You Can't Handle The Truth!

The author, Larry Bodine, of the Republicans For Duckworth site has soiled his pants. After making ridiculous assertions on gun control and having said assertions rammed down his liberal, lying throat, he states that Jackboot and myself are the same person and deletes all our posts.

It turns out that all the comments by Namvet, Sig4, Jackbook, Commodore and Ensign were all anonymous pseudonyms used by the same malicious person. All of his spurious rants have been deleted. Perhaps he's on the Roskam payroll. I guess he doesn't realize that I get notified everytime someone comments.

When people make bad arguments and then run from them it is an indication that they themselves have lost all confidence in their position. I remain firm in my positions because I have other means to justify them rather than my own say so.

Go to http://moonbats-for-duckworth.blogspot.com/ and see what I mean!

[Udate 8/26: The little 'bat popped his pants and then tried to cover it up. He's restored the original thread, after we pointed out that screen shots were taken of his spanking !!!. He carefully (tried) to cover his tracks, deleting our parting comments and his silly statement above and restoring the original thread. We'll pay him a visit to remind him his little game is over regardless. Leave it to an Idiotarian to screw up and make things worse trying to cover the fact, as if his readers have the attention span of crack-ingesting humminbirds. LC JB, IC]

[Update #2 (5:38 est)- The little jerk is now moderating his comments. Any bets on the chances of my last "Hello" getting posted?. Total Victory is ours !!!!!! Rum rations for all... Pirate Chief JB]

Deaniac Democrats And National Security

by J.B. Williams
Saturday, August 26, 2006

In this Canada Free Press article, Mr. Williams hits it out of the ballpark with regard to the Democratic Party's leadership and our national security needs. Chairman Howard "Mad, Mean, Screaming Machine" Dean, is caught with his mouth unzipped again when he claims:

"Democrats have been playing defense for too long. Over the past few months, though, something has shifted. When it comes to national security, Democrats are playing offense for a change -- and it's working."

Yes indeed. The Democratic Party has been offensive for quite some time now, but it isn't working, for them at least. But it has worked out well for the Republicans. Mr. Williams goes on:

"According to Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, We have a fundamentally different vision for our security than the Party of Bush." This is a true statement. Today's Democratic Party most certainly does have a fundamentally different vision for our nation's security. They have a different vision of what security is, and a very different vision of how to achieve it.

You can get these fundamentally different visions by using peyote or LSD laced hashish. It all depends on how you want to achieve national security, by having your your bong or your table lamp tell you how to do it.

In his August 24th communique to the drooling zombie core of his fledgling party, Dean pronounced, "We're strong, we're right, and the people know it." Now honestly, Democrats are known for many things in recent years, sex candals,over-taxing, over-spending, over-reaching and over-stating among them. One thing they have never been known for is strong national or international security views, quite the contrary.

How about under-achieving (Nagin and NOLA), under-funding (DoD) and under-handed (emasculating federal intelligence gathering agencies)?

Liberals and their press say their polls indicate a growing distrust in Republicans and increasing trust in Democrats by default, on the subject of national security and the war on terror. Is it true? ... Obviously, the majority of Americans have never been polled and won't be until November. But are the mainstream samplings an accurate view of things to come in November?

The question that needs to be asked is how accurate have these polls been in the past? The answer? Not very. The Dummiecrats have been misled by their own polls in the past two elections. Because their self-serving polls had no basis in reality and they in fact lost the elections, there were cries of fraud throughout many cities where they imagined they were going to win.

The most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll says that when it comes to the war on terror and national security, 55% approve of the Bush administration and 43% disapprove. This is hardly a glowing endorsement of the Deaniac Democrats national security plan, especially after five years of constant attacks on every Bush administration security policy decision.

Ah, what Democratic security plan? You must be referring to the one where we run with our tail between our legs from the lords of terror. Yah, that'll work.

Dean points out his set of "facts", "The President's foreign policies have failed. Iraq is sliding into civil war. Iran and North Korea are more dangerous than they were five and a half years ago. And the Taliban continues to present a threat in Afghanistan."

That the GWoT is going to last longer than we'd like is a given. So did WWII. But we stuck it out in the face of high combat loses (the Axis Powers lost a lot more and so are the terrorists) and defeated our enemies. After all, we didn't sneak off and bomb Tokyo harbor.

I can only assume that he is referring to Bill Clinton here as "The President" whose policies failed in this statement since it was Bill Clinton who failed to confront international terrorism for eight years during countless attacks on US interests, who sold nuclear technology to China and North Korea and allowed European nations to profit from keeping the murderous Hussein regime in business in Iraq as hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children were dozed into mass graves all over the desert.

Thus begins the drum roll of ignominy that is Clintoon's legacy. Let's enumerate the "successful" military exercises of the Clintoon administration:
1) Operation Won Ton Bomb - blowing up the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (1999);
2) Operation Straphanger - destroying a Serbian commuter train (1999);
3) Operation Heroic Headache - bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory (1998) on the eve of Clintoon's impeachment vote;
4) Operation Strip & Wax - killing the night janitors in an Iraqi military intelligence building with precision guided munitions (1996);
5) Operation Who Me? - Indonesia, with a record of mass murder having killed perhaps 200,000 out of a population of 700,000 in its invasion and occupation of East Timor, received approval for the purchase of F-16 fighter planes and other assault equipment (1994);
6) Operation Incompetent Commander - Blackhawk Down, Somalia (1993).

Despite the well known fact that Iraq remains the only central front in the war against international terror, Democrats see Iraq as completely unrelated to the war on terror. Innocent Iraqi citizens, the Bush administration and most Americans disagree of course, though none of these folks participate in mainstream polls apparently.

I have often wondered why I never get a call for one of these polls. The way the dems and their accomplices in the MSM are constantly throwing poll numbers around you'd think that these pollsters would be tackling us in the streets.

Finally, Dean lays out his plan for national security in as much detail as he can muster. "Democrats are going to reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world." But retreat is their plan for Iraq. Claim victory and pull out,

According to the Deaniacs that's the smart thing to do.

....leaving the Iraqi people in a vacuum of terror at the hands of Syrian and Iranian born terrorists referred to by Democrats as "civil insurgents". Anyone who has ever talked directly to Iraqi citizens knows that this policy change is their greatest fear.

And that sure is tough.

As for the Middle East, the Middle East began to spin out of control under Jimmy Carter some thirty years ago. It was left to fester and grow into an international threat with global reach under Bill Clinton. China, North Korea, Iraq and Iran became more dangerous throughout the 90's and Bush walked into that hornet's nest in January of 2001, greeted eight months into a new administration with the events of 9/11. To tell this story any other way is an outright lie.

Political victory is the sole concern of the Deaniacs. It is the complete fulfillment of their twisted, narrow dreams. Political victory provides them with the affirmation of their strategy that justifies the lies and deceit used to achieve "success." As far as realizing real strategic gains and strengthening national security, the Deaniacs rely on the MSM to cover the stench of their dismal failures with silence.

At San Francisco's Wharf, a Fight for Medical Marijuana Ensues

Regulations Severely Limit Where Cannabis Clubs Can Operate

By JAKE TAPPER and DAN MORRIS

July 25, 2006 — - San Francisco has more cannibus clubs -- the dispensaries of marijuana for the medical treatment of the nasty side effects of chemotherapy, glaucoma or AIDS -- than any other city in the nation.

But then again, it's only one of the few "nasty" side effects SanFranWeirdo has.

Yet, that doesn't mean cannabis clubs make welcome neighbors, even in bluest of the blue San Francisco, a city that prides itself on being tolerant of almost every lifestyle. A ballot proposition in 2002 that called for the Board of Supervisors to explore the possibility of establishing a program whereby the city would grow its own medical marijuana and distribute it was supported by 62 percent of voters.

Maybe I'm being a little intolerant here, but in a city that prides itself on tourism, is it really a good thing to promote yet another "tolerant lifestyle"? I think the rest of the state rejected your pride by a vote of around 70% vs. 30% against your "tolerant"promotion of sodomy and just about any other perverted practice that seems en vogue to your denizens.

Betcha you didn't think I knew that word, huh?

But the reality of the program is apparently harsher than the notion. However accepting San Francisco may consider itself to be, the city may also be showing standard-issue NIMBYism.

The Green Cross is one of about 40 cannabis clubs in San Francisco. It is owned and operated by Kevin Reed, who explains that there are differences among the 55 different types of marijuana his store offers.

Color me impressed, a veritable ganja buffet. The entire state of Kaliforniastan is committing suicide by terminal NIMBYism, why should the City by the Gay be different.

"'Indica' would be used more for the body pain, somebody that had extreme body pain or insomnia. It would help people sleep. It is what most people identify when they think of marijuana is," explained to Nightline. "'Sativa' is the more euphoric high. It is what most people use for depression."

Uhuhuh and here I thought cannabis only helped to make you have an unusual craving for twinkies and moon-pies. So, you should hit the bong of Sativa to beat depression, substituting paranoia instead?

But the controversy in San Francisco isn't about what Reed is selling, but where he wants to do it.

Touristy Fisherman's Wharf is known for families of tourists, cable cars, and seafood. But many business owners and neighbors there do not want marijuana users added to that mix -- even if they have prescriptions to buy it.

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom sees their point. "I'm not sure that's the message we want to send folks. 'Get your crab and maybe your clam chowder and sourdough bread, and maybe walk next door and see a medical marijuana club.'"

Newsom is concerned about business owners? That can't be the same Newsom that flipped off state law and permitted gay marriage. Something strange indeed is happening in SanFranWeirdo.
The old saw says follow the money. Newsom is concerned over the loss of revenue for his favorite socialist city programs. Seems his favorite constituents don't contribute very much to the tax base. There's a good progressive politician that recognizes which side of the fruit is buttered on.

But the mayor himself is in part responsible for the eruption of this controversy.

Last summer the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that stricter federal drug laws overrule more permissive ones passed by the states, like the medial marijuana provision passed by California.

Since then, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency has arrested some cannabis club owners. Those arrests led Newsom to draft news rules and regulations for his city's cannabis clubs, so as to fend off future DEA busts.

"In the past there was no process," Newsom explains. "You could just open up. All of a sudden you're a neighbor and you look next door and all of a sudden there's a medical marijuana club and you had no input, and no ability to have any feedback."

Welllll, imagine that... you decided to moon the U.S. Supreme court in your little duchy of touchey, the scumbag dope dealers move right into your open arms and now you're crying about it? Happens when you declare state/federal laws void in favor of progressive, opinioned-based, PC culture. Grab a clue moron, most laws in society are enacted to maintain an orderly social structure. You pick and chose the ones you decide to enforce and not to enforce, unintended consequences happen.

Newsom adds: "I believe very strongly in medical marijuana. So does the rest of the state of California. And I would argue the majority of Americans. But it's got to be done right."

Can you back that up with any, you know facts? I know it's all about feelings, but you're telling us if we don't happen to agree with your broad statement, we are just too stupid to know it. I don't see a rush in other states (outside of the Leftist Coast) to nullify existing State and Federal legislation so they can get it right.

Pardon me, but your stunning lack of veracity is showing......yer Honor

When the clubs first opened, neighbors were complaining that they attracted too much traffic, crime and customers who didn't seem to have any actual ailments. Some of those customers smoked marijuana right outside the store, or resold it.

What exactly did you really expect from the club customers?

Either you are completely divorced from reality or stark raving bonkers. Which is your favorite club? Obviously you've been doing some field research on your own.

So, now the Bay Area cannabis clubs have restricted locations. They are no longer allowed to be within 1,000 feet of a school or community center. They are barred from certain residential neighborhoods. And every club has to go through a registration process, with a $10,000 application fee.

"We felt we needed to put in some common sense restrictions. Because if it is being abused -- if we're flaunting ourselves in an arrogant way -- if we're jumping up and down and saying, 'We don't care about the federal government's feelings,' clearly we're inviting ourselves to put the whole program at risk," the mayor says.

Well you are jumping up and down like the baboon on crack, and your arrogance isn't about the federal government's feelings, it's about adherence to duly enacted LAW. You know, the sort of things covered by the constitution that you took an oath to uphold. But this is all about you, now isn't it?

By the way, we will NEVER expect anything resembling common sense to come out of your office.

The Green Cross is the first cannabis club to go through the city's new regulation process. And because of the restrictions, it had to move from its semi-residential location, and find a new place to do business. Joe Elford, the attorney for Green Cross's owner says the Fisherman's Wharf location was one of the few options his client had.

"You end up with only very small slivers of the city even being available for cannabis dispensaries to operate," Elford says. "And that's why Mr. Reed (the owner) in large part, chose this location."

Fisherman's Wharf ? I haven't visited your little bastion of MoonBats for quite awhile, but I do recall Fisherman's Wharf was a prime location for business. You aren't telling me there is "all of a sudden" open locations there? Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it does seem like your People's Village is experiencing a net loss in revenue generating business.

But many of Fisherman's Wharf's residents are not happy about that decision. Ryan Chamberlain is a neighborhood activist and he has made it his mission to keep the Green Cross cannabis club out of Fisherman's Wharf.

"It's not so much the marijuana. If a patient was discreetly walking in and out of a location, if that were like a dental office, not a big deal. What we're worried about is the things that seem to surround those clubs," Chamberlain says. "What we're worried about is an increase in people camping out in those parks smoking marijuana."

An excellent mission Mr. Chamberlain, perhaps you should expand it to include voting your city government out of office as a first step. Try to understand that in most rational communities, chronic druggies only become patient when waiting for mug shots and finger printing.

And the new regulations that Mayor Newsom instituted offer neighborhood planning boards the power of the veto.

Ten years ago, 56 percent of Californian voters supported Proposition 215, legalizing medical use of marijuana. But just try to find a Californian today who wants a marijuana store in his neighborhood.

Well no accounting for the 56% of the voters being sold a pig-in-a-poke and thought the medical use of marijuana meant under the control of real doctors, dispensed by pharmacies and such. I have a hard time believing they would have accepted smelly Dead-Heads hawking designer dope in their neighborhoods.

The result is that even though Green Cross met the city's rules and regulations, its fate was still left up to the neighborhood planning commission, which earlier this month held a hearing on the issue.

A parade of professionals, business owners, a park ranger and a policeman all came before the commission to say essentially the same thing: medical marijuana, yes, but not in my backyard.

"We feel that it is an inappropriate location for this site to be a cannabis house," one neighbor told the commission.

Yet some neighbors in support of the cannabis clubs countered those arguments.

Neighbor Maria Molloy said, "I thought we already voted on this? ... I'm not sure how these conservative neighbors got the impression that they could override the city's vote. But I urge you to please hear the voice of our progressive city."

That's a good neighbor Maria, keeping pushing your progressive city utopia plan, trust me it'll get better and better all the time....nasty conservatives actually overriding your agenda by eeevil voting, can't have THAT can we? Where's a friendly leftist robe when you need one?

One of Green Cross' medical marijuana customers, Michael Aldrich raised another issue for the commission: "Please remember that in every one of these neighborhoods there are patients like myself who need to have a dispensary reasonably nearby."

Try a cab or public transportation nitwit. I'm sure Hizzoner could promptly come up with a "plan" to reimburse you for medical transportation "expenses".

But when the planning commission voted, the result was 4 to 2, against Green Cross.

"That's classic,'" complains Mayor Newsom. "I mean, everybody wants to treat drug addicts, heroin addicts, they want to provide them methadone, but just don't open the methadone clinic near me. Everyone says, 'I want more supportive housing and affordable housing for the poor and working families, but just don't open it near me. Homeless shelters, but not near me. ... It's no different with medical marijuana clubs."

Gavin-Boy bangs his rattle, stomps his feet and holds his breath, because actual citizens disagree with your assinine social experiment.

The board vote was a crushing blow to Green Cross owner, Kevin Reed, who is also a medical marijuana user.

"I'm in daily pain," he says. "My back is always in a very constant pain."

Reed says he prefers medical marijuana as a treatment for his chronic pain because he worries about the side effects of more traditional pain killers. "I've seen the effects of people getting prescribed drugs, pills. I've seen so many people throughout my life get addicted to these pills. I just don't want to be that person."

Buuwaaahhhhaaahaaaa- He'd rather hit the bong instead of popping a few vicodin, of course we ALL know that MaryJane isn't addicting right?

Reed's attorney plans to appeal the commission's decision. "Hopefully they will do the right thing and give Mr. Reed the opportunity to open his club," Elford says.

If he fails, Elford worries that the law that allows cannabis clubs in San Francisco will be meaningless. "If you can't even open it up in one of these small slivers, then where can you open it up? ... That's the problem. It appears you can no longer open it up anywhere in the city of San Francisco."

The mayor is not backing down in his support of legal medicinal marijuana.

While he worries that these "not in my backyard" activists could eliminate all medical marijuana clubs, he says, "We're going to fight against that temptation. I believe so fundamentally, so strongly in medical marijuana. We believe that it also needs to be done appropriately. So it's a balance. And it's a work in progress, like anything else."

Indeed a work in progress, apparently to make your city increasingly irrelevant to the rest of the country. Do continue however, it's most entertaining.

Watch The Birdie

In a New York Sun article, Warren Kozak warns us that we must pay attention to the canary in the coal mine.

Years ago, before modern devices could register poisonous gas levels in mines, miners would take canaries into the shafts with them. The birds, which are more susceptible to toxins, served a very useful purpose. If the canary fell over, it was time for the miners to get out...

The canary served as an indication that conditions were not safe and that immediate action needed to be taken.

Kozak posits that there is an international canary that we should all be watching, it's name is Israel. From the ancient Babylonians to German Nazis to today's Islamic fascists, tyrannical regimes always seem to have one common link — their deep hatred for Jews. At the same time there has been another continuum throughout the ages — a small fringe in every society that blames not the tyrants, but instead, blames their victims.

Kozak likens the rise of anti-semitism to the miner blaming the canary for his dangerous situation. Anti-semitism is nothing new in America. Kozal uses quotes from Charles Lindberg to illustrate this point:

On September 11, 1941, less than three months before Pearl Harbor, Mr. Lindbergh appeared before a huge anti-war rally sponsored by the group America First in Des Moines, Iowa.

Considering the present international cirsumstances, there is an eerie coincidence to this.

...the flyer delivered an articulate and compelling speech entitled,"Who Are The War Agitators?" Answering his own question, Mr. Lindbergh told his audience there were three main forces pushing America into an unnecessary war with Germany: Franklin Roosevelt, Great Britain, and the Jews.

Substitute Bush for Roosevelt and Iraq for Germany and, voilà, instant Deaniac, no?

Almost 70 years later, the words have changed but not the meaning. Today, we hear about the "neocons" who seem to control the mind of Dick Cheney. The "Zionists," we are told, are enflaming the Islamic world with their occupation of the Palestinians. And with a dark, evil hand, it's the "Israel Lobby" that controls the White House and almost the entire American Congress.

It's like a script was written three generations ago. But for one thing:

There is one big difference now than in 1941. Today's anti-Semitism comes from the left and not the extreme political right.

This is quite a read. You won't be disappointed... or bored.

Sunday Funny

It's a bit early to delve into some serious stuff, but I caught this giggle worth postin' up !!!

Next thing PETA will be seeking federal research grants to study the effects of second-hand smoke on our insect friends.

Think I'm kidding....I sure hope so.

Hat Tip to LC Red.

btw- Working on a technical issue here. CRS today...arggghh

Byline Should Read: LC JackBoot IC/A

Why Liberalism Is A Crime Redux

On our own shores, the Washington, D.C. police seem to be emulating the Brits. In a WaPo article, In D.C., a Crime Goes Unchecked, Drew Pulley relates how he witnessed a savage beating and tried to get the police to make an arrest. Pulley even followed the perpetrator and pointed him out to police but they refused to act.

I have been the target of unsubstantiated claims by citizens and so I must take this story with a grain of salt. But in the mid 1990's the DC police hired a black woman as a police officer; she then shot her boy friend. This woman was later discovered to be legally retarded (IQ under 75). How in the world did she pass the civil service entrance exam and the "stringent" qualifications of the police academy?

If the story Mr. Pulley relates is true anywhere in this country, it is true in DC.

Why Liberalism Is A Crime

Tell me something I don't know.

I have previously blogged (Fun With Numbers: Part II) on how the Brits have legislated their decline into a crime ridden society by all but banning the right to self defense and coddling criminals. Now City Journal has an article on how the liberals in England have turned the entire country into a game preserve for violent criminals. The author, Theodore Dalrymple, starts off with this:

For the last 40 years, government policy in Britain, de facto if not always de jure, has been to render the British population virtually defenseless against criminals and criminality. ...no Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid being victimized by a criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence.

What finally has more people questioning the status quo is the murder of a young woman, Naomi Bryant, by a foul piece of filth named Anthony Rice. Mr. Rice has acquired quite a nasty habit, namely, he

had been assaulting women since 1972. He had been convicted for assaulting or raping a total of 15 women before murdering Naomi Bryant, and it is a fair supposition that he had assaulted or raped many more who did not go to the police.

It has been estimated that only 25% of all rape victims actually notify the police. It is possible that this man raped 30 to 40 women before finally being sentenced to prison.

In 1982, he grabbed a woman by the throat, held a knife to her, and raped her. Five years later, while out of prison on home leave, he grabbed a woman, pushed her into a garden, held a knife to her, and raped her for an hour. Receiving a life sentence, he was transferred to an open prison in 2002 and then released two years later on parole as a low-risk parolee.

Rice's first "life" sentence lasted for a mere five years. After this career of violent crime, he is then classified as a low risk offender!! The person(s) responsible for this should be drawn and quartered!! Only five months after being released from this "life" sentence because he was a low risk, he murdered Ms. Bryant.

For all intents and purposes, the British government has sentenced, without trial, the entire country to a life sentence in a lunatic asylum. But the criminals are running the shop.

An unholy alliance between politicians and bureaucrats who want to keep prison costs to a minimum, and liberal intellectuals who pretend to see in crime a natural and understandable response to social injustice, which it would be a further injustice to punish, has engendered a prolonged and so far unfinished experiment in leniency that has debased the quality of life of millions of people, especially the poor.

The Brits' suicidal, hands off policy towards criminal immigrants hasn't helped at all.

1,023 prisoners of foreign origin had been released from British prisons between 1999 and 2006 without having been deported. Among them were 5 killers, 7 kidnappers, 9 rapists and 39 other sex offenders, 4 arsonists, 41 burglars, 52 thieves, 93 robbers, and 204 drug offenders. Of the 1,023 prisoners, only 106 had since been traced.

And don't forget a pedophile in a pear tree. Of course the government agency responsible for this mess, the Home Office, is clueless.

The Home Office, responsible for both prisons and immigration, still doesn't know how many of the killers, arsonists, rapists, and kidnappers are at large; but it admits that most of them will never be found, at least until they are caught after committing another offense.

Now that is a comfort. These savages will re-offend and, by George, we'll get them back behind bars for a few more months before letting them go again! And don't you dare threaten them with a knife or gun when they come after you.

This is the nanny state in action, and we're seeing the same kind of action, or more accurately, inaction, on our own shores. The PC police will hound you to the Gates of Hell for engaging in speech that they consider offensive, but will give you a kiss, a clean suit and a pat on the ass just before releasing you back into mainstream society for committing mayhem.

Instead of fighting crime:

the authorities want the police to use a sanction known as the caution—a mere verbal warning. Indeed, as Fraser points out, the Home Office even reprimanded the West Midlands Police Force for bringing too many apprehended offenders to court, instead of merely giving them a caution.

No longer even a slap on the wrist. Now it's a stern warning with perhaps the threat of a reprimand and a finger shaking.

Doesn't this sound like the UN's treatment of terrorists? And where has it gotten them?

The police [...] are like a nearly defeated occupying colonial force that,while mayhem reigns everywhere else, has retreated to safe enclaves, there to shuffle paper and produce bogus information to propitiate their political masters. Their first line of defense is to refuse to record half the crime that comes to their attention, which itself is less than half the crime committed.

The Brits are certainly long overdue for one doozy of a bloody riot to protest these policies. And it will probably take just that for them to stop this senseless cycle.

The Need for Intelligence Databases

Cookie over to The Cook Shack sent me a flash media cartoon that is extremely funny and well done. Judging from the editorial artist's other cartoons, Walt Handelsman is a clever liberal commentator but at least he does take shots at both parties. My take on it is that this cartoon, though amusing, is more informative as a view into the liberal mindset.

Liberals may think that the folks over to the National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdrop (that's what it is called) on every conversation that takes place via electronic media. This is patently ridiculous.

And impossible. There are literally millions and millions of phone calls placed everyday within the United States and to overseas destinations. The NSA would need to employ virtually every American citizen (and outsource to quite a few Indian companies) to accomplish this.

What NSA does is collect phone records from various providers (Verizon, AT&T, etc) that show the date and time and where a call was placed, not the content of the conversation. I have examined records like this. They consist of columns of numbers from a phone number listing. It does not indicate who made the call or who answered it (it can't under current technology available to commercial interests).

What this information does is provide an opportunity for data mining, for information specialists to obtain data derivatives from millions and millions of telephone calls to see if there are patterns, networks involving possible terrorists. A phone may eventually be identified as belonging to a terrorist, therefore all historical records pertaining to the use of that phone number are important.

And this is why terrorist operatives will buy thousands of cheap cellphones at Walmart's and other discount stores all over the country and throw away the batteries and chargers. You see, they only need a few. One or two batteries and a single charger will provide a terrorist the means to make literally hundreds of calls without a chance that the records of calls made from these phones can be used against him. Just keep a few batteries that can be used in multiple phones (they're all the same phones) and a charger. Cell phones calling other cell phones once, twice maybe even three times and then being thrown away will be of little use in terrorist call analysis.

There are other indications also, but I'll not go into them.

UPDATE:
In order to show that tracking telephone usage in the US is a monumental task, let me present the following statistics from the FCC's November 7, 2005, STATISTICS OF COMMUNICATIONS COMMON CARRIERS.

In 2004 there were 55 local exchange carriers that handled 381,069,716 local calls (page 137). These calls were transacted over 131,575,428 billable access lines (page 104). The usage of these access lines in transacting local calls has decreased by 31% from a high of 553,853,237 in 1999 (page 137).

In contrast, there has been a 435% increase in the number of mobile wireless subscribers in the same period (page 142). In 1995 there were 33,786,000 subscribers; by 2004 there were 182,140,000.

I wonder how many of these subscribers are terrorists?

Another Fantasy World

Jeremy Rabkin of The Weekly Standard has an incredibly apropos commentary to the "tinfoil enema, fantasy conservative conspiracy hacks" I referred to in the post previous to this. But the fantasy world Mr. Rabkin refers to is the one which infests the southeast corner of Manhattan.

At the outset of the current war in Lebanon, governments in Europe protested that Israel's response was "disproportionate." The U.N. human rights commissioner, Louise Arbour, endorsing this claim, spoke darkly of Israeli "war crimes."

Israeli is accused of war crimes where the IAF pilots endanger themselves to distribute leaflets to warn Lebanese civilian populations. But there is no mention of Hizbollah war crimes where civilian populations are targeted by crude missiles. The fantasy continues.

I asked one of them, who teaches military law at one of the service academies, what this talk about "proportionality" actually meant. The answer was prompt and succinct: "It means they don't like Israel."

Now the fantasy takes a familar turn into farce.

From the perspective of international law, it doesn't take much to condemn Israel. Year after year, for example, the old Human Rights Commission devoted more time to condemnations of Israel than to any other topic, while often ignoring atrocities elsewhere. That was one reason the U.N. abolished the commission last year, substituting a supposedly more sober Human Rights Council.

From Commission to Council is not much of a journey. As a matter of fact, it went no where at all but remained in familar anti-semitic waters.

In its first year, the new council decided to forgo other distractions and devote all its country-specific resolutions to condemnations of Israel.

Deju vu anyone? Second verse same as the first! These condemnationa are based on changes to International Law whereby...

"the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) and the Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998).

The above are cited by international law experts as restraints upon the conduct of war.

The Additional Protocol was the first treaty attempting to set standards for military tactics and the overall conduct of war since the Hague Conventions of 1907. (The 1949 Geneva Conventions dealt with specialized matters such as the treatment of war prisoners, sick or wounded combatants, and civilians in occupied territories.)"

The United States and Israel are not signatories to these relatively new regulations. And for good reason.

Whereas previous Geneva Conventions had protected uniformed, disciplined armies that complied with the laws of war, the Additional Protocol sought to extend protection to guerrilla forces and terrorist groups.

Bingo. The seeds of future wars, future atrocities and future terror were negotiated almost thirty years ago. Right here. In the midst of American commerce, New York City.

Yasser Arafat's PLO was granted observer status at the negotiating conference and expressed satisfaction with the results, especially the embrace in the very first article of the treaty of "conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes"--understood by everyone in 1977 as a reference to Israel, given the recent U.N. General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with "racism."

This contemptible action was passed as follows:

on November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), its Resolution 3379, which states as its conclusion:

• Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.

The resolution also endorsed an August 1975 statement by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries (Lima, Peru), that:

• ...severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperalist ideology.

And despite slaughtering tens of millions, Communism has never been singled out for condemnation the like such that Israel has received.

The Reagan administration, rejecting U.S. participation in this treaty, warned that the treaty would give special protections to terrorist groups.

Thank the Lord above that Carter was gone by this time.

And of course these international laws are applied equally without favoring one nation(s) over another...

"...it would be very hard to show that Israel's targeting in Lebanon was in clear violation of standards that are otherwise widely respected. (They certainly weren't by Russia in Chechnya or NATO in Kosovo.)"

Tertiary Moonbatis Extremis

The Boston Globe has a commentary by Robert Kuttner that exhibits the tertiary, or terminal stage of Moonbatis Extremis. Much like tertiary syphilis, the latter stages of Moonbatis Extremis can permanently affect the brain and central nervous system leading to dementia, confusion, psychosis, irritability and visual problems. In it's most virulent form, it is indistinguishable from Tertiary Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Kuttner and other liberal commentators have identified the recent unveiling of terrorist plots as a "convenient threat." This will be the recurrent liberal meme until Election Day.

DICK CHENEY was certainly farsighted when he declared Wednesday that Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman would comfort ``Al Qaeda types."

Voila! Only a day later, Al Qaeda was revealed as plotting to bring
down 10 planes!

In response to the terror threats, the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henniger had written a column wherein he stated:

``[G]etting on a US airliner, who would you rather have in the Senate formulating policy towards this threat -- Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman?"

This is a gentle ground ball for anyone not infected with Moonbatis Extremis. Lieberman is the only one who has consistently shown that he grasps the concept of terrorism and how to respond to it. Not that he is perfect, mind you, but he at least supports the GWOT and has done so since 9/11.

But in the grip of his psychotic delusion, Kuttner sees it as something else. His insane ramblings continue.

We will face this story line between now and the November election, and beyond: As the terror threat rises, you can't trust critics of the Bush administration to keep America safe.

No. That's not it. There are millions of people, like myself, who have on occasion criticized President Bush because of his policies. The lack of security on our southern border is one of those occasions. But for the most part we are behind our President in his efforts to protect the nation from further assault.

What can't be trusted are the tinfoil enema, fantasy conservative conspiracy hacks who reduce every event into a plot from the Protocols of the Uber Rove.

Like catching a dose of clap by dallying with loose women, Kuttner was exposed to liberalism and had intercourse with it once too often. Now it's too late.

The war in Iraq, the nuclear designs of Iran, Hezbollah's rocketing of Israel, new diabolical tactics by Al Qaeda, and the general ideological and military menace of militant Islamism, are all jumbled into a single all-purpose word -- waronterror. And if you're against the Bush strategy, you are of course with the terrorists.

Kuttner lists the actual dangers and then dismisses them because, well, Bush is trying to protect us against them.

There is a legal definition that can be applies to this; when you realize a danger and fail to take action to prevent it, it is known as acting recklessly. It is a culpable mental state wherein a lawyer will seek to defend your actions (or lack thereof) by either claiming coercion (being forced to do something against your will) or insanity (the voices in my head were telling me that the voices in their heads wanted me to do this).

November elections, and the future of our security, will depend on whether Americans see through this blarney. If the right succeeds in persuading voters that this is all one undifferentiated mess requiring Bush-style bravado, America is in even deeper trouble.

We don't need Bush-style bravado. We need leaders who: a) recognize that the future of our country is on the line, and b) have the stones to do act ruthlessly to protect our interests.

Get used to it Mr. Kuttner, you'll be hearing about Mr. Lamont's unsuitabilty to lead from now until Election Day. His name will be but one on a lengthy list of politicians who place their quest for personal political gain over national security interests.

Tagged Again

Well, I got tagged by Cookie over to the Cook Shack. I'll think of a suitable way to "reward" him but until then:

1. The book nearest me – Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism
2. Stretch out your left arm, what do you touch? – a DVD player's remote control
3. Last thing watched on television? – Raymond
4. Without looking what time is it? – 8:30 PM or so
5. What is the actual time? – 8:32 PM
7. When did you last step outside? – about 40 minutes ago to bring in the grill
8. Before this survey what did you look at? – The Cook Shack *sigh*
6. With the exception of the computer, what can you hear? – The house fan and Ben Hur on the DVD player
9. What are you wearing? – green cargo pants and a t-shirt... it’s cool here tonight
10. Did you dream last night? – no
11. When did you last laugh? – When we played Taboo on Sunday
12. What is on the walls in the room? – Pictures, a lot of photographs, shelves, candles
13. Seen anything weird lately? – my daughter's hair (She's a stylist)
14. What do you think of this quiz? - My lawyer will tell you Cookie!
15. What is the last film you saw? – The Incredibles
16. Tell me something we don't know. – I worked on my Master's for a year.
17. If you could change one thing about the world, what would you do? – get rid of all the weeds
18. Do you like to dance? – Not really
19. George Bush? – Which one and what about him?
20. Imagine your first child is a girl – My 1st was a girl, and 2nd, and 3rd and 4th. With all the estrogen in the air I can barely see where the bathroom is, if I could find one that isn't occupied.
21. Imagine your first child is a boy – Okay, now what?
22. Would you consider living abroad? – Probably Australia or New Zealand.
23. What would God say to you when you reach the Pearly Gates? – “I told you that you can trust Me"
23. 6 people who will do this quiz. – They’ll find out when I tag them

My Two Cents

From 1978 through 1985 I was an Evidence Technician; my job was to preserve the scene (prevent evidence from being stolen, destroyed or contaminated), to document the scene and collect the evidence. The primary means by which an event is documented is through the use of photography. In this respect, photography's main function is to provide the framework or context wherein the events you want to describe to others occur, as to a jury, commission or other body seeking to establish truth. It is an incredibly powerful tool in that it captures a slice of time that you can examine later at your leisure.

As an ET I had to be very careful to establish an objective basis for prosecution that was free of any interpretive efforts on my behalf. No posing, no "salting " the scene with evidence or removal of items.

And because of my background, what is going on in Lebanon and Gaza is truly shameful to me. These maniacs have corrupted the entire process by which world opinion, the "jury" for our purposes, is shaped. Anything coming out of an Islamic news source cannot be trusted. And sooner or later this will return to haunt them.

Now what happens when something really bad happens to these people?

Who can believe them any more?

If I was at a Yankee ball game with a Doberman embedded up my ass, a Muslim sitting next to me could say that a dog is hanging out of my ass, barking at the center fielder and eating his hotdog and I still wouldn't believe him.

The envelope has been stretched beyond recognition. This will affect all manner of photographic presentations that are used to verify all sorts of events. We won't, and can't, trust what we see.

People are hardened and calloused by deceit. Millions will remember these misrepresentations and will not accept any news from these sources.

And you can praise Allah's lying legions for that.

Early Whispers

The Boston Herald has a story on soft support for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it.

Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He’s been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors.

And Hillary isn't going to like what he has seen.

“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”

Sounds like these are some pretty perceptive Red State people.

But they're not Red Staters.

These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as "likely” voters in the pivotal state’s Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.

I was surprised to read this myself. I don't think I have ever heard mention of animus such as this amoung Democratic voters. Nearly half??

This has got to worry the Hillary handlers, if they're even listening.

“I was amazed,” says Bennett. “I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn’t know it would be as strong as this. It’s stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her.”

There is a common element, a single thread running behind this; it appears to be a visceral distrust of the woman. A well deserved distrust.

Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.

They're whistling past the cemetary. It is not a matter of strategy. If anything, her message since 1992 has been entirely consistent, she and her husband are opportunists who cannot be trusted.

Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”

We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”

Maybe the whitewash that the MSM has been slathering all over the Clintons needs a fresh coat. Or maybe whitewash just isn't going to do the job any longer.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, agrees. “There is far more anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party than the pollsters understand,” he says.

Fasten your seatbelts, the next Presidential election cycle might get a little bumpy while the Democrats are switching drivers.

She's a Dead Eye

My youngest daughter (I have four) picked up her very first rifle today and sent them right down the middle.

She is nuts about the new Ruger 10/22 I bought a few days ago and showed me that she has some skill with it also. She was intimidated by the 20 ga pump though, said it hurt her shoulder no matter how I coached her. I think the recoil frightened her.

But she shot better then her 21 year old sister who has more experience with firearms.

Maybe Camp Perry is in her future? I want to see how she does with a handgun.

Death Stars

I'm not talking about Star Wars space craft, I'm referring to the little arab children currently starring in the Hizbollah Follies, you know, the dead ones.




Dragged out of one collapsed hovel or another, these cute little tykes are the talk of the town.











They are posed, prodded, photographed, praised and finally planted. With Israeli jets pounding Lebanon's physical plant, the lack of electricity to run refrigeration equipment makes their careers mercifully short.












I want a piece of this action.

I want to be their agent.







Just send me a few photos of your dead child along with a brief cv to:

Hizbollah Hutzpah Productions
UN Headquarters
First Avenue at 46th Street
New York, NY 10017

On second thought, never mind the cv's. What the kid did while alive is of no use to my clients. As a matter of fact, these kids are more useful to Hizbollah dead than alive.

Don't bother to clean them off 'cause we'll just dust on a little "make up" to bring out their features.

Hizbollah seems to have already cornered the market for this opportunity so I have to hurry. And the electricity just went off again.