obligation At This Moment Is To Save Social Security." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98)

President Clinton: "[I]f You Don’t Do Anything, One Of Two Things Will Happen. Either It Will Go Broke And You Won’t Ever Get It, Or If We Wait Too Long To Fix It, The Burden On Society … Of Taking Care Of Our Generation’s Social Security Obligations Will Lower Your Income And Lower Your Ability To Take Care Of Your Children To A Degree That Most Of Us Who Are You Parents Think Would Be Horribly Wrong And Unfair To You And Unfair To The Future Prospects Of The United States." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98)

President Clinton: "And Above All, To My Fellow Baby Boomers, Let Me Say That None Of Us Wants Our Own Retirement To Be A Burden To Our Children And To Their Efforts To Raise Our Grandchildren. It Would Be Unconscionable If We Failed To Act, And Act Now, As One Nation Renewing The Ties That Bind Us Across The Generations." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To A National Forum On Social Security, Kansas City, MO, 4/7/98)

In fact, President Clinton even proposed a plan similar to President Bush's:

During his State of the Union address, "President Clinton proposed 'investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do.' " (CNN/January 19, 1999)

Well, hell's bells! Do I smell some hypocricy in the air?

"The State of Our Nation is Confident and Strong"

I have cried too much this week...

Dignity vs. Indifference

The Boston Globe, which rooted for John Kerry during the presidential election, praised President Bush's State of the Union address as “soothing” and “calming” with “gestures of diplomacy”. The Globe also noted, “On this night, the man who admires Winston Churchill came off a little like Bill Clinton, taking the driver's seat but offering those who don't fully agree with him a chance to help navigate.” Of course, most media outlets would find it difficult to criticize his speech (and have).

In fact, President Bush seemed more centered, approachable and flexible than I have ever seen him before, primarily on the issue of Social Security. What I saw was a man who said, “we have a problem; I want to fix it. If you have any ideas, lay them on the table for me. These are my ideas”. I, as well as the rest of the nation, also saw a bitter slew of Democrats immediately attacking his attempt to reach out, demanding that there is “no problem” with social security and that they refuse to even discuss it.

I saw my president try to negotiate with poise and dignity while Democrats in Congress turned their backs, closed their eyes and stuck their fingers in their ears. Is it any wonder that they’re falling faster than a bird without wings?

Leave it to San Fran Nan

At this point, the Democrats are writing a beautiful legacy for the Republican Party (a.k.a eternal majority status). But political gains and blunders aside, let’s examine the insanity.

"I believe that we can, if you will, change ‘occupying's’ definition to being collaborators -- collaborators with the Iraqi people and moving them toward their own self-government," Shiela Jackson Lee(D) told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday night, in a desperate effort to quiet the outrage which erupted (rightly so) after Nancy Pelosi referred to our brave heroes as, “occupying forces”.

I’m not sure which is worse: Nancy Pelosi’s disgusting betrayal of America’s armed forces or Sheila Jackson’s attempt to convince the public that Pelosi’s use of the term, “occupying force”, actually referred to friends of the Iraqi people.

Am I mistaken, or was it not so long ago that Democrats railed against Senator Zell Miller (calling him a liar) when he accused Democrats of referring to our troops as ‘occupiers’, rather than ‘liberators’?

Quiet in the Peanut Gallery!

While driving in my new Honda Civic (yes, she’s a beaut) and listening to the president’s profound and provocative State of the Union speech last night, I thought I heard a few boos permeating from his audience at certain times. I ignored it, of course, believing that I must have been crazy to think that distinguished members of the United States Congress would boo like twelve year olds during a historical tradition, in which Supreme Court justices and armed servicemen were present. I was wrong.

The juvenility expressed by the Democrats in Congress is almost enough to leave me speechless. Are they suicidal???

Though I have no need to worry, I would be infuriated if a Republican member of Congress—not to mention a collective posse—ever pulled a stunt like that after just having lost (miserably) in the U.S. elections. Words that come to mind: pathetic; desperate; sour; sore; childish—not exactly what Americans are itching to vote for the next time around.

Is anyone else feeling like the Democrats want the midterm elections in our bag?

Back With a Vengeance

Apparently, some in the blogosphere noticed my post-election hiatus—some even suspecting that I may have only been a “Bush plot” prior to the election, choosing to disappear once the results fell in my favor. But, as anyone who knows me will tell you, I am never satisfied. There are always more fish to fry; more problems to conquer; more minds to change; and, of course, more liberal demagoguery to push me into the venting process. So, while the typical stresses of the intermission between childhood and adulthood continue, I will try to keep my eye on the issues of the day and opine when the time is in my favor (like right now, since I woke up at 3 a.m. and have been unable to sleep). My only qualm… where the hell do I start?